4 Organizations Everyone Hates (For Stupid Reasons)

4 The WWE

"Hate" is probably too strong of a word to describe the general public's stance toward professional wrestling and its most recognizable entity, World Wrestling Entertainment, but "respect" definitely isn't the right word either. In fact, among all of the "sports" fan bases in the world, the rabid spectators who pay Vince McMahon's presumably massive douchebaggery bills are probably the most ridiculed.

That I put the word "sports" in quotes in the previous sentence speaks directly to the issue a lot of people have with wrestling. Unlike every other major sport, the outcome of wrestling is scripted. Even worse, the violence and injuries are faked. All of those punches and slaps and clotheslines are expertly choreographed moves designed to simply look painful while inflicting no real damage (it's not called World Wrestling Entertainment for nothing). So, with that in mind, why in the fuck do videos like this exist?

That's an adorably irate wrestling fan reacting to the outcome of the most recent Royal Rumble event. Sure, you'll find reaction videos like this for pretty much every sport you can name, but in this case it's so much worse, because, again, we're talking about a scripted series of events featuring men in silly costumes fake fighting each other. Who gets emotionally invested in something like that past the age of 12 or so?

I think my first step toward trying to answer that question would be to ask everyone out there who made a beeline to theaters last year to see this doofus in action to put a hand in the air.

Unless I'm missing something, that's a grown man in a silly costume carrying out a scripted series of "action-packed" events. I know people personally who laugh off wrestling as the most absurd thing ever but also try to sell me on the idea that Man of Steel was one of the best movies of 2013. You would have to be the Superman of stupid to not see the hypocrisy there.

As for fans getting needlessly angry over the twists and turns of a fictional universe, head over to YouTube and search for "reaction to Ben Affleck as Batman." You get over 100,000 results. If I know YouTube demographics like I think I do, I'd estimate that at least 99,967 of those are rage-filled rants that wouldn't be too out of place in one of professional wrestling's notoriously entertaining backstage interviews.

That fiasco is actually a good comparison to use when explaining exactly why wrestling fans get as irate as they sometimes do. Take that Royal Rumble video from earlier. Imagine if the Batman/Affleck story played out like this instead:

1. Christian Bale successfully plays the role of Batman for the majority of three films.

2. With 15 minutes remaining in the final film, without any advance warning or notification of any sort, Christian Bale is replaced as the hero of the film by Ben Affleck.

That's almost exactly what happened to wrestling fans at the Royal Rumble that produced that absurd fan reaction video. Fans had been clamoring for some dude named Daniel Bryan to claim a title of some sort for years, and winning this would have put him one step closer to that goal. Remember, this is a scripted thing. The people writing it know what the fans want to see, and right up to this point it seemed like the fans were going to get it.

Instead of that happening, though, the WWE brought back a wrestler named Batista (which has to be the least threatening wrestler name I've heard since "Daniel Bryan"), fresh off of having bolted professional wrestling years ago to try his hand at MMA and becoming the next Rock, and wrote him in as the eventual winner, knocking boringly named fan favorite Daniel Bryan out of line for a title shot. I'm sure none of this had anything to do with the fact that Batista has a featured role in the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy film.

He was the one with all the muscles, in case you're wondering. Anyway, the huge difference here is that, unlike superhero worshipers who freaked out upon hearing that Ben Affleck would be the next Batman, wrestling fans didn't (and never do) have that window of time between when the casting decision is announced and the results of that decision play out in front of them in the form of entertainment they've paid money to watch. There is absolutely no hope of complaining enough to change things. It's all over almost as soon as anyone realizes they have a reason to be upset.

So, take all of those angry YouTube vloggers reacting to Affleck being cast as Batman and put them in the same building at the exact moment that news was announced. What do you think it would sound like?

Fast forward to the 3:46 mark of that video for your answer. Even worse for wrestling fans, whereas studios cast their movies based on a legitimate belief that they're picking the best available actor for the role, by all indications the WWE throws these twists and turns into the mix with the sole intention of making fans angry.

Basically, wrestling fans aren't any crazier or easier to entertain than anyone else; they just like a different set of men in costumes than the "cool" kids on the Internet who go apeshit over the way storylines from comic books and graphic novels play out on screen.

