"When you show overt contempt for sports you are showing contempt for most everybody and that is problem with your social skills."
That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
How about this: "when you show overt contempt for fast food, you are showing contempt for most everybody, and that is a problem with your social skills."
If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?
That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
Whats funny is that you could actually bring up this topic with fans of mainstream sports (especially for the NFL) and probably get a decent discussion going. Just mention things like TV timeouts and you'll probably get some level of agreement on how annoying things have gotten these days.
Of course, if you phrase it in a way similar to how you did above, people will most likely just think you were an asshole.
The difference being the parent made a valid point that you're not even willing to entertain - the notion that people can enjoy a sport, at the highest level, without enjoying the crass commercialization that might accompany it. But you couldn't respond without an indictment of how brainwashed he is, in your opinion.
I love basketball. I grew up playing and refereeing it. I lost interest for about a decade, because the culture got to be too much about the personality and antics, and not the game. I've only just gotten back into it in the last year because it seems to have shifted back. And there is a lot of fun to be had attending a game.
"That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?"
Go ahead, say, with a straight face, that such a remark was not effectively a paraphrasing of what I said and was a non-loaded question asked with sincerity. To claim that you were not implying some corporate brainwashing in what you said is, frankly, disingenuous.
Your characterization of a product successfully marketed to people as "corporate brainwashing" whenever you don't like someone pointing out that a thing is perpetuated by corporate profit motives is also disingenuous.
I think the commenter was being a bit of an ass too, but I think he still has a defensible point, and it's not the absurd point that you're making it out to be.
I'll agree. There's a healthy middle ground and I was exaggerating for emphasis.
Suffice to say, this: I think that it's possible to enjoy sport at a professional / high level (or local for that matter), in itself, whilst still having something of a disdain for overly crass commercialization (which varies between sports).
Having a valid reason why some activity is intrinsically bad (e.g. fast food) is very different from disliking such activities because they are "beneath" you. Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad. (I'd even argue that fast food itself is not intrinsically bad, but that's a different discussion)
However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. There's a difference between saying something is bad, and saying that someone is bad because they participate in or enjoy it. Making people feel bad for eating McDonalds is unlikely to make or keep friends and is therefore by definition a problem with your social skills.
> Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad.
Professional sports are also incredibly problematic in multiple ways. One can argue against those issues--from the corrupting influence of money to the homophobia (now finally breaking down just a little bit) to the willingness to use up players to the normalization of violence (in hockey, in particular). In the same way, one can argue that fast food has virtues that make up for its supposed "intrinsic badness" (which I don't see at all: nothing is "intrinsically" good or bad... it depends on how it is used for what for.)
> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Having strong and forthrightly held tastes and opinions is a virtue and a delight.
When I see the vast amount of money and time that is dedicated to professional sports it makes me despair of humanity. Do I want to hang around people who spend a good part of their lives on such activities? I do not. This is not a problem with my social skills.
It would be a problem with my social skills if I did hang around with them and bitched about it. But saying, "I'm glad you're having fun, but I think it's completely crazy to spend so much time and money on the activity of being a fan" is not.
And just to be clear: no one has ever been shy about telling me how far beneath contempt I am for caring more about science, art and poetry than sports. So perhaps problems with social skills exist outside of stereotyped groups that it is currently fashionable to berate regarding them.
They know the risks and accept them. If it were dogfighting there might be an argument. I don't like football simply because I find it a bit boring. However, perhaps ironically to some, I like baseball; it's like fishing, mildly hypnotic with occasional bursts of excitement.
> Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad.
"Sports" are not the issue. The currently-popular set of professional sports brands is the issue -- this discussion isn't about sport in the abstract, but the particular professional sports brands with which tribal identity is a major factor in contemporary American culture, and how people who aren't with the masses on this should shut up and join the masses, or else they are snobs. Or something.
Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."
The fact that NFL teams get taxpayers to foot the bill for new stadium construction and then the team retains the facility as private property, now that is what I have a problem with. Those facilities are bought with public money and should be public parks.
I generally agree with the principal you present but you have to acknowledge that the government (and therefore, theoretically, tax payers) gain value through the stadiums presence in the community. More directly through sales tax and tourism but possibly other less direct means like property values and property taxes.
Furthermore, if that's what people want to be done with their tax money, that's their business. If enough people felt the way you do, the story would be different. See the San Diego Chargers situation for example. They may end up relocating because of lack of political backing on building a new stadium.
We only establish or change what "people" want done with their tax money by public discourse on whether we think it's a good idea. That something is done by the government is hardly a reason to not question it.
