Jump to content


Photo

Time to Boycott ROH cuase of there owners


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 shodate

shodate

    Anarchist of PWO

  • Members
  • 431 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:01 PM

this was produced by the people who own ROH I would  boycott wwe  too since  Vince is very  pro trump  very pro neo-Liberal  but the left will never Mobilise  agest  WWE or non-NRA Bissuness  who fund or back Trump or the GOP   

 

using boycott tactics work  if we mobilise enough people  but the more  bougousie  part of the left  will refuse to boycott stuff that makes there life harder  comrade you need to fight the good fight  and boycott  and get every left winger or  anti trump right winger to get there   people to do it too   take half  of wwe  possible fanbase away    and boycott  ROH  until there  Propagandizing  Owners   stop spewing  this stuff  

 

 



#2 gordi

gordi

    monster gaijin

  • Members
  • 1822 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:54 PM

SInclair Broadcast Group owns ROH?

Damn... Those guys are close to pure evil. It's not just that I don't agree with their politics. It's a free country. People have the right to support Trump if that's what they want to do. But Sinclair Group are buying up local TV stations and forcing them to broadcast propaganda. That is a step beyond.

I can't imagine a boycott will have any effect at all, but if I was watching current ROH this would get me to seriously consider stopping.

#3 FMKK

FMKK
  • Members
  • 1062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 03 April 2018 - 04:03 AM

ROH is such a small part of their business though that the only thing a boycott would damage is ROH, not Sinclair itself. Boycotts are only useful as part of an organised campaign that goes beyond the boycott itself imo. I don't think cutting ROH out of your schedule would make any difference on a wider level, though if you want to do it for personal reasons it makes sense.

Whenever I get asked to boycott something over it's dodgy politics I always think to myself that my iPhone was probably made by a child slave or something and no one ever asks me to boycott it. We're all already compromised in that sense.

#4 El-P

El-P

    NFLTG

  • Members
  • 9716 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 03 April 2018 - 04:47 AM

Agreed with FMKK. ROH is barely a blip on Sinclair's radar. That being said, that video is some Orwellian shit.

 

Meanwhile, you probably all contributed financing Trump's campaign if you subscribed to the WWE Network. ;)



#5 shodate

shodate

    Anarchist of PWO

  • Members
  • 431 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 05:38 AM

Agreed with FMKK. ROH is barely a blip on Sinclair's radar. That being said, that video is some Orwellian shit.

 

Meanwhile, you probably all contributed financing Trump's campaign if you subscribed to the WWE Network. ;)

im not subbed to the  network    non  powerbomb tv  US wrestling i  owne on dvd [ ROH PWG]   i download 



#6 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43788 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:00 AM

Agreed with FMKK. ROH is barely a blip on Sinclair's radar. That being said, that video is some Orwellian shit.

 

Meanwhile, you probably all contributed financing Trump's campaign if you subscribed to the WWE Network. ;)

 

That's what I was thinking. And historically, just about every pro wrestling promoter (not everyone, but almost everyone) has done awful things or supported awful causes. I have no issues with a boycott of ROH, but I also think you could argue most of the same justification for boycotting all pro wrestling.



#7 Childs

Childs
  • Moderators
  • 4595 posts

Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:39 AM

Sinclair is based in our area and is truly one of the most dreadful companies in a blighted media landscape. I stopped watching ROH a long time ago, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But a serious boycott (which won't happen) would probably hurt the wrestlers, who've done nothing to deserve it, far more than the corporate overlords.  



#8 NintendoLogic

NintendoLogic

    Grim and frostbitten

  • Members
  • 2960 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 12:02 PM

This has to be the first time Vince McMahon has ever been described as a neoliberal.



#9 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43788 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 04:42 PM

I don't think it's an inaccurate description. Tax cuts, military intervention, deregulation, and free trade.

 

Also, I came here to post this article: https://www.bloomber...pensive-to-quit



#10 Mad Dog

Mad Dog
  • Members
  • 5196 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 05:09 PM

They only view RoH as cheap programming and that's been confirmed through multiple stories over the years. I doubt this would do anything other than cost some wrestlers a pay check.



#11 sek69

sek69

    Winnipeg Arena's gonna be on fire

  • Members
  • 10970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 April 2018 - 05:55 PM

They only view RoH as cheap programming and that's been confirmed through multiple stories over the years. I doubt this would do anything other than cost some wrestlers a pay check.

 

 

Not to mention they had to pretty much be shamed into spending money to upgrade production for ROH. The first few months of Sinclair-owned ROH TV were embarrassingly low rent looking. 



