International I Hate Sports Club

I know.

I used to watch DBZ, back when we had Cartoon Network. It was at the tail-end of the Saiyan Saga and I watched it all the way to the end of the Frieza saga. I stopped watching after that, mainly because we had to pay to get the new programs for some channels, and CN wasn't one of them, so I didn't get to see what happened afterwards.

For now, I'm content with Team Four Star's DBZ Abridged series. You should check it out, it's hilarious! The best character in it has got to be Nappa!

SportsGuy92, earlier in this topic you addressed the following comment to Fat Man: "You don't realize that your former tormentors were assholes who happened to be jocks, not assholes because they were jocks." I certainly don't need to acknowledge the fact that not all the members of a group can be held responsible for the actions of some individuals who happen to be members of that group. That goes without saying. It's also true that individual members of a particular group don't all have the same values and that members of the same group may have values that are diametrically opposed to each other. But the fact remains that those (P.E. instructors as well as "jocks") who physically bullied Fat Man or otherwise treated him unjustly (until he was driven into the mental institution where he was beaten by interns and raped by a pedophile) were all involved in sports. He wasn't bullied by band students or choir members or drama kids or math "fags" or class clowns. I would ask you the following question: From a sociological or even ideological perspective, what reasons did they have for bullying Fat Man? They didn't "just happen" to bully him because they were bored and had nothing else better to do. Why did they do it? What was their supposed justification for their actions? They weren't driven by instinct, as if they were animals (as some misguided psychologists would claim). They weren't acting without any thoughts in their heads. They didn't do it just for the heck of it. What was their rationale? Lest I overlook this, the very same thing happened to Greencom, who also was physically handicapped. Why? Think about it. There's a reason for everything.

Hi Earl,
I'd like to add something. I was bullied quite a bit yes, bullied ONLY by jocks, nobody else ever bothered me at all, ONLY the jocks, and they were the guys that did ALL the bullying, just the jocks, the asshole jocks. Of course they stopped in my senior year when I beat one of them up, what a glorious day that was! I brought up the distant past to make a point, jocks tend to never mature even when they are old like me, they are still assholes, now they are old assholes and I can beat the crap out of any of them because I'm in better shape than them now but I choose not to since I'm not a bully and I feel sorry for the pathetic bastards, all they've got is TV and beer and memories of their "Glory Days", the only days they were ever happy.
Greencom

A particular view has been advanced to explain bullying of students in schools. I would call this view the "Everybody bullies" model. This is patently not true. Some students never bully others either because their moral standards are too high to allow for that misconduct or because they are not in a position to bully. This theory fails to recognize the differences among various subcultures of different groups of students. Greencom's statement above is interesting. He points out that he was bullied only by "jocks," not by other students. (Yes, I know that not all the athletic guys at his high school bullied Greencom. I also know that bullies come from different groups and that some belong to no group in particular. That goes without saying; and that's beside the point, anyway.) Fat Man has told me personally that this was also true in his case. If the "Everybody bullies" model were true, both Greencom and Fat Man would have been bullied by students from more than one group. So, the "Everybody bullies" model is shot down by facts and is discredited.

In a nutshell: Not all jocks were bullys but all the bullys were jocks. See the point SportsGuy 92 and Polite24? See the tendencies of these assholes? You'd have to be blinder than me not to!
Greencom

greencom wrote:In a nutshell: Not all jocks were bullys but all the bullys were jocks. See the point SportsGuy 92 and Polite24? See the tendencies of these assholes? You'd have to be blinder than me not to!
Greencom

Absolutely true!!!

When I was in school, I was never bullied or even verbally put down by members of The Chess Club, or The Drama Club, or any one of those.

I was only bullied by the jocks, and if the bullies were weren't the jocks themselves, then they were the sports fans.

But either way, the bullying was always connected with sports.

A lot of bullying is connected with sports because the bullies are so obsessed with the sports they let them control their minds and learn to show an unbelievable hate towards those who they consider to be inferior at sports. I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of this crap and years of this will turn a man against sports completely, like it has done with me. Years of "come on Geno, it's only a ball, don't be too scared, we'll f!%king batter you if you don't play properly" has made me never want to go near any of that shit again and my last proper PE lesson was 27 years ago! Bullying sticks in the mind of the victim and sometimes it will never go away.That's why it can be so harmful... it changes a person, in ways that will cause them problems in later life.