Why do the Chinese streams exist? The Chinese streams exist because Chinese people are interested in watching the games. Why are they interested? Because they are betting money on the games. Why are they doing that? Because their local teams and sport are susceptible to corruption. The obvious result? Chinese organized crime are sending people to influence these teams as well, causing corruption.
So, the Chinese streams may seem like a good thing, but they are a symptom of a bad thing.
But you being a snob about it to other people is also intrinsically bad. Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.
> Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that that generality is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the actual issue here; particularly, I'm not sure how hobbies that are subsidized at public expense -- and therefore at the expense of competing public priorities -- can be said to "cause no harm to others".
Sports are not intrinsically bad? Let's pretend a world without sports for a second. What do you see? I see a world where scientists and philanthropists are common household names. Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen. I see a world where when someone makes a couple hundred million a year, they don't go immediately bankrupt after retiring because their industry wasn't intrinsically broken. That healthy panhandler who refuses to contribute to society gets no credit and recognition. Why should I recognize an athlete that take illicit drugs to perform well and teaches our youth that to be recognized you need to do something completely arbitrary and useless to society.
Maybe that's the case if you also got rid of the other professions that make up celebrities: musicians, actors/actresses, etc. I doubt removing just sports would suddenly make scientists/philanthropists household names. You'd essentially have to get rid of all forms of entertainment to do that, which seems a bit ridiculous. Besides, many athletes ARE philanthropists, who work hard to give back to their communities.
As to your last points, you shouldn't recognize athletes who take illicit drugs. Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially, take care of their family/community, and so on.
And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?
> Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially
In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.
And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?
Nothing. I'm not commenting on something as fickle as society, I'm commenting on the future of our species, to which I can say with great confidence that education and ingenuity will affect peoples lives infinitely longer than the contributions of any sport. The fact that some of these professional athletes contribute money is a moot point when we're discussing whether they should exist. Those resources would still exist and the chances they would be distributed to a cause that would have lasting impact would likely increase.
In fact, some of those athletes would contribute more than just money. They may be the very person who makes a mark on the history of mankind.
> In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.
That is quite the accusation. Stereotyping at best. Because that incentive model exists in your head does not mean it reflects reality.
Not sure if you've talked to any kids lately then. My son has a small freak-out if we get near a fireman. If he got to meet an astronaut, I think me might pass out.
...and no, of course sports are not intrinsically bad. They're good exercise, a tremendous amount of fun to play, and they take focus to master. It might not be a skill that you appreciate, but it is a skill nonetheless.
All sports, presumably, sprouted from a few folks having fun and then deciding to codify the rules. Imagining a world without sports is imaging a world without fun.
Sports unite communities in way few other human activities can. Plus, at least outside the US, interest in professional sports often inspires children to go outside and play, especially in the case of cricket and soccer.
I'd say sports as an activity are good, but sports as a culture are often bad, it's just the most people don't draw a distinction.
Just look at tailgating -- at any university you can witness loads of adults setting a great example for their children by getting dead drunk en mass in front of them at every Saturday home game.
I'm surprised at the vote swings on this one. Do people think there's nothing wrong with getting drunk in front of 5 to 11 year old children multiple weekends a year? Because I have witnessed this in my city each fall and find it troubling.
It's also a weird double standard when a lot of college campuses don't allow booze except for football tailgating.
>That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
I guess you ask that rhetorically, but I think it is an interesting question. I'd say you have to listen through the music top charts. You also have to watch most popular movies every year. There are more TV-series than there is time to watch, so I'd guess I'll say you only have to watch one or two of your choice. Read synopses of the rest.
Furthermore you should have at least some passing familiarity with the most popular games, but there is no need to go all out. 10 hours each in final fantasy, mario, random flash games(10h total), mobile games(10h total), counterstrike, starcraft, league of legends, dota, wow,
Eh. This is more like just saying that you need enough general knowledge to sustain a conversation if you want to get along with people, and that you don't repeat yourself too often.
The person who is into <extraordinarily specific topic, no matter how interesting> is always tiring to be around after a while (and can create a very one-sided social interaction).
> There is more to "sports" than watching them on TV. How about participating in them?
The context here -- starting with the article, and followed in the thread prior to your response -- was participation in the culture of fandom of popular professional sports.
Obvious, individual direct participation in sports is a completely different thing (and often a thing that competes with participation in fandom culture.)
