Leaving woke culture and God

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Someone who is being revered as an icon or a role model should be someone that the sport community can be proud of. Not just for their athleticism/skill at the sport itself, but also their off-court contributions and personal grace. People who exhibited embarrassing or morally repugnant behavior should have that taken into consideration when they are being decided on, to be honored by the sport and athletes and fans.
... snip ...

But my understanding is that she was not being awarded as a role model for her "correct" position on social issues. She was being awarded for her excellence in playing tennis. This would be an award based on an objective measurable accomplishment not on complying with ever changing social attitudes.

 

[Brian63]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

 

[skepticalbip]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

 

[thebeave]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Yup. A good recent example is Barack Obama. He was clearly anti-gay marraige early in his political career, and in fact, it was only about 10 years ago that he changed his mind and supported it. Was he supporting a "morally revolting view" on gay rights in 2008? Should we call him a bigot, topple his statues and scrub his name off street signs, despite the positive things he accomplished?

 

[Politesse]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Yup. A good recent example is Barack Obama. He was clearly anti-gay marraige early in his political career, and in fact, it was only about 10 years ago that he changed his mind and supported it. Was he supporting a "morally revolting view" on gay rights in 2008? Should we call him a bigot, topple his statues and scrub his name off street signs, despite the positive things he accomplished?

No. But if he had owned slaves, or ordered a genocide, my answer would be different. We should be cautious of who we deify through public memoriam.

I do not believe he should be "let off the hook" for his earlier beliefs either, they were bigoted. He is to be commended for his later acivity in this matter, but that doesn't mean we should forget that he waited until it was politically advantageous to suddenly discover those convictions. Politicians can be useful, but they are not your friends and they should never be trusted implicitly.

 

[Brian63]

"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"?

All the people who get a vote in the matter. It has been overwhelmingly in favor of not granting Margaret Court Smith this honor.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Martina Navratilova has said much the same. She acknowledges that MCS was a great tennis player on the court. But her behavior off the court is bigoted, and that should not be ignored. The sport involves more than just running around hitting balls. It wants to draw in and inspire future generations of players, fans, etc. It is being part of a community and a culture.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"?

All the people who get a vote in the matter. It has been overwhelmingly in favor of not granting Margaret Court Smith this honor.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Martina Navratilova has said much the same. She acknowledges that MCS was a great tennis player on the court. But her behavior off the court is bigoted, and that should not be ignored. The sport involves more than just running around hitting balls. It wants to draw in and inspire future generations of players, fans, etc. It is being part of a community and a culture.

I find it rather weird that some assume that a sports award is about acceptance of one's social opinions rather than their ability in the sport. You must be aware that there are no saints. I am sure that even Martina Navratilova has some views or said or done something in her life that some people would find terribly objectionable (those involved in the 'cancel culture' are dedicated to finding these things).

If this really catches on then I guess that awarding sports titles will have to wait until a full background check of everything ever said, written, or done by the winner of an event is completed and approval given by all.

Should Rommel's military tactics be ignored and no longer be taught? After all he did hold some damned 'politically incorrect' views.

 

[Brian63]

I find it rather weird that some assume that a sports award is about acceptance of one's social opinions rather than their ability in the sport.

That is a strawman misunderstanding. Her ability in the sport was a major calculation into whether or not she was being considered for the award. They were not picking random people off the street who never played tennis in their life.

The important point though is that they are not ignoring her overall morals and behaviors in life. If they are considered to be disqualifying enough by the people who get to choose, then she is not going to get the award.

You must be aware that there are no saints. I am sure that even Martina Navratilova has some views or said or done something in her life that some people would find terribly objectionable (those involved in the 'cancel culture' are dedicated to finding these things).

Yes. When those particular people set up tournaments or leagues or organizations, they are welcome to distribute awards however they like. It is not a perfect system. There will never, ever be a perfect system. We just have to use the least-worst system available to us. Just like how there is no such thing as a perfect government, a perfect economy, a perfect environment, etc. We should not let the lack of a perfect system prevent us from making progress though.

 

[skepticalbip]

I find it rather weird that some assume that a sports award is about acceptance of one's social opinions rather than their ability in the sport.

That is a strawman misunderstanding. Her ability in the sport was a major calculation into whether or not she was being considered for the award. They were not picking random people off the street who never played tennis in their life.

The important point though is that they are not ignoring her overall morals and behaviors in life. If they are considered to be disqualifying enough by the people who get to choose, then she is not going to get the award.

You must be aware that there are no saints. I am sure that even Martina Navratilova has some views or said or done something in her life that some people would find terribly objectionable (those involved in the 'cancel culture' are dedicated to finding these things).

