Non-ignorant athlete/sports fan here- please read

[Earl]

Thanks for the compliment, Ray.

[Ray]

You're welcome.

[Millhouse]

I have one more thing to say in relation to my last post. This is directed specifically at SportsGuy92.

What did you expect, sir? Seriously? Allow me to expound...

I mentioned how I try to give everyone new on this forum, even the sports nuts, the benefit of the doubt.

But it's difficult not to be cautious, especially considering the way you came into the forums, directly attacking two people with clear hostility, then trying to humble yourself to the part of the mistreated victim, stating that you didn't want to be stereotyped. The reason people have lashed out at you INITIALLY is not because they want to stereotype you, in fact that has nothing to do with it at all. The reason people lashed out at you is because you started your forum introduction with passive aggressive hostility. You might as well have approached all of us on a playground without introducing yourself and kicked Sergey and Fatman right in the crotch, then nodded in a friendly way at the rest of us, then stated "Hey, don't hate me because I hate sports."

I hope you don't introduce yourself in real life to people this way. I don't care what they like or dislike, nor how much it may personally offend you.

In this case, no, sports has nothing to do with why you are being 'hated', though you are trying to believe or make us believe that it does. Don't march into a diverse group of people you don't know, launch hostile attacks at a select few, then expect the rest of us to feel sorry for you. And don't expect to earn any respect from the rest of us.

In a sense, what you did was tantamount to cyber bullying. And I don't even care what Fatman or Sergey said back to you at this point, remember that your own aggressive first post started this entire mess. You'll find (if you have the nerve to make anymore posts) that immediate and direct bullying has a zero tolerance policy here. But don't take my word for it, try that again on various members and see how well you do. To say you've already blown your first introduction is a gross understatement, and the sad thing is, it didn't have to be this way. We are all waiting for an intelligent sports fanatic to come here to have intelligent debate with. Did you just figure no one else would get offended if you didn't attack them, but only Sergey and Fatman? Because you'de be very mistaken if you did think that.

In a way (I can't believe I'm saying this), your behavior is far worse than Polite24, at least he is direct in stating what's on his mind, and in spite of how much we counter argue with him on the subject, he is at least able to live up to his online name.

[Sergey]

I have one more thing to say in relation to my last post. This is directed specifically at SportsGuy92.

What did you expect, sir? Seriously? Allow me to expound...

I mentioned how I try to give everyone new on this forum, even the sports nuts, the benefit of the doubt.

But it's difficult not to be cautious, especially considering the way you came into the forums, directly attacking two people with clear hostility, then trying to humble yourself to the part of the mistreated victim, stating that you didn't want to be stereotyped. The reason people have lashed out at you INITIALLY is not because they want to stereotype you, in fact that has nothing to do with it at all. The reason people lashed out at you is because you started your forum introduction with passive aggressive hostility. You might as well have approached all of us on a playground without introducing yourself and kicked Sergey and Fatman right in the crotch, then nodded in a friendly way at the rest of us, then stated "Hey, don't hate me because I hate sports."

I hope you don't introduce yourself in real life to people this way. I don't care what they like or dislike, nor how much it may personally offend you.

In this case, no, sports has nothing to do with why you are being 'hated', though you are trying to believe or make us believe that it does. Don't march into a diverse group of people you don't know, launch hostile attacks at a select few, then expect the rest of us to feel sorry for you. And don't expect to earn any respect from the rest of us.

In a sense, what you did was tantamount to cyber bullying. And I don't even care what Fatman or Sergey said back to you at this point, remember that your own aggressive first post started this entire mess. You'll find (if you have the nerve to make anymore posts) that immediate and direct bullying has a zero tolerance policy here. But don't take my word for it, try that again on various members and see how well you do. To say you've already blown your first introduction is a gross understatement, and the sad thing is, it didn't have to be this way. We are all waiting for an intelligent sports fanatic to come here to have intelligent debate with. Did you just figure no one else would get offended if you didn't attack them, but only Sergey and Fatman? Because you'de be very mistaken if you did think that.

In a way (I can't believe I'm saying this), your behavior is far worse than Polite24, at least he is direct in stating what's on his mind, and in spite of how much we counter argue with him on the subject, he is at least able to live up to his online name.

Funny you should say that, so is SportsGuy92.

[Earl]

SportsGuy92, you have said, "I'm not going to be (like) some of the other pro-sports people on this site (who) come on here questioning your manhood/sexuality, patriotism etc. and go on and on about how I am superior to all of you for whatever ignorant reason." "Some"? I would say most, not some. Please take the time to check all of the comments by critics of this website in the Guestbook and skim through all the "Letters" columns. To save time, you can quickly scroll down each column and stop to read the letters left by critics, all of which have been rendered in blue letters to distinguish them from the others. Read all of the posts that have been submitted in the forum by sports fans. Before you start reading all this, set up two columns on a blank sheet of paper. Title one column "Not Abusive" and the other "Abusive/Rude." As you read, draw a mark for each comment in the appropriate column. You will find that the former will be way outnumbered by the latter, the "Abusive/Rude."