3 Fox News

Hey! Thanks for sticking around as long as you did, everyone who saw the name "Fox News" in a column about things that aren't as bad as they seem and immediately stopped reading so you could hightail it to the comment section to tell me you saw the name "Fox News" in a column about things that aren't as bad as they seem and immediately stopped reading!

As for everyone else, please understand, I'm not really saying Fox News is a good thing. Their main function in society is to promote talking points that, more often than not, come from people I disagree with on just about every level possible.

That said, how convenient is it that all of those wacky opinions and talking points are gathered in one easy-to-remember location? Think about how good people on the anti-Fox News side of things have it compared to people who have to blame all of their problems on "the liberal media." Depending on the content of the news story or article in question, that can be just about anyone. If you view "Fox News vs. liberal media" as two separate sides of a war, like a lot of totally-helpful-to-the-fabric-of-American-society types do, you definitely want to be on the side that knows exactly where the enemy fire is going to be coming from.

Fox News is like the light hanging high above the parking lot of a shitty convenience store in the summer, attracting all the moths and gnats and mosquitoes in one spot so they can be easily avoided by anyone who doesn't want to be bothered with their bullshit. Granted, that light is hanging low enough that, if for some silly reason you decide you want to, you can totally go stand over where they are and stick your head in among all the buzzing and biting. Maybe you need to for some reason, who knows? Whatever the case, you know where they are and you know what they're up to if you need to find them.

That's Fox News. Fair, balanced, and easy to avoid if you don't want to be bothered with their bullshit.

Meanwhile, to hear their supporters tell it, the "liberal media" infects everything, from television to movies to music and everything in between. They live in constant fear of having their way of thinking infringed upon in any number of different daily situations. One minute they're watching a thrill ride of a film co-piloted by the likes of Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum ...

... the next, they're outraged over liberal bias in a movie where the hero plays a Republican war veteran who didn't vote for the president he's protecting.

Living in fear of that kind of attack on a daily basis can't be easy. At the very least, it's not nearly as easy as just not watching Fox News.

2 PETA

When it comes to animals, there's loving and respecting them, and then there's what PETA does. They react to the mistreatment of animals the way Islamic fundamentalists react to cartoon depictions of Muhammad. That might be a bit extreme, but it's not far off from the descriptors people generally attach to PETA. Do a quick search for reasons why people hate the animal-obsessed organization and words like "terrorists" and "fascists" turn up regularly.

It's a label that, unfortunately, ends up being applied to pretty much every animal rights activist on the planet, kind of like how every tissue is basically a Kleenex as far as any of us are concerned. The problem is, a lot of the more outrageous acts of animal rights activism/terrorism we hear about aren't usually the work of PETA.

When it comes to throwing red paint on people wearing fur and all that fun stuff, your culprit is way more likely to come from a group like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF!) or Earth Liberation Front (ELF!) than from PETA itself. Sure, there are often rumors of links between PETA and the more radical side of the animal rights movement, but automatically attributing every insane act of animal activism you hear about to PETA is a bit unfair. In fact, animal rights activists are among some of the more vocal critics of PETA.

At the heart of the issue is the "no-kill movement." As you probably figured out already, the movement is exactly what it sounds like: a group of animal activists who oppose the killing of animals under any circumstances. It might surprise you to learn that PETA is not a supporter of this movement. In fact, one filing with the state in which they were headquartered at the time revealed that 95 percent of the animals that found their way to a PETA shelter were eventually put down.

You'll probably be not at all surprised to know that most animal rights groups aren't in line with this way of thinking. Am I saying that PETA euthanizing animals is a good thing? Not at all. I'm just saying that equating PETA with that sometimes overzealous faction of animal rights activists who seem to value the life of animals above anything else isn't quite accurate.

No matter what side we're talking about, there really is some awful shit happening to animals in this world, and both sides have had a hand in bringing those abuses to light by sneaking into animal processing facilities to shoot undercover video. Their right to do so is currently being challenged in several states, including Idaho, who launched their offensive after a group called Mercy for Animals released horrific video of a cow being sexually assaulted at a plant in that state.