Three members of this forum -- Greencom, Fat Man, and Geno -- have said that the only classmates who bullied them in school were "jocks." No one else from any other group bullied them. I posed the question why this was so, but no one ever attempted to give an answer. So, the question remains why these "jocks" and these "jocks" alone bullied them. The sad truth is that these "jocks" defined masculinity solely in terms of athletic prowess. Now, I have no problem if a guy establishes his own masculinity (as he perceives it) in some sort of physical activity such as bodybuilding or even a particular sport; but I do have a problem when he imposes his own standard of masculinity upon other guys who aren't interested in such physical activities. The sad truth is that some (not all, but certainly more than a few) of those in the athletic crowd (or at least those in a few select sports, certainly not all sports) regard nonathletic males as not being masculine. This view overlooks the fact that a guy can excel at a sport, but also be a moral coward at the same time. There have been many nonathletic men who have shown great moral courage. For example, during the early 1960s white college students participated in civil rights marches in the Deep South, which sometimes provoked violent reactions by segregationists. How many of these white college students were football players, and how many of them were nonathletic guys? Did any white college football players ever participate in the civil rights marches? Also, physical ruggedness is no guarantee that a rugged guy is not gay. Conversely, there are heterosexual men who are slightly effeminate. They are not "macho," but they still manage to become fathers. This is an undeniable truth. (But try telling this to Samdaman, Captain America, Harold, and the rest of their ilk.) I'd like to see anybody disprove what I've just said. So those of the athletic crowd who wrongly regard nonathletic males as being less than masculine therefore regard them as being inferior. And since they regard nonathletic males as being inferior, then they have no respect for them as human beings. And since they have no respect for them as human beings, then ridicule and bullying is inevitable. Greencom, Fat Man, and Geno were bullied because they weren't good at sports. It's very much like racism. To put it another way, the jocks who bully or have bullied nonathletic males are nothing more and nothing less than bigots in the classic sense of the word. So why should I admire an intolerant bigot just because he excels at a sport?

I have often wondered why Polite24 and SportsGuy92 have shown a continued interest in this website. Don't get me wrong. I want them, as well as other sports fans, to continue posting here. Since this website was set up for "sports haters" as a ranting board, I can understand how some supporters of this website would like to be able to express their views without being challenged by sports fans; but the fact remains that the forum is lifeless without the input of sports fans. The record number of visitors to this website was set when the controversy between the supporters of this website and certain intolerant sports fans was at its height. Name-calling and unbridled hatred seem to be great drawing cards.

I think I understand Polite24's motivation. He just likes to argue and debate, and I have no problem with that. Young people frequently want everyone else to think like them and agree with them. This certainly is true in the realm of politics.

What I don't understand is why any high-school football player would even care what any of us believes or even says, which is not to say that none of the supporters of this website make comments that are over the top or are outrageously stereotypical. Even at our worst, we are just a handful of people -- nobodies, if you please -- who have absolutely no power or influence over the sports crowd. In many instances the sports crowd has power over us, especially those of us who are kids; but we have no power over them. In the eyes of many people, we're like the Flat Earth Society, a small group of people who can be easily dismissed. Yet there seems to be an obsession by one or both of you over our views. As high-school football players, you enjoy an incredible degree of support from society, which constantly sends messages that you are special. No effort is being made to tear down your self-esteem. Your popularity is immense and is dependent only upon how well you play football. So I don't understand why your attention would be focused upon this website, when the support you receive is far, far greater than any detraction you would ever experience here (some of which even bothers me). Again, you're more than welcome to be here. And, again, I dare say that you're treated more tolerantly here than any of us would ever be treated at a sports website. With the occasion of a flare-up or two (which is only human), you've certainly been civil and even restrained. I don't mean to get personal, but I just don't understand why you should care what is said at this website. I'd laugh it off. You have the entire culture on your side. All we have is a single website. It amazes me just how close-minded so many of the people on your side are about our views. The typical response is to impugn our motives in the basest way. "Oh, you're just jealous. Your point of view is irrelevant. Your own experiences don't count. Our side has never done wrong." In the endless public discourse on sports for kids, the nonathletic kids are never heard (except at a website). That's the way it was when I was a kid, and nothing has changed since.

I'm going to continue my thread with a "then" and "now" comparison.