You're the first critic of this website who has said that he wants to understand why some people have such strong feelings against sports. In order to understand someone's views, you need to hear them out and try to imagine how you would feel if you were in their present or past situation and had to deal with their problems. If all you want to do is prove us wrong, then all that you will want to do is debate us. There is nothing wrong with debate, but it is not the same as trying to understand another point of view. If your motive is just to prove us wrong, you will continue to debate us (as Polite24 has done, living up to his username); or you will give up and not come back. As to whether or not you really want to understand our point of view, time will tell which is the case.

You say that for every high-school athlete who looks down on nonathletes, there is a nerd who looks down on those who are not as smart, theater kids who look down on people who don't appreciate musicals, and the goths or emos who criticize others for supposedly being conformist while they themselves are conforming to their own group. I couldn't disagree with you more, but more about that later. You say that cliques are formed by people sharing the same interests. That is true, but some are also formed with the purpose of excluding others. You speak as if there is some sort of social equality here, but there definitely is not social equality at most high schools in this country. A student's popularity is determined not by his character as an individual and how he treats others (if he treats them kindly or if he treats them like dirt), but by which group he belongs to. The football team (or athletes in one or two other sports) are automatically elevated to the top of the social hierarchy as a group. No distinction is made between those individual players who are actually decent kids (like you) and those who are jerks or thugs. (Incidentally, in high-school social hierarchies, some sports clearly are more equal than others.) The nerds, theater kids, and goths or emos are automatically placed at the bottom of the social hierarchy regardless of their character, where they are often ridiculed and sometimes bullied by kids at or near the top of the social hierarchy. Unlike the athletes, they have no power.

For generations there has been a problem with some school athletes bullying other students. Of course, not surprisingly, critics of this website deny that this is a problem. But the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (much to their credit) has recognized that bullying by athletes has been a problem, and has condemned bullying.

I have several questions that many would regard to be politically incorrect. How many high-school football coaches are morally opposed to any of their players bullying physically weaker students or sexually harrassing girls at their schools? How many high-school football coaches actually discipline any such players for their deplorable misconduct?

In a rational society I would expect the bullying of the physically weak by the physically strong to be roundly condemned by just about everyone. Especially those who value physical toughness and self-discipline in teenage boys. I would think that those people would view such bullying as being particularly dishonorable, cowardly, and downright unmanly. But that just doesn't seem to be the case. Such bullying is often tolerated and even encouraged, as it apparently was at Columbine.

You say that none of the athletes at your school are like Rocky Wayne Hoffschneider. How could you possibly know for sure? Do you really know each one of them that well? Perhaps one or more of them behave differently when you're not around. (continued below)

[Earl]

(continued from above) I don't believe (as you have accused us of believing) that "there is some kind of link between enjoying sports and being unintelligent, arrogant, rude etc." But neither do I believe (as just about all coaches seem to believe) that participating in a sport makes someone into a better person morally speaking anymore than I believe that learning how to play a piano or mastering the science of physics makes one into a better person. The oft-repeated claim that football builds character is a lie, as is evidenced by off-the-field misconduct by some players. A guy can excel at a sport and still be a rotten human being (or a decent person). Of course, this is a fact that many football fans (especially those who are particularly rabid) don't want to hear and which the extremely biased sports media will not acknowledge.

You said that "the reason why jocks become bullies is not because they like sports, but because the activity of their choice is validated and respected to a degree above all others. If more people decided to stop following high school sports and suddenly became more interested in high school plays, with that drawing the most fans and becoming the schools' biggest moneymaker among extracurriculars, than (sic) you would most likely see the star actors become cocky assholes like some of the football players once were."

Later you said, "By 'respect' referring to the following that high school sports and their players have, I meant the attention they receive from the general public (fan attendance, media coverage, etc.) This is where jock arrogance, in my opinion, usually stems from although you may have different theories or opinions." You are right when you say that this has something to do with where "jock arrogance" (to use your own words) comes from. No doubt the mindless adulation that is heaped upon athletic boys causes them to become puffed up, unless they have been given the moral upbringing to keep this unceasing adulation in perspective. (continued below)

[Sergey]

I think the Darleks are controlling me because I can't stop thinking about them, and Buu better help me. Aside that, I forgot what you guys have been saying.

[Earl]

Sergey, instead of counting sheep to help you fall asleep, instead try counting Daleks.

