Was Connor the Crusher a work?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Paul Diaz-Berrio, Aug 7, 2018.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. To promote the company?

    6 vote(s)
  2. To show compassion and kindness to Connor Michalek and raise awareness of childhood diseases

    3 vote(s)
  3. Both

    9 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. #1 Paul Diaz-Berrio, Aug 7, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
    I hate to ask this so much. As I type this, I wish I wasn't writing the words you're about to read, but I need to get them off my chest. I've asked this question on another forum and some have said that it's possible that WWE used Connor to promote the company's image. If that was so, WWE committed one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Please, tell me that it wasn't a work.

    I personally don't want to believe it was. My mother doesn't think it was and I wish I could believe her with absolute certainty, but I have my doubts. Tears come to my eyes right now just thinking that WWE truly, sincerely, honored this boy in his last days with nothing but a wish to give this human being the most happiness they could before he departed and honestly join the fight against brain cancer. I want to believe them very much, but I'm not sure.

    For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to, here's WWE's official video, honoring Conor Michalek. I've seen it, and it broke my heart. I really felt for this boy and I wish modern science could've saved him. For those who do, please, tell me the that the people who think that WWE was trying to ingratiate themselves with the world are wrong.

    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. No it wasn't
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Both. Same reason why "celebs" have to post online when they do something good with children, sick people etc.. If you're only interested in helping someone, you don't fish for praise on the internet.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Case in point.

    • Like Like x 1
  5. #5 Solid Snake, Aug 7, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
    It was more for the company's image than out of good will but it did do something good for a family. So both in that case.
  6. Another example: Katy Perry visits sick fan who missed concert
    Sure, it's wonderful for the child but she's done this for her image as well.
    If someone has selflessly given to or helped another person, you probably didn't hear about it.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. That's true today I saw a music video at a barbershop of Drake handing things out. If you do that you shouldn't have to make it public
  8. A way of looking at it is that WWE made Connor happy. Does the reason why they did it matter? Maybe I dunno.
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Of course they do it for marketing image. But they are still doing good things for less fortunate people so i dont see a problem with that. Both sides gain something
  10. It’s both, but regardless of exact motive, it’s still a very nice and great act so I love when companies do it. It can be genuine.
  11. A person can do something good and do it because they want to do good while at the same time do it for the positive PR purposes. Even it was just for the PR, Connor still ended up getting to have his dreams come true before leaving this world.

    So my answer is: both. And that's perfectly okay.
  12. Everything they do is for good publicity... They're so desperate to be respected by the public it comes off as insincere... Nothing wrong with doing stuff like that, but with WWE, it's hard to believe they care about any of it.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. Every big business is like that. When I saw Daniel Bryan, who is a company representative, spend time with Connor, it looked pretty sincere. I don't know what about that feels insincere
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Yes. The child isn't named Conner, and he certainly was never sick. It was a publicity stunt from the get-go. Y'all need to wake up and smell the mayonnaise.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. To my mind, Stephanie expressed true feelings of remorse and affection and I'm pretty sure that Daniel Bryan presented his real face. Those two made me believe the segment wasn't a work. I myself have decided it wasn't because the repercussions of a two faced campaign would've been really severe and the wrestling industry could have been FUBAR. Having said this, I'd also say that WWE wanted to promote itself, not out of greed or to seize a once in a lifetime opportunity, but because it really did care about this person and wanted to make everyone participate more in the struggle against brain cancer. Also, by showcasing Connor interacting with the superstars, it offered them the chance to be viewed in a more positive light. It's nice to see people break kayfabe and remind everyone they can feel as much as we can.

    If that wasn't true, Triple H and Stephanie wouldn't have founded Connor's Cure. Such an act does demonstrate a humane wish to do away with something malignant.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. A compassionate act doesn't need to be altruistic to be a compassionate act.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. read Justin Roberts book best seat in the house a while ago, going from what it said it started out a compassionate act which they turned to there advantage,
  18. Being compassionate requires you to be altruistic
  19. No it doesn't. Altruism is selfless concern for other people. You don't even have to be able to empathize to be altruistic. You help someone not because it helps, not because it alleviates any suffering on your part. Altruistic acts are acts with absolutely no reward to the person doing the good deed.

    The word compassion means literally "to suffer together." You feel something for someone else who is suffering and you feel the suffering yourself. You do good things to help them in order to alleviate both yours and their suffering.

    This is psych 101 stuff.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. You can be alturistic without having to be compassionate, you are right. But to be compassionate, you need a certain level of alturistic