Do you get so invested in a character you refuse to see their flaws?

[Laura]

I guess I'm guilty because I often overlook Punk's flaws. It's not that I overlook them, but more like I don't really consider them flaws. He's a hypocrite, he's judgmental, he's whiny and full of negativity - but that's kind of what I like about him, lol.

 

[CrayJ Lee]

I know of people who are annoyingly bias and refuse to see the flaws in their favorite characters or TV show - it's a daily occurrence on tumblr. For me personally, I like my characters to have substance (flaws and all) and that helps me invest in the character. There are times when I'm irritated with what the show does with a character and I think I have better ideas lol, but overall I wouldn't go through those feelings if I didn't get passionate about them to begin with.

 

[Lockard 23]

I'm actually quite unbiased in a lot of ways and will happily point out the flaws in people or things that I like (movies, musicians, wrestlers, video games, TV shows, people that I know or like in real life, etc.) For me, it's simply a matter of whether the positives outweigh the negatives. If they do and especially do to a rather large degree, then it's easier for me to ignore the latter but I'm still not blind to any flaws that might exist.

Funny thing about me being accused about being a WWE mark (or being 'overly optimistic') is that I knock WWE plenty, it's just that I often try to remain optimistic or just sit back and enjoy a show for what it is since I'm not quite the same passionate fan wrestling I used to be anyway (obviously still caring enough to post on a message board regularly, but then, look at what my post count remains as, too.) Often, the opposite of refusing to see the flaws happens on message forums, where people point out what they think is bad and fail/refuse to see the positive side of it. People refused to see why doing Rock/Cena again at Wrestlemania this year was a wise business decision, for example, as the casuals ate it up and after the way they booked last year's match (Rock going over, which was a much better set up for him winning the title than losing would have been), it made sense story wise for Cena to make a comeback in winning the Rumble, finally defeating Punk, and then triumphing over The Rock to really cement himself as one of the greatest of all time and win the WWE Title again in the process.

Regardless of how boring it was to us elitist smarks, anyone objective can understand the move. And the matches that people would have preferred to see (Rock/Brock, Undertaker/Cena, etc.) could always happen next year or the year afterwards, etc. Some don't see the big picture.

 

[Farooq]

Nope. Nobody is perfect, so of course I expect flaws. I wont help cover them or hide them, if a character has a flaw I'll admit to it.

 

[Danielson]

DB has no flaws, he's the perfect specimen.

Spoiler

 

[Swift]

DB has no flaws, he's the perfect specimen.

Spoiler

 

[catlady]

Punk only responds to negative tweets unless it's about something he supports, lol.

How convenient... ity:

 

[Crayo]

I'm actually quite unbiased in a lot of ways and will happily point out the flaws in people or things that I like (movies, musicians, wrestlers, video games, TV shows, people that I know or like in real life, etc.) For me, it's simply a matter of whether the positives outweigh the negatives. If they do and especially do to a rather large degree, then it's easier for me to ignore the latter but I'm still not blind to any flaws that might exist.

Funny thing about me being accused about being a WWE mark (or being 'overly optimistic') is that I knock WWE plenty, it's just that I often try to remain optimistic or just sit back and enjoy a show for what it is since I'm not quite the same passionate fan wrestling I used to be anyway (obviously still caring enough to post on a message board regularly, but then, look at what my post count remains as, too.) Often, the opposite of refusing to see the flaws happens on message forums, where people point out what they think is bad and fail/refuse to see the positive side of it. People refused to see why doing Rock/Cena again at Wrestlemania this year was a wise business decision, for example, as the casuals ate it up and after the way they booked last year's match (Rock going over, which was a much better set up for him winning the title than losing would have been), it made sense story wise for Cena to make a comeback in winning the Rumble, finally defeating Punk, and then triumphing over The Rock to really cement himself as one of the greatest of all time and win the WWE Title again in the process.

Regardless of how boring it was to us elitist smarks, anyone objective can understand the move. And the matches that people would have preferred to see (Rock/Brock, Undertaker/Cena, etc.) could always happen next year or the year afterwards, etc. Some don't see the big picture.

I agree. The IWC is very much a place that seemingly enjoys being either unnecessarily negative, or a place that thinks the smarks are the high priority. I honestly think very few believe that we are indeed the minority, and business decisions really aren't aimed at us. Regardless of that, there are more people who bash into WWE for no reason at all within the IWC than there is "WWE marks" who are unnecessarily optimistic. I am happily optimistic (#TeamOptimism ftw), and find myself enjoying RAW a lot more than most because of that.

For the record, I don't remotely think you're a "WWE mark", and I enjoy your honest opinions about WWE more than most.

 

[CM Punk]

He's calling you a D'Z mark.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

He's calling you a D'Z mark.

Obviously.

 

[CM Punk]

Do you see any flaws in D'Z other than him being so damn good?

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Do you see any flaws in D'Z other than him being so damn good?

Nope. None