The horrible horrible world of sports

[ideologyhunter]

Decades of scandalous behavior by some sports pros have removed the gloss of heroism that pro athletes once had. That's healthy, I think. Or at least it's realistic. These are highly skilled entertainers, and at the top tier they are millionaires. The end. Who, today, expects a sports star to be a moral example?
One of my clearest memories from elementary school (because it vexed me so, as a fourth grader), was our gym teacher, Mr. Voiers, sitting us down on the gym floor before class started and telling us that we should start to learn about the big names in sports, because they were good examples to follow. (This would've been around 1963.) This little speech truly irritated me, because my perspective was, "I want to read about Davy Crockett and Abraham Lincoln. Who cares about football players!" You can tell I was a fairly nerdy fourth grader. I suppose there are gym teachers who make similar speeches today, but it's a tougher sell, because the perp rate in pro sports must be close to the one in the hiphop world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Decades of scandalous behavior by some sports pros have removed the gloss of heroism that pro athletes once had. That's healthy, I think. Or at least it's realistic. These are highly skilled entertainers, and at the top tier they are millionaires. The end. Who, today, expects a sports star to be a moral example?
One of my clearest memories from elementary school (because it vexed me so, as a fourth grader), was our gym teacher, Mr. Voiers, sitting us down on the gym floor before class started and telling us that we should start to learn about the big names in sports, because they were good examples to follow. (This would've been around 1963.) This little speech truly irritated me, because my perspective was, "I want to read about Davy Crockett and Abraham Lincoln. Who cares about football players!" You can tell I was a fairly nerdy fourth grader. I suppose there are gym teachers who make similar speeches today, but it's a tougher sell, because the perp rate in pro sports must be close to the one in the hiphop world.

Why would scandalous behavior remove the gloss of heroism from athletes? All a runner needs to do is run fast. No matter his behaviour, as long as he is fastest he will be a hero.

Idiots might transfer that accomplishment on other fields of life. But who cares what idiots think?

 

[bigfield]

But who cares what idiots think?

Sponsors care. And their money is pretty much the entire foundation of professional sports.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Why would scandalous behavior remove the gloss of heroism from athletes?

Because that's what scandals do. Drug abuse, spousal abuse, nonsupport of children, sex scandals, etc. -- they absolutely remove that gloss. Note that I'm saying that's possibly a good thing. The hero worship that centered on Babe Ruth 100 years ago isn't the same kind of renown that Darryl Strawberry had. Can you have a hero whose behavior you hold to be odious, or who does time for drug use, etc.? Heroism is not the same thing as excelling at your sport. It was an extra presumed quality that my old gym teacher told us these "heroes" had.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But who cares what idiots think?

Sponsors care. And their money is pretty much the entire foundation of professional sports.

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would scandalous behavior remove the gloss of heroism from athletes?

Because that's what scandals do. Drug abuse, spousal abuse, nonsupport of children, sex scandals, etc. -- they absolutely remove that gloss. Note that I'm saying that's possibly a good thing. The hero worship that centered on Babe Ruth 100 years ago isn't the same kind of renown that Darryl Strawberry had. Can you have a hero whose behavior you hold to be odious, or who does time for drug use, etc.? Heroism is not the same thing as excelling at your sport. It was an extra presumed quality that my old gym teacher told us these "heroes" had.

This is one of those, "can you enjoy listening to Michael Jackson knowing what he has done" - discussions. I say yes. And you say no?

I don't need my heroes to be perfect. I need them to do one thing really well. Apart from that they can be horrific people.

I prefer people to be open about their flaws. And I want a society that forgives, or sees past, flaws.

It reminds me of the Soviet Union who just after the revolution put all the engineers to work on building Russias first electrical grid. They were successful. The problem was that these were all middle class and who had prospered under the Tsar and were not happy about the revolution.

When Stalin took power he had the most competent among them tried and executed. In their place he put newly graduated ideologicaly schooled engineers. This had predictable outcomes.

No matter what our mission is we are always best served by focusing on the goal and only caring about ideology when it's relevant. Ideology is not relevant for sports.

