The horrible horrible world of sports

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps.

But it's far more naive to think that your outrage achieves anything other than to hand your emotional response to the manipulative media that stimulated that response in the first place.

He did get fined a non-trivial sum and temporarily banned for having strong opinions as a teenager. That's preposterous.

I don't know about you, but I certainly had some questionable beliefs as a teenager. I wasn't a racist or a homophobe. But when I was in my teens I did ignorantly treat girlfriends in ways which I only later understood is a form of emotional abuse. That makes me a hell of a lot more compassionate with other's who have some warped ideas when they're young.

I see no compassion here. It's just full on slamming him down for a very minor social crime.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps.

But it's far more naive to think that your outrage achieves anything other than to hand your emotional response to the manipulative media that stimulated that response in the first place.

He did get fined a non-trivial sum and temporarily banned for having strong opinions as a teenager.

I don't really care. And nor should you, unless he's at the very least an acquaintance.

That's preposterous.

But not a cause for outrage.

I don't know about you, but I certainly had some questionable beliefs as a teenager.

Who didn't?

I wasn't a racist or a homophobe.

Me either.

But when I was in my teens I did ignorantly treat girlfriends in ways which I only later understood is a form of emotional abuse. That makes me a hell of a lot more compassionate with other's who have some warped ideas when they're young.

OK.

I see no compassion here. It's just full on slamming him down for a very minor social crime.

Perhaps.

But WHY DO YOU CARE?

You only care about this injustice to a complete stranger, because the Mail asked you to.

They don't mention every injustice that people you don't know have experienced. Yet you consent to their demand that you be outraged at this particular injustice.

Don't you wonder why?

It's not because the Mail reporter is a caring friend of the person who has been wronged.

It's because they want you to be outraged in order to promote a political agenda that the Mail is pushing.

Why should you submit to such manipulation?

The case itself is (like most such invitations to outrage from the media) utterly irrelevant to them and to you. It's only importance lies in its ability to evoke outrage in you (and those like you), such that you act to further the political objectives of the media owners who are pushing this story.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps.

But WHY DO YOU CARE?

Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion in public, no matter of offensive it is.

The fact that the football federation is a private association doesn't matter. It's not a legal thing. It's a cultural thing. It has to do with the degree of tolerance of our society.

We've already suffered under 2000 years of church oppression and brainwashing. Our western culture is arguably still emerging from it. The last thing we need is to slide mindlessly into the next intolerant totalitarian Maoist paradigm and lose all these freedoms we fought, and are still fighting hard to achieve.

I see the wokes as very much the same kind of fascistoid mentality that underpinned the Christian church in the bad old days. Their project on slamming anyone for expressing reasonable opinions should be horrifying to anyone.

I'm super duper gay friendly. I couldn't be more of a supporter for the gay cause. I fully support their right to wear assless chaps in public (or whatever else they feel like). But I'm also super cool with anybody thinking that gays are gross and gay sex being unnatural. I think it's a shame people have that opinion. But I do think people shouldn't be afraid of expressing themselves.

You only care about this injustice to a complete stranger, because the Mail asked you to.

I fucking hate that tabloid trash of a right wing magazine. But I did use the name in the Mail article and googled it and found more reasonable articles elsewhere. And they didn't lie (for once). Not about everything.

They don't mention every injustice that people you don't know have experienced. Yet you consent to their demand that you be outraged at this particular injustice.

Don't you wonder why?

It's not because the Mail reporter is a caring friend of the person who has been wronged.

It's because they want you to be outraged in order to promote a political agenda that the Mail is pushing.

Why should you submit to such manipulation?

The case itself is (like most such invitations to outrage from the media) utterly irrelevant to them and to you. It's only importance lies in its ability to evoke outrage in you (and those like you), such that you act to further the political objectives of the media owners who are pushing this story.

I am fully aware of what you are saying. And I also agree. But also... when my enemies... for once... say something that I agree with, I'll join my enemy. If only for a short while.

Yes, I'm aware that the Mail are the defenders of racists and bigots everywhere.

I get just as upset when the shoe is on the other foot.

But I am militantly for tolerance and free expression. Defending people's right to being able to express themselves freely and live the life they want to live without fear, is a hill I'm willing to die on. Even if it leads to me fighting for the right of homophobes to say their nonsense.

 

[TSwizzle]

The offense archeologists have been hard at work again;

Peterborough striker Jonson Clarke-Harris has been banned for four games over historic social media posts featuring homophobic comments. The posts date from late 2012 and early 2013, when Clarke-Harris was 18 and establishing himself with loan moves from Posh to Southend and Bury. Clarke-Harris, now 27, has also been fined more than £5,000 and is required to complete a face-to-face education program the Football Association has announced.

DailyMail

Jonson was 18 years old when he made the posts, whatever they were. What kind of sick fuck goes trawling social media looking for this type of thing?