Yes. When those particular people set up tournaments or leagues or organizations, they are welcome to distribute awards however they like. It is not a perfect system. There will never, ever be a perfect system. We just have to use the least-worst system available to us. Just like how there is no such thing as a perfect government, a perfect economy, a perfect environment, etc. We should not let the lack of a perfect system prevent us from making progress though.

And, seeing that sports awards are about recognition of excellence in the sport, the "least-worse" system is to award those who excel in the sport without someone's subjective opinion of their social views. This is an objective measurement that even those who don't like the social views of the winner can agree is exceptional. Besides, in ten years, those who today don't like the social views may agree with those views or someone they agree with today they may disagree with in ten years.

 

[Brian63]

And, seeing that sports awards are about recognition of excellence in the sport,

Within limits, and that can be overridden if the person engaged in other immoral behavior or was an embarrassment or a dishonor to the sport by their personal conduct off the playing field. The sport wants to limit its association to that individual.

the "least-worse" system is to award those who excel in the sport without someone's subjective opinion of their social views.

Not sure why that should be adopted. Maybe someone wins the most tournaments in a year but also was an asshole both on and off the court, as determined subjectively by pretty much everyone else who interacted with that person. Their name being engraved onto arenas would be an ugly reminder, rather than an alluring or inspiring one.

 

[skepticalbip]

And, seeing that sports awards are about recognition of excellence in the sport,

Within limits, and that can be overridden if the person engaged in other immoral behavior or was an embarrassment or a dishonor to the sport by their personal conduct off the playing field. The sport wants to limit its association to that individual.

the "least-worse" system is to award those who excel in the sport without someone's subjective opinion of their social views.

Not sure why that should be adopted. Maybe someone wins the most tournaments in a year but also was an asshole both on and off the court, as determined subjectively by pretty much everyone else who interacted with that person. Their name being engraved onto arenas would be an ugly reminder, rather than an alluring or inspiring one.

So your idea is that sports awards should be given to those people in sports who are liked because they hold the same opinion on social issues as those presenting the awards rather than their excellence in the sport? I suppose then that you think it was great that Muhamad Ali had his heavyweight title revoked at one time because of his political stand that went against popular opinion, even though it was undisputed that he was the best heavyweight boxer at the time.

In other words, you seem to think that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence than excellence itself..... Weird, that is.

 

[Brian63]

No, that is the same repeated strawman you made earlier. The people first being considered for the award are ones that excelled in the sport itself. Again, they are not picking random people off the street who never played and then handing them the award.

After that, there is akin to a deeper vetting process. Do they have any particular characteristics that would disqualify them from contention? If the people who get to do the voting agree that some other negative aspect about them overrides their positive achievement in the sport, then they would not receive the award.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, that is the same repeated strawman you made earlier. The people first being considered for the award are ones that excelled in the sport itself. Again, they are not picking random people off the street who never played and then handing them the award.

After that, there is akin to a deeper vetting process. Do they have any particular characteristics that would disqualify them from contention? If the people who get to do the voting agree that some other negative aspect about them overrides their positive achievement in the sport, then they would not receive the award.

No strawman at all. You are saying that someone who all agrees is excellent shouldn't receive an award for excellence if they don't hold the "right" views as prescribed by some group. Rather the award for excellence should go to someone less talented in the sport but holds the 'correct' view.

Again:
In other words, you seem to think that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence than excellence itself..... Weird, that is.

 

[Brian63]

It is a strawman. Let's take it 1 step at a time:

Hypothetical: Suppose a kickboxing league is considering giving an award to someone regarding their contributions to/victories in the sport of kickboxing.

Question for you: Do you think the committee members should even bother considering a person who has never kickboxed in their life and was never involved in it? Should they only consider people who actually did kickboxing or who were involved in it in some other capacity?

At this early stage they know absolutely nothing else about the person being considered, and what their behaviors were outside of any kickboxing ring. At this point, that is not known and not being discussed. Simple question---should the person actually have ever been attached to the sport themselves to even qualify for this first criteria? Or should the league spend time vetting candidates who never were involved in kickboxing at all in their entire lives?

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a strawman. Let's take it 1 step at a time:

Hypothetical: Suppose a kickboxing league is considering giving an award to someone regarding their contributions to the sport of kickboxing.

Question for you: Do you think the committee members should even bother considering a person who has never kickboxed in their life? Should they only consider people who actually did kickboxing?

At this early stage they know absolutely nothing else about the person being considered, and what their behaviors were outside of any kickboxing ring. At this point, that is not known and not being discussed. Simple question---should the person actually have ever kickboxed themselves to even qualify for this first criteria? Or should the league spend time vetting candidates who never kickboxed at all in their entire lives?