No, there is a direct relation. At least outside the US, many many children are inspired to go out and try and imitate their favourite sporting heroes, and even if they aren't athletic they usually are included in the larger community and get to play and socialize. This is definitely the case with soccer and cricket.
I haven't seen a single case where being a fan has precluded children from going out and playing.
Perhaps as adults the situation might be different, but their are a whole host of other factors at play there, including health and time issues.
I wasn't talking specifically about children, and there is a big difference between saying an activity competes with another activity and saying that it precludes the other activity.
Exactly. Sports aren't a healthy part of society. They are games mean to occupy the less curious people of our culture so they don't get bored and dissatisfied with their existence. There is nothing healthy about sports culture. The socialization is entirely tribal and the impact on humanities future is non-existent.
Imagine if we game all our attention and praise to teachers and all of our money to successful charities. Imagine if it was a cutthroat competition to become the first team of intellectuals to solve today's difficult problems.
Just because a vocal majority aren't hurting anyone, doesn't mean I have some moral obligation to respect your choices that do nothing for anyone.
Why are sports unhealthy? They are in fact extremely healthy, in the physical sense. Professional sports are simply an outgrowth of more "natural" sporting activities. Sports, even the professional variety, are not carefully engineered social prisons, but an evolution of natural human activities: physical activity and training combined with competition and the desire to observe others who are better than one's self.
We can imagine such an idealistic world, but this is completely unrealistic and crazy. People legitimately ENJOY watching and participating in sporting activities. You cannot (practically speaking) dictate what people should or should not enjoy. Suggesting better alternatives, fine, but insisting that others follow YOUR vision for a perfect world is self-centered and conceited.
I would argue that you do have a moral obligation to respect other humans which includes not purposefully hurting people's feelings for no reason. If you don't like sports, fine, but that's no reason to put down people who do.
Professional sports are anything but healthy, as soon as competition is even remotely recognized and praised illicit drugs come onto the scene.
As for a more idealistic world and my choice, I never even hinted at trying to legislate your ability to do what you want, but if you want me to clap and jump up and down and pick a favorite team because a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future, well, count me out.
I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team. Humans are tribal creatures. Being in a majority doesn't give you some right to an unopposed position. Just because most everyone around you will agree with you doesn't make what you're doing right.
If you would like to define some criteria and have a discussion about whether sports makes this world a better place I will gladly show you the fault in sports.
Also to the person commenting that you could say the same for any type of entertainment (regarding it being useless). That couldn't be farther from the truth. I love aquaponics, for one. Finding new interesting ways to feed people is entertainment for me. It's not uncommon for people to enjoy creating and learning. That type of entertainment becoming more prevalent could have a significant impact on our future as a species.
I think you misunderstood rinon. He asked why are sports unhealthy, not why are professional sports unhealthy. Sports in general is healthy. You cannot discount the exercise.
Not only that, but sports can teach you a wide range of life skills. It is not simply a display of physical prowess. For example, tennis is not a competition on the basis of physical exertion alone, but of mental fortitude.
> I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team.
Um, you don't have to have a favorite team. You can still enjoy and talk about the game. For example, I don't have a favorite football team, but I will listen and talk all day about the strategy of the game and if, for example, a QB can execute that particular strategy or choke.
> because a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future, well, count me out.
I think they can potentially do plenty for the future. For example, why does Nadal always put two bottles in the exact same position while playing a tennis match? Hey, maybe this will be useful for some research in psychology. Or maybe a survey of head injuries in football can lead to better health care. These sportsmen are usually at the edge of physical ability. Any attempt to push the envelope gives us the opportunity to learn more about ourselves.
I think your argument would get more consideration if you didn't come off as condescending and holier-than-thou. You should read the article, it's talking about you.
You previously stated sports were unhealthy. Hence he asked why sports as a general activity were unhealthy. You are now only supporting that argument by changing what you said to be qualified as professional sports, without even acknowledging the change in argument. I know it is considered poor taste to call someone a troll here, but this tactic is used almost exclusively by trolls in my experience.
Sports aren't a healthy part of society. They are games mean to occupy the less curious people of our culture so they don't get bored and dissatisfied with their existence.
You could say the same thing of any form of entertainment that humans have ever engaged in.
You sound like the type of insufferable bore this article is expressly written for; it's a shame you seem not to have read it. No doubt you take great pleasure in some other form of entertainment that "does nothing for anyone".
That's nice. What other corporate products must I consume in order to be a validated member of your social caste?
How about this: "when you show overt contempt for fast food, you are showing contempt for most everybody, and that is a problem with your social skills."
If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?