 

[bigfield]

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

I don't think it's a matter of ideological purity, I think it's a matter of decency. Pretty basic decency, really. I think it's a good thing that our culture demands that. We've placed a burden on ignorant people to filter their language so that we can collectively enjoy some peace and harmony. As far as I know that's a constant across all cultures.

 

[thebeave]

Here’s an old example (2012) of how over the top the reaction can be when a sportsman makes a flippant remark ;

Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand has been found guilty of improper conduct and fined £45,000 by the Football Association for comments on Twitter. An independent commission concluded Ferdinand's response to a tweet describing Chelsea's Ashley Cole as a "choc ice" did not make him a racist.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/18847477

Sure. Non racist people can say racist things.

I don't think it's a crime to be a racist nor do I think that being a racist should be a crime.

I don't think that thinking, writing or saying (or tweeting) racist things should be illegal.

I don't have a problem with people writing or saying or tweeting racist things facing consequences.

What would you say are acceptable, fair consequences for people writing, saying or tweeting racist things?

 

[Toni]

Sure. Non racist people can say racist things.

I don't think it's a crime to be a racist nor do I think that being a racist should be a crime.

I don't think that thinking, writing or saying (or tweeting) racist things should be illegal.

I don't have a problem with people writing or saying or tweeting racist things facing consequences.

What would you say are acceptable, fair consequences for people writing, saying or tweeting racist things?

I really think that it depends on the person. Ideally, someone saying grossly intolerant things would be called out in no uncertain terms and unfollowed/whatever that platform does. For those in forward facing positions, public figures, etc. need to be made to understand that making public statements promoting racist, sexist, intolerant views is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Depending on the person and offense, that could be enough or it could mean actual suspension/loss of position, public apologies, lots of things.

As with most medications, the smallest effective dose is preferred.

 

[thebeave]

Sure. Non racist people can say racist things.

I don't think it's a crime to be a racist nor do I think that being a racist should be a crime.

I don't think that thinking, writing or saying (or tweeting) racist things should be illegal.

I don't have a problem with people writing or saying or tweeting racist things facing consequences.

What would you say are acceptable, fair consequences for people writing, saying or tweeting racist things?

I really think that it depends on the person. Ideally, someone saying grossly intolerant things would be called out in no uncertain terms and unfollowed/whatever that platform does. For those in forward facing positions, public figures, etc. need to be made to understand that making public statements promoting racist, sexist, intolerant views is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Depending on the person and offense, that could be enough or it could mean actual suspension/loss of position, public apologies, lots of things.

As with most medications, the smallest effective dose is preferred.

Let's say someone on this forum was repeatedly using racial slurs, intended in a demeaning, condescending manner. What the should the consequences be for this person?

 

[Toni]

I really think that it depends on the person. Ideally, someone saying grossly intolerant things would be called out in no uncertain terms and unfollowed/whatever that platform does. For those in forward facing positions, public figures, etc. need to be made to understand that making public statements promoting racist, sexist, intolerant views is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Depending on the person and offense, that could be enough or it could mean actual suspension/loss of position, public apologies, lots of things.

As with most medications, the smallest effective dose is preferred.

Let's say someone on this forum was repeatedly using racial slurs, intended in a demeaning, condescending manner. What the should the consequences be for this person?

That would be up to the team of moderators. And also, in a different way, and to a different extent, to the other posters. One could be shunned or others could retaliate or some could even try to convince the offender that their use of such terms is wrong and/or not in their best interests, or in the best interests of the discussion. For some serious breaches, I would imagine that the mods would ban. But I'm not a mod and I haven't read the TOUs for a while.

This forum is not the real world. In the real world, using dehumanizing or negative words to describe other groups of people or even a person ultimately can and does lead to treating that person badly.


When women ae allowed to be called girls and are expected to dress provocatively or to accept being stared at or touched by coworkers or bosses, it is not difficult to see how it becomes more acceptable for the women to be overlooked for promotion, underpaid, even sexually assaulted. These are all things I have seen and some of which I have experienced.