#12 DMJ

DMJ
  • Members
  • 744 posts

Posted 03 April 2018 - 05:59 PM

Yeah, sorry, shodate, as much as I dislike Sinclair, I think you've got this backwards.

 

A few weeks ago, I (and seemingly tens of thousands of other people) sent a letter threatening a boycott of Snickers until they pressured the WWE to rename their women's battle royal. The idea was that if you boycotted the sponsor, the wrestling company would change their stance.

 

Here, it seems like the opposite. If we boycott Ring of Honor, we're boycotting the wrestling company in the hopes that the sponsor will change.  

I just don't think the leverage is there. If half the RoH audience stops watching over Sinclair's political stances (which I abhor), sadly, RoH is the thing that'll go away, not Sinclair's agenda. 



#13 Mad Dog

Mad Dog
  • Members
  • 5196 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 06:05 PM

 

They only view RoH as cheap programming and that's been confirmed through multiple stories over the years. I doubt this would do anything other than cost some wrestlers a pay check.

 

 

Not to mention they had to pretty much be shamed into spending money to upgrade production for ROH. The first few months of Sinclair-owned ROH TV were embarrassingly low rent looking. 

 

 

Wasn't it a solid year or two before they upgraded the production?



#14 Victator

Victator
  • Members
  • 1453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:26 PM

Agreed with FMKK. ROH is barely a blip on Sinclair's radar. That being said, that video is some Orwellian shit.

 

Meanwhile, you probably all contributed financing Trump's campaign if you subscribed to the WWE Network. ;)

I cancelled my subscription when I heard about the donation. That money could have went to helping former talent whose work they use to keep the network running. 

Boycotting ROH would only hurt ROH. 

What would be better is going after sponsors who buy ads on Sinclair stations, 



#15 shodate

shodate

    Anarchist of PWO

  • Members
  • 431 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:42 PM

 

Agreed with FMKK. ROH is barely a blip on Sinclair's radar. That being said, that video is some Orwellian shit.

 

Meanwhile, you probably all contributed financing Trump's campaign if you subscribed to the WWE Network. ;)

I cancelled my subscription when I heard about the donation. That money could have went to helping former talent whose work they use to keep the network running. 

Boycotting ROH would only hurt ROH. 

What would be better is going after sponsors who buy ads on Sinclair stations, 

 

i meationed  roh  olny cause this is wrestling site    stuff like this need ot  fought  and hard



#16 Johnny Sorrow

Johnny Sorrow
  • Members
  • 4678 posts

Posted 03 April 2018 - 10:31 PM

The ROH Champ is a babyface flamboyantly gay character with two twinkie subs, who's a hero the crowd loves. Sinclair isn't paying attention.



#17 FMKK

FMKK
  • Members
  • 1062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 04 April 2018 - 04:47 AM

This has to be the first time Vince McMahon has ever been described as a neoliberal.


His rise as the top promoter in wrestling and head of a globalised brand maps quite well onto the emergence of neoliberalism as the predominant political/economic force with the administrations of Reagan and Thatcher, although the imagery of 80s WWF borrows a lot more from the cultural domain of Reaganism than it does from the economic side obviously.

#18 shodate

shodate

    Anarchist of PWO

  • Members
  • 431 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2018 - 06:42 AM

 

This has to be the first time Vince McMahon has ever been described as a neoliberal.


His rise as the top promoter in wrestling and head of a globalised brand maps quite well onto the emergence of neoliberalism as the predominant political/economic force with the administrations of Reagan and Thatcher, although the imagery of 80s WWF borrows a lot more from the cultural domain of Reaganism than it does from the economic side obviously.

 

Vince  is   far Right winger  Economics wise so of cause  he a Neoliberal  hes so close   to the top is why he never been brought up on anti Monopoly  charges like he should have  been  like the NWA  was in the 1950's/60's   

 

the same back the UFC anti-monopoly case   

 

The neo-Lib establishment  need to be attacked at all time until it crumbles and dies 



#19 FMKK

FMKK
  • Members
  • 1062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 04 April 2018 - 07:03 AM

I would say things like that are more to do with people in power not caring about pro wrestling



#20 shodate

shodate

    Anarchist of PWO

  • Members
  • 431 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2018 - 07:58 AM

I would say things like that are more to do with people in power not caring about pro wrestling

 

in the 50's and 60'sthey went after Muschick   and the nwa for that reason  the anti-monopoly  laws  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users