And the FA want to look so woke. They look like idiots.

This is pretty fucked.

Yes it is.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

So you keep saying but you (nor anyone else on here) have never, ever provided an example of a DM article I have linked to that has been "made up".

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

So far, DM is batting 100 in any article I have linked to.

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit.

Surprise ! 100% accurate.

I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Journalism today cannot be relied upon to be accurate so I don't fault you for looking elsewhere. That is what I do no matter who it is.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

I don't know if I would go so far as that in regards to being racist or "homophobes". I really don't think overt racism or "homophobia" is acceptable. I don't know exactly what Jonson Clarke-Harris said in his tweets, I'd be interested to see. But I suspect it was something like "So and so is a poof (faggot)" and for that he is banned and sent to a reeducation camp? Yeah, I'd be outraged too.

 

[Toni]

This is pretty fucked.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit. I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

Why should you be outraged?

Outrage is a handle by which propagandists manipulate people. It engenders zero value to the individual who is outraged; Indeed, it provides a mechanism by which the outraged individual can be influenced to act against their own self interest.

Outrage against the actions of a close family member or friend might be appropriate if that person acts in a grossly inappropriate way. But outrage against a stranger is an act of self harm.

Much of today's "news" media consists not of information, but of invitations to outrage. These invitations should be declined by anyone who is not directly and intimately involved with the events being described. To accept them is to hand control of your emotions to people who do not have your best interests at heart.

I for one am not granting the Daily Mail any access to my emotional state, if I can possibly avoid so doing. And the same goes for ANY other player in the media space. Invitations to outrage should be seen as attempts to manipulate and control you, and the wise person would respond not with outrage against the proposed target, but against the medium presenting the invitation. Who do these cunts think they are to tell you what to think and feel? Where do these fuckers get off presenting their emotional hooks as though they were impartial information?

This vile manipulative behaviour certainly ranks near the top of the list of existential threats to our civilisation. Let's not be complicit in adding to the issue.

I think we should get outraged. I think it's important to. If we give a free pass to bullies to do their thing we are basically legitimizing censorship. It's naive to think that normal people don't read this and react with fear, if they feel a threat if they would speak freely about something on social media.

Apparently you are upset with the wrong people being outraged at the wrong stuff.

To you, a male being called out for poor behavior is the outrage, not the poor behavior. Although you don't seem to have a problem with people making racial or homophobic slurs so perhaps that's where the confusion lies.

Whether remarks made on social media at the ripe old age of 18 or so are pertinent to anything 8 or 10 years later is a different matter.

 

[TSwizzle]

Raiders head coach falls on his sword after some iffy emails are uncovered;

Jon Gruden has resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after his emails leak revealing his sexist comments about women referees, his homophobic comments about the drafting of a gay player and racist comments. He stepped down after The New York Times reported that Gruden frequently used misogynistic and homophobic language directed at Commissioner Roger Goodell and others in the NFL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-Smith-appreciates-Gruden-reaching-out.html

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you keep saying but you (nor anyone else on here) have never, ever provided an example of a DM article I have linked to that has been "made up".

We've been over this. They wrote a bunch of articles on the situation in Malmö at a time when I lived there. They were all bullshit. I didn't need to verify it anywhere else. At no point has there been no-go zones in Malmö. While Sweden is a hell of a lot dodgier now than it was before 2015. Malmö in 2000 was an absolute disaster zone of violence and dysfunction. The people who live there now, have no fucking clue what the Daily Mail was on about in 2015.

And lastly, while Sweden is more violent now than it was just a decade ago, it's still more peaceful and safe than most of Europe. Any larger city around the Mediterranean is unsafe for women out alone at night. No woman in Sweden has to worry about being out alone at night.

The Daily Mail jumped on a trend bandwagon of slamming Sweden back then. But there was no deeper analysis than that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion in public, no matter of offensive it is.

The fact that the football federation is a private association doesn't matter. It's not a legal thing. It's a cultural thing. It has to do with the degree of tolerance of our society.

We've already suffered under 2000 years of church oppression and brainwashing. Our western culture is arguably still emerging from it. The last thing we need is to slide mindlessly into the next intolerant totalitarian Maoist paradigm and lose all these freedoms we fought, and are still fighting hard to achieve.

I see the wokes as very much the same kind of fascistoid mentality that underpinned the Christian church in the bad old days. Their project on slamming anyone for expressing reasonable opinions should be horrifying to anyone.

"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

I'm super duper gay friendly. I couldn't be more of a supporter for the gay cause. I fully support their right to wear assless chaps in public (or whatever else they feel like). But I'm also super cool with anybody thinking that gays are gross and gay sex being unnatural. I think it's a shame people have that opinion. But I do think people shouldn't be afraid of expressing themselves.