When we are allowed to refer to people of other races or religions or nationalities or genders or sexes or sexual preferences by stereotypical or ugly names, it dehumanizes them, and makes it much easier to create an atmosphere where other, worse, treatment is acceptable---being passed over for promotion, being paid less, being given worse shifts, and so on. And worse than that, it becomes much more acceptable to treat anyone in the out group as though they simply do not count as much as those in the in group. Why shouldn't everything be structured in order to best accommodate the 'in' group? Everything from where you can sit in a cafeteria to where you can work to when and where you can vote, go to church or school gets seen through a different lens.


What people can and do think in their private life is different than how we expect them to behave in public. Tweets and posts are public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But who cares what idiots think?

Sponsors care. And their money is pretty much the entire foundation of professional sports.

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

Sponsors are supporting the athletes. They do not want to be seen supporting positions that many of their customers will disagree with as the customers are likely to turn to an alternative when that happens.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

Sponsors are supporting the athletes. They do not want to be seen supporting positions that many of their customers will disagree with as the customers are likely to turn to an alternative when that happens.

Exactly. It's not 'Ideological Purity,' it's Marketability.
It's why OJ lost so many endorsements when he was up for Murder One. No one wants the commercial that lets SNL say, "He's a killer, but he really, really likes our gloves. You will, too, even if you don't leave them at a murder scene..."

NASCAR is not typically associated with the most progressive demographics in the country, but if they ever hope to draw much of a non-white audience, they could not turn a blind eye to anyone, on any team, suggesting a lynching of the black driver.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

I don't think it's a matter of ideological purity, I think it's a matter of decency. Pretty basic decency, really. I think it's a good thing that our culture demands that. We've placed a burden on ignorant people to filter their language so that we can collectively enjoy some peace and harmony. As far as I know that's a constant across all cultures.

That's just moralism. Why does a guy who runs fast need to be decent? Can't he be an awful person? If the running fast isn't the important bit, then wtf is sports about? Is it just a morality play?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

Sponsors are supporting the athletes. They do not want to be seen supporting positions that many of their customers will disagree with as the customers are likely to turn to an alternative when that happens.

I understand that. I just don't like it.

 

[bilby]

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

I don't think it's a matter of ideological purity, I think it's a matter of decency. Pretty basic decency, really. I think it's a good thing that our culture demands that. We've placed a burden on ignorant people to filter their language so that we can collectively enjoy some peace and harmony. As far as I know that's a constant across all cultures.

That's just moralism. Why does a guy who runs fast need to be decent? Can't he be an awful person? If the running fast isn't the important bit, then wtf is sports about? Is it just a morality play?

It's entertainment. And it's all about making money from the performances of the entertainers.

The whole business is based on providing heroes. Sports rarely (but sometimes) have villains too - people the crowds hate and come to see in the hope that they will lose - but by far the majority of elite sport is about creating and profiting from heroes.

Running fast, jumping high, passing a ball accurately, etc. are just ways to achieve that objective. Just as giving a convincing portrayal of a character is a way to become a movie or TV star. And things that take away from that image of athletes as heroes are bad for business.

Your error here is to look at the sporting ability as though it were the sole criterion for success. But it's not, and it never was.

An athlete who unexpectedly destroys value for promoters, sponsors, and venues will not be welcome to participate. An athlete can make a career as a 'heel', but not if he just springs it on a previously adoring fanbase.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's just moralism. Why does a guy who runs fast need to be decent? Can't he be an awful person? If the running fast isn't the important bit, then wtf is sports about? Is it just a morality play?

It's entertainment. And it's all about making money from the performances of the entertainers.

The whole business is based on providing heroes. Sports rarely (but sometimes) have villains too - people the crowds hate and come to see in the hope that they will lose - but by far the majority of elite sport is about creating and profiting from heroes.

Running fast, jumping high, passing a ball accurately, etc. are just ways to achieve that objective. Just as giving a convincing portrayal of a character is a way to become a movie or TV star. And things that take away from that image of athletes as heroes are bad for business.