When I was a boy, the prevailing view was that any nonathletic boy who didn't like sports was a sissie or a coward. This deplorable mindset has been proven to be false. In the mid 1980s I came across a newspaper article about a psychiatrist who opposed the Gay Liberation movement. As a Christian I appreciated some of his comments until I read his last comment that was quoted in the article, and that was that any boy who shows no interest in sports should be suspected of having homosexual tendencies. Mind you, what we have here is a young boy at the mercy of this mental-health thug who will only succeed in messing up the kid's mind even more than it already is. SportsGuy92, you object to the negative stereotyping of athletes. But do you see how destructive and pernicious this negative stereotyping is? In the lives of young kids, mind you.

Today there now is a public discourse on the subject of sports for kids. Since I started making random Google searches on the Internet, I have visited many websites featuring comments and articles written by sports sociologists and sports psychologists and psychiatrists about this issue. Not a single one of them (including a dear friend of mine, who should know better) has spoken up for the nonathletic kids. (Incidentally, I've never even heard any mention of any article written by a sports psychologist that explains why "student athletes" in certain sports are driven to bully nonathletic boys, which is a problem that spans generations. This issue seems to be politically incorrect. If there is such an article, I sure wish that somebody would tell me about it. But I doubt that such an article even exists.) As usual, the nonathletic kids are not heard in a discourse that concerns them. Their point of view is not and has never been represented. Instead, nonathletic kids are told that they are deficient because they don't participate in sports, which is another way of saying that they are inferior. The denigration of the nonathletic male continues. A previous generation of nonathletic boys were told that they were "feminized" and had homosexual tendencies. (What's really funny about this is that a good friend of mine who graduated from high school in 1969, the same year I did, recently told me that the biggest, strongest guy in his class was definitely gay.) Now nonathletic kids are being told that they are more suicidal than athletic kids, are more neurotic than athletes, and that athletes are even smarter than they are. (I guess none of these sports authorities ever heard of nerds.) The message is that nonathletic kids will never be well-adjusted and happy in their lives. They will be well-adjusted and happy only if they participate in sports. I'm not exaggerating when I say this. In fact, this is the party line that is now being advanced by the sports culture. And the supporters of this website are intolerant? Give me a break!

Sportsguy92 is hypocrite, he hates stereotypical people, but he is a stereotype. And I'm Atheist, and if I can't be that, I'll be Deist... okay I'd rather be Atheist.

Sergey, I don't chose my friends on the basis of their religious views. (Well, I would draw the line at being a satanist.) The dear friend I alluded to in my post above, who is a sports sociologist, happens to be an atheist. But I've deeply appreciated him as a good friend. I'm not in the habit of looking down on others. I have more than my share of faults. An atheist can be just as kind as anyone else.

I had one final comment to make. I once saw a program on the ESPN cable channel about a former professional football player who was about to become a high-school boys' P.E. coach. As a middle-aged guy with bodybuilding aspirations, I appreciated his great physique. But I shuddered when I thought of him as a P.E. coach. I can see it now. On the first day of the academic year, in one of the P.E. classes that he has been assigned to coach, he sees a nerd. A skinny kid wearing thick black glasses that are held together with masking tape. A shy boy who has never had any interest in sports, but has been required to take sports-centered P.E., a class that will never address his fitness needs because he's not a "student athlete." The former professional football player looks at this kid and thinks to himself, "Uh, what's that?" Is a man with that kind of background even capable of understanding a boy whose experience is totally different from his own when he was young? Would he not view this boy with contempt because he's physically weak? Is the former professional football player qualified to be a high-school football coach? Yes! Hire him, by all means. But let the nonathletic boys opt out of P.E. At least until P.E. has been reformed in the school district so that P.E. classes are actually what they are claimed to be -- that is, classes that actually promote physical fitness instead of sports at the expense of the nonathletic kids -- which certainly has not been the case for blackdog4444, Sergey, and many other students in this country.

Earl wrote:Sergey, I don't chose my friends on the basis of their religious views. (Well, I would draw the line at being a satanist.) The dear friend I alluded to in my post above, who is a sports sociologist, happens to be an atheist. But I've deeply appreciated him as a good friend. I'm not in the habit of looking down on others. I have more than my share of faults. An atheist can be just as kind as anyone else.

Isn't Satanism actually Atheism?