So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

 

[thebeave]

Raiders head coach falls on his sword after some iffy emails are uncovered;

Jon Gruden has resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after his emails leak revealing his sexist comments about women referees, his homophobic comments about the drafting of a gay player and racist comments. He stepped down after The New York Times reported that Gruden frequently used misogynistic and homophobic language directed at Commissioner Roger Goodell and others in the NFL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-Smith-appreciates-Gruden-reaching-out.html

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion in public, no matter of offensive it is.

The fact that the football federation is a private association doesn't matter. It's not a legal thing. It's a cultural thing. It has to do with the degree of tolerance of our society.

We've already suffered under 2000 years of church oppression and brainwashing. Our western culture is arguably still emerging from it. The last thing we need is to slide mindlessly into the next intolerant totalitarian Maoist paradigm and lose all these freedoms we fought, and are still fighting hard to achieve.

I see the wokes as very much the same kind of fascistoid mentality that underpinned the Christian church in the bad old days. Their project on slamming anyone for expressing reasonable opinions should be horrifying to anyone.

"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

I'm super duper gay friendly. I couldn't be more of a supporter for the gay cause. I fully support their right to wear assless chaps in public (or whatever else they feel like). But I'm also super cool with anybody thinking that gays are gross and gay sex being unnatural. I think it's a shame people have that opinion. But I do think people shouldn't be afraid of expressing themselves.

So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

I disagree that anti-gay propaganda alone leads to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The problem with intolerance is that its the product of fear. Fear of what freely thinking people do. So unwanted opinions are suppressed and free public debate is made impossible. The result will always be stupidity. Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights. There's no resilience in the society to stop other idiotic ideas. It's anti-intellectualism

 

[Toni]

"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

I disagree that anti-gay propaganda alone leads to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The problem with intolerance is that its the product of fear. Fear of what freely thinking people do. So unwanted opinions are suppressed and free public debate is made impossible. The result will always be stupidity. Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights. There's no resilience in the society to stop other idiotic ideas. It's anti-intellectualism

I am once again in awe of your expertise in stupidity and anti-intellectualism.

 

[Emily Lake]

Raiders head coach falls on his sword after some iffy emails are uncovered;

Jon Gruden has resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after his emails leak revealing his sexist comments about women referees, his homophobic comments about the drafting of a gay player and racist comments. He stepped down after The New York Times reported that Gruden frequently used misogynistic and homophobic language directed at Commissioner Roger Goodell and others in the NFL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-Smith-appreciates-Gruden-reaching-out.html

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

I disagree that anti-gay propaganda alone leads to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The problem with intolerance is that its the product of fear. Fear of what freely thinking people do. So unwanted opinions are suppressed and free public debate is made impossible. The result will always be stupidity.

Okay, so the criminalization of homosexuality was allowed through propaganda, but if we stand in the way of the propaganda, that leads to stupidity.

Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights.

What the heck are gay rights? That'd be equal rights.

 

[WAB]

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

I once bought an Eminem album to placate a friend of mine who claimed I dislike Eminem because I did not have enough patience (or brains, methinks) to fully appreciate his music. I listened closely to the whole thing - as disgusting as it was. Musically simple and lyrically impressive at certain points, especially his brilliant timing and sense of meter, but content-wise, mostly just boring, repetitive to the point of nausea, and often revolting and just plain stupid.

 

[Toni]

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

I once bought an Eminem album to placate a friend of mine who claimed I dislike Eminem because I did not have enough patience (or brains, methinks) to fully appreciate his music. I listened closely to the whole thing - as disgusting as it was. Musically simple and lyrically impressive at certain points, especially his brilliant timing and sense of meter, but content-wise, mostly just boring, repetitive to the point of nausea, and often revolting and just plain stupid.

Not exactly Eminem but close enough. Of course, totally beggars the question of why there is a market for this genre....

 

[Emily Lake]

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

I once bought an Eminem album to placate a friend of mine who claimed I dislike Eminem because I did not have enough patience (or brains, methinks) to fully appreciate his music. I listened closely to the whole thing - as disgusting as it was. Musically simple and lyrically impressive at certain points, especially his brilliant timing and sense of meter, but content-wise, mostly just boring, repetitive to the point of nausea, and often revolting and just plain stupid.

Pretty much exactly that. I admire his timing and his poetry, and there are a few songs that I liked for the message and story-telling, but the content was often really a turn off.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Okay, so the criminalization of homosexuality was allowed through propaganda, but if we stand in the way of the propaganda, that leads to stupidity.
.

I don't think that's how it works. I think it's just xenophobia Once freedom of expression is suppressed it all becomes warped and weird. Everyone lives a lie.

Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights.

What the heck are gay rights? That'd be equal rights.

Yes, that is gay rights. Which for some bizarre reason is something gays have had to fight for.

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

 

[Politesse]

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

 

[Emily Lake]

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

 

[Politesse]

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

That must be why countries that haven't outlawed polygamy are just completely baffled as to how to legislate it.