Your error here is to look at the sporting ability as though it were the sole criterion for success. But it's not, and it never was.

An athlete who unexpectedly destroys value for promoters, sponsors, and venues will not be welcome to participate. An athlete can make a career as a 'heel', but not if he just springs it on a previously adoring fanbase.

I think you're completely missing my point. It's about focusing on what's important in life. If fans of sports care about anything other than performance, that's evidence of something.

I don't like Maoism. I don't like the Christian Inquisition. I don't like truths that aren't allowed to be challenged. I don't like moral precepts aggressively defended in domains where it's not relevant. It tells us something about that culture. It's tells us how far moralism has come. And how all pervasive it is.

It's one thing if we hold a politician up to high moral standards. But athletes?!? Why? It's the same thing with musicians or actors. Why would anybody be outraged what any of them have to say about anything? Who cares if Tiger Woods was unfaithful to his wife? How has that anything to do with golf?

I understand full well how sponsorships and endorsements work. It's the way they work I have a problem with. I don't want it to be like this. That's my only issue.

I think it's bad if we reach a point where athletes have to get with the program and learn to say all the ideologically correct things.

I know that in the 90'ies Sweden had a Olympic hopeful (nope, didn't win) who was a neo-Nazi. I only know that since we had friends in common. Yet, he waved all the pride flags and said all the right things on TV. I'm not sure this is a good society.

 

[bigfield]

I still think it's bullshit that sponsors are sensitive about stuff like that. It says something about our culture. How we demand ideological purity, no matter if it makes sense or not

I don't think it's a matter of ideological purity, I think it's a matter of decency. Pretty basic decency, really. I think it's a good thing that our culture demands that. We've placed a burden on ignorant people to filter their language so that we can collectively enjoy some peace and harmony. As far as I know that's a constant across all cultures.

That's just moralism. Why does a guy who runs fast need to be decent? Can't he be an awful person? If the running fast isn't the important bit, then wtf is sports about? Is it just a morality play?

I don't understand how it's "just moralism". It's the way society works. We need it in order to coexist in a heterogeneous society where people have conflicting beliefs and ideas.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's just moralism. Why does a guy who runs fast need to be decent? Can't he be an awful person? If the running fast isn't the important bit, then wtf is sports about? Is it just a morality play?

I don't understand how it's "just moralism". It's the way society works. We need it in order to coexist in a heterogeneous society where people have conflicting beliefs and ideas.

Everybody parroting the political correct things to say, for the sake of their career, is not a free society IMHO. Free speech is a society, IMHO, where people really can express whatever belief they have and people are cool with it.

To me what hit this home the most was moving to Denmark 5 years ago. A truly tolerant and free society. Here you can express whatever belief you want. Somebody can be a racist and express that, and it's fine. A racist and a black person can sit at the same table and enjoy a beer together and have a good time. They will make an effort to connect and both listen and respect each other.

When I first moved here I found the culture mind blowing. Coming from Sweden, I'd never experienced it. Sweden is on the other extreme of the spectra. Sweden is intolerant, moralistic and conservative. Since I've also been to Amsterdam. A very similar culture to Copenhagen. I've been told Singapore is similar. It's apparently a port city culture. International trading hubs have been so exposed to other cultures that they become extremely tolerant.

But it's dumb that all of the world isn't like this. It's so nice for everybody! It's an entire layer of stress and social backflipping that is done away with. There's less worry what people are really thinking. They just say it. There is no downside.

I'm sure this is the reason why Denmark and Amsterdam was so fast with legalising prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Other people not being exactly like you, is less terrifying here. Xenophobia is much less. Because they're so tolerant.

You say that "it's the way society works". No, it's not. What you take as normal and natural is evidence of society being dysfunctional IMHO.

 

[steve_bank]

Over here political correctness is carried to a ridiculous extreme.

There is a move to rename the Gypsy Moth because it may be offensive to Cypsies. The invasive Asian Carp fish to be renamed.