That video rightfully led to a drastic drop in business for that plant. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of other ways to make money in Idaho that don't involve raping animals, so state officials quickly drafted up a bill that would effectively outlaw videotaping undercover footage of that sort.

In other words, Idaho legislators are fighting for the corporate farmer's right to abuse animals without fear of oversight or, at the very least, with the assurance that if they're caught they'll at least be able to send the person who exposed them to jail. No matter where you stand on animal rights, unless you literally own a corporation of your own, chances are you probably aren't on board with the government sanctioning such a lack of transparency on the part of the people preparing the food we eat.

Hate animal rights activists and/or PETA all you want, but they're the only ones trying to put a stop to that nonsense right now.

1 Walmart

Walmart is both the most successful and the most hated retailer of all time. Their abuses and crimes against the rights of employees are too numerous to list here. They routinely drive smaller businesses right into bankruptcy almost as soon as they bring their falling-price warnings to town, and they do it by flooding the market with cheaply made products from China. This money-saving tactic came at the cost of countless American jobs. Hell, even though I'm here to defend them (sort of), I've also gone on record as being very much against their fuckery.

Here's the thing, though: No one is in favor of Walmart's forced overtime practices and other assorted evils. No one hears about Walmart managers literally locking employees inside the building overnight and thinks, "Yeah, that seems alright to me." I mean, obviously, there are a few people who do, but they're called "the one percent" for a reason. No matter how powerful they may be, their way of thinking, at least in that respect, puts them squarely in the minority.

Nevertheless, despite an abundance of evidence that Walmart is one of the shadiest corporations ever, enough people shop there every year to put Big Blue squarely atop lists of the most profitable retailers, year after year. Do these people shopping at Walmart not care at all about the plight of the American worker? Sure they do. The thing is, very few people shop at Walmart because they want to. People shop at Walmart because they have to. It's easy to forget if you live in a fairly large city with lots of buying options, but in some areas, when Walmart comes to town, they take out all of the competition. Once that comes to pass, your choices are shop online, drive a lot of miles to shop in another town, or just swallow your beliefs and shop at Walmart. Choosing the latter of those three options doesn't automatically mean you also support crushing labor unions.

It's an issue that's been around for a long time now. Way back when Nirvana released their final studio album, the goddamn perfect In Utero, Walmart initially refused to stock it if the words "Rape Me" (it's the name of a song) weren't removed from the back cover. Kurt Cobain eventually relented, changing the song title to "Waif Me" on the back cover, thus clearing the way for it to be stocked at Walmart. When asked why he backed down, he explained that he didn't think standing his ground was worth punishing kids who might want to buy his music but can't do it literally anywhere else except Walmart.

Also, those low prices Walmart is always preaching to us about must be taken into consideration. Even if you do live somewhere with lots of options, you're probably going to shop where your financial situation allows.

Not that any of it matters in the long run. Walmart is one of those evil entities that some people will never be able to forgive or make peace with. That was on full display when Mike Rowe, host of the Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs, had the gall to narrate a commercial about a new campaign Walmart is launching that allegedly will result in the company spending $250 billion on goods made in the United States, including a stipulation that this can't just mean "assembling parts made in other countries."

Almost as soon as the commercial hit the airwaves, Rowe was inundated with messages from outraged fans who couldn't stomach the fact that he'd support a company that floods the market with cheap junk from China, all while completely ignoring the fact that the commercial in question was for a campaign that promised to start doing exactly what this particular faction of Walmart critics want the retailer to do.

Rowe, quite rightfully, stood up for himself and Walmart, explaining that while he didn't support a lot of the company's past practices, he totally supported this initiative. Who wouldn't? Again, by all indications, this is Walmart doing exactly what people want Walmart to do.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still keeping my apartment in the "fuck Walmart" area of town, but getting mad at them for attempting to address one of the issues that have made people hate them up to this point seems silly to me.

Adam hosts a podcast called Unpopular Opinion that you should check out right here. You should also be his friend on Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr.

Always on the go but can't get enough of Cracked? We have an Android app and iOS reader for you to pick from so you never miss another article.