It is you that is creating a strawman. I never mentioned people not participating in the sport. What you have been advocating is not recognizing the excellence of someone with an award in a sport if they have the 'wrong' social viewpoint. I have to assume that you suggesting awarding the runner-up with the award - - if they had to 'correct' social view (not as good as the one rejected but good with the 'correct' views). Again, you are advocating that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence with an award than excellence itself. Otherwise you would agree that the best (not second or third best) should be recognized for their excellence regardless of their social views.

Your mindset is the same as those who stripped Muhamad Ali of his title, even though they would admit that he was the best ... but he had the 'wrong' views.

 

[Brian63]

Notably, you dodged the simple question.

I never mentioned people not participating in the sport.

I know you didn't. But your argument relies on it. If you had mentioned it, the error in your argument would be even more obvious.

Let's try this again. Just answer this question. No dodges. No red herrings. No evasions. Only a direct answer---



Hypothetical: Suppose a kickboxing league is considering giving an award to someone regarding their contributions to/victories in the sport of kickboxing.

Question for you: Do you think the committee members should even bother considering a person who has never kickboxed in their life and was never involved in it? Should they only consider people who actually did kickboxing or who were involved in it in some other capacity?

At this early stage they know absolutely nothing else about the person being considered, and what their behaviors were outside of any kickboxing ring. At this point, that is not known and not being discussed. Simple question---should the person actually have ever been attached to the sport themselves to even qualify for this first criteria? Or should the league spend time vetting candidates who never were involved in kickboxing at all in their entire lives?

 

[skepticalbip]

Notably, you dodged the simple question.

I didn't answer your asinine strawman questions that have nothing to do with what I posted. Maybe you should actually read and respond to what I wrote.

 

[Brian63]

Your strawman is here:

In other words, you seem to think that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence than excellence itself

No. That is not what I am arguing for at all. That is your misunderstanding, your strawman.

I did use an exaggerated hypothetical question to make the point crystal clear, but you keep dodging it. If you did respond to it, the errors in your arguments would be clearer to you.

Suppose there was a person who holds the "current popular opinion" on social issues of the day, but they have zero connections to a given sport. Should the commissioners of that sport give an award to that person simply because of the views they hold? No. So that refutes your position that having the "current popular opinion" is the more important priority being considered.

The actual argument being espoused is that among the pool of candidates who have had tremendous achievements in the sport, there are other factors to then consider. Maybe athlete A was a better player on the field, but off the field they engaged in morally revolting behavior (as determined by the people whose votes matter). Athlete B also had tremendous career success with the sport, and they additionally engaged in very noble conduct throughout. They are a more worthy recipient of the award then.

Excellence in the sport is one factor. It is not the only deciding factor though. There are other factors which can reach a threshold to disqualify the athlete out of contention for the award. Because the sporting community values more than whoever hit the ball the best or ran the fastest or scored the most points. They also value who contributed to the sport overall by playing well with others, respected fans and players, did not engage in gratuitous off-court behavior, etc.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your strawman is here:

In other words, you seem to think that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence than excellence itself

No. That is not what I am arguing for at all. That is your misunderstanding, your strawman.

That is exactly what you are arguing if you refuse to recognize and award the best in a field because they hold the 'wrong' social view. You are saying that the 'wrong' social view negates recognition of their superior abilities since, if they had the 'right' social view, then they should be awarded recognition.

So you would have agreed with stripping Muhamad Ali of his title since he had a 'politically incorrect' mindset for that time.

 

[Brian63]

Your strawman is here:

In other words, you seem to think that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence than excellence itself

No. That is not what I am arguing for at all. That is your misunderstanding, your strawman.

That is exactly what you are arguing if you refuse to recognize and award the best in a field because they hold the 'wrong' social view. You are saying that the 'wrong' social view negates their superior abilities since, if they had the 'right' social view, then they should be awarded recognition.

So you would have agreed with stripping Muhamad Ali of his title since he had a 'politically incorrect' mindset for that time.

No. If you and another person are debating about who was the greatest of all time (GOAT) in a particular sport, you can have that debate on the merits of however many points they scored, championships they won, world records they beat, etc. That can be done even if the person was a child rapist, for instance.

If you want to debate about who contributed the most to the success of a sport and was an inspiration for others, and who consequently deserves recognition of such through career awards and having their names carved onto arenas, then how they behaved off the playing field becomes a factor also.

Do you understand the difference between those 2 debates? Here they are:

1. Who was the best at simply playing the sport.

versus

2. Who deserves recognition as contributing to its popularity and was most noble while playing it.


They can overlap in that the same persons earned both. They can also be different. Margaret Court Smith is recognized as being a great tennis player on the court. That does not mean she should be recognized as being an honorable tennis player overall.