(continued from my previous post) Alluding to one of your earlier comments, you said that a nerd is just as likely to look down on someone who isn't as smart, that a theater student is just as likely to look down on someone who doesn't appreciate musicals, and that goths or emos are just as likely to look down on those whom they consider to be conformists as a football player is likely to look down on nonathletes. (By the way, my wife, who was a high-school math teacher for eleven years, just told me that she never had a single drama student in any of her classes who looked down on other students.) Now, I realize that there are individuals in all of these groups who look down on others; but you fail to point out that there are cultural differences between these groups of students. I don't believe that there is an arrogant mindset among nerds that causes many of them to look down on those who are not as smart as they are. To the contrary, I'm sure that many of them enjoy helping other students who have a "math block" or trouble in some science class. They enjoy sharing their knowledge with others. I have no problem with the game of football, but the culture of football concerns me because some of its standards are false and harmful to others (sometimes even to players themselves). The football culture is not inherently a part of the game, but was developed over generations by men, some of whom were obviously wrongheaded in their views as to what constitutes masculinity. This culture has strongly influenced the actions of some junior-high and high-school football players, especially those who don't have a different value system, such as a truly principled (as opposed to merely professed) religious outlook or simply strong moral convictions.

Football has been misused to define masculinity. Many consider athletic prowess to be the only standard of masculinity. According to this mindset, nonathletic boys are inferior. They are viewed as being less masculine and therefore deserving of contempt, with bullying often just around the corner. When a boy doesn't know how to throw a baseball very well, what do people say about the way he throws a baseball (especially coaches and athletes)? They don't say he throws a baseball poorly; they say he throws "like a girl." The nonathletic boy is regarded as being effeminate; whereas, the football player is regarded as the epitome of masculinity. And if a nonathletic boy has no interest in sports, he is often accused of having homosexual tendencies. What do Samdaman and Harold (both of whom identify themselves as high-school football players) call nerds? They call them fags. Not most of them. All of them. (Samdaman's avatar is a cartoon bully, which seems appropriate.) The judo instructor I alluded to earlier in this topic (who is a former university football player) once let me know that he did not consider nonathletic men to be "real men." More than a few coaches seem to think and some actually say that athletes are a better class of people than nonathletes. Anti-intellectualism, which has been a staple of American culture since Colonial times when Washington Irving wrote "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow," is part of this mindset. (And, no, I'm not stereotyping football players as "dumb jocks." That is not the point I'm trying to make here.) Along with many other people, the conservative radio talk show host Dennis Miller (who also happens to be a big football fan, surprise, surprise) refers to scientists as "pencil-necked geeks." Nonathletic, intellectual men are regarded as effete, feckless, and impotent. This prejudiced mindset actually resembles racism in its bigotry. (continued below)

[Sergey]

Kid Buu blew them away... thank you pink monster from hell...

[Earl]

Huh? What?

(continued from my previous post) The football culture stresses physical courage above everything else, and physical courage is needed in order to play the game well. But what about moral courage? Doesn't that count for anything? Those who worked in the civil rights movement during the 1950s and early 1960s to promote racial equality were driven by moral courage, not machismo. The segregationists frequently opposed the civil rights marchers and demonstrators with violence and sometimes with murder. The civil rights movement was the sort of cause that attracts the support of intellectual, nonathletic men. How many white college football players participated in the civil rights marches in the Deep South during the early 1960s? One of the greatest heroes of World War II was Raoul Wallenberg, a citizen of a neutral country who wasn't even a soldier. Often risking his own life, he saved the lives of more than 10,000 Hungarian Jews from the German Nazis and the Arrow Cross, who were their Hungarian fascist accomplices. No doubt some of the Jewish men were physically stronger than Wallenberg, but he saved their lives when they could not help themselves. Wallenberg continued to show what a brave and principled man he was when he was abducted by agents of Stalin's secret police. When he would not cooperate with his Soviet captors, he chose to spend the rest of his life in the gulag rather than compromise his moral principles. Wallenberg was an intellectual, nonathletic man who detested competitive team sports. <gasp> Although he was better adept at social skills than most of us, Wallenberg still was a nerd. Would Samdaman or someone else of his ilk with his flawed mindset actually say that he was more of a man than Wallenberg was? (I'm not sure I'd want to hear his answer. ) There is absolutely no correlation between moral courage and body build or athletic prowess one way or the other.

SportsGuy92, you have rightly objected to being negatively stereotyped as an athlete. I have just described another kind of negative stereotyping. How do you think a nonathletic boy feels who is subjected to that negative stereotype year after year as he is growing up? Imagine how you would feel. Assuming that you have been reading, this should help you understand why some of us get tired of the sports culture.

I just want to be sure that I'm not misunderstood. I'm only critical of certain attitudes and practices associated with particular sports; I don't hate any athletes or coaches. I'm actually getting tired of making these comments about sports culture. It all seems rather pointless.

[Sergey]

Narleks vs Kid Buu.

[Earl]

Oh.

[Sergey]

I just posted a complaint about Space Marines being OP in Dawn of War 2. I feel good about myself.

[Earl]

Uh, we're getting off topic; but it may not matter at this point. Pardon me for being an ignoramus (because of my age); but to whom did you post the complaint, and what does "OP" mean? Where's Lewis? He needs to be here.

[Sergey]

Uh, we're getting off topic; but it may not matter at this point. Pardon me for being an ignoramus (because of my age); but to whom did you post the complaint, and what does "OP" mean? Where's Lewis? He needs to be here.

Overpowered and I killed him with the Darleks.