OMGROTFL!

zom-zom wrote:I realize that we're closer to the woods and "real" outdoors in Minneapolis, but you're not far from some nature in NYC either.

Try something non-competitive. I like to hike, mountain-bike, ski, snowshoe. I guess I also like to be away from people.

Plenty of options other than chasing a little white ball around a toxic lawn.

Who's to say I don't do those also? I enjoy a hike in the nearby state parks when I can and often do when the weather's nice. But I enjoy golf much, much more and the glimpses of nature are a bonus, not the reason I play it. As for competition, I only compete against myself in golf. I don't care what anyone else scores. I just want to improve.

Besides, getting to "real" nature here is no easier, and often much more time-consuming, than getting to the course.

Ty Webb wrote:This is just another example, in a thread full of them, of confusing sports with its most unpleasant practitioners.

I think a lot of you are sugarcoating the hell out of this one.

it's impossible to completely separate any cultural force (religion, sports, music, the military) from its most unpleasant practitioners or influences. I don't have a choice about subsidizing stadiums, game traffic, or paying for the city to put a stupid fucking hat on a piece of public art if a team is in the playoffs. I won't even go into sports funding vs. math/science funding for schools or preferential treatment for jocks in school. kids can pick up plenty of unrealistic expectations from sports along with their life lessons. high-school kids, especially the really fucking poor ones, are more likely to imagine themselves as pro ball players at 25 than pop stars. if you ever teach school you'll meet plenty of them. kids can also get into drugs, eating disorders, or get injured pretty bad. rock and roll has nothing on sports.

I'm not attempting to diminish or even argue against the positive aspects of sports you described in your earlier post. it's just not all good clean fun.

as a disclaimer, I was always one of the biggest guys in my class and never spent any time inside a locker. I was actually OK at football but thought it was boring. I was not trained to watch sports when growing up, so I'm going to see them differently from someone who was. that's all. this doesn't make me inherently flawed, untrustworthy, or a pussy.

PEPPER! wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:This is just another example, in a thread full of them, of confusing sports with its most unpleasant practitioners.

I think a lot of you are sugarcoating the hell out of this one.

Check the poll. The majority opinion, by a far sight, is the opposite of what you said. I don't think anything has been sugarcoated.

it's just not all good clean fun.

No one has suggested anything of the sort and the part of your post I snipped was a reiteration of the multiple opinions I was rebutting in my first post. We know of the negative aspects of sports you enumerate. I was noting the positive ones as evidence that the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.

Do I now have to come up with 10 more positive aspects of sports to counter your 10 negatives? (eg, participants in high school sports are LESS likely, not more likely, to begin smoking, drinking underage, taking drugs, or engage in violence, according to a CDC study of more than 14,000 high school athletes).

Ty Webb wrote:Do I now have to come up with 10 more positive aspects of sports to counter your 10 negatives? (eg, participants in high school sports are LESS likely, not more likely, to begin smoking, drinking underage, taking drugs, or engage in violence, according to a CDC study of more than 14,000 high school athletes).

As if increasing the percentage of straight edge pussies who can't fight is a good thing.

Sports just lost a point. Nice work Ty.

I lettered in two sports, smoked weed, and fucked cheerleaders.


Sports breaks even.

Ty Webb wrote:
Do I now have to come up with 10 more positive aspects of sports to counter your 10 negatives?

not at all - if I wasn't clear I thought you argued your side really well earlier. I thought I'd argue my point of view as well. nobody else was going to do it for me. I thought all the misty-eyed stuff about sports bringing people together was sugarcoating. I think the feeling of shared humanity people get from rooting for the same side is a fleeting physical thing, and people want it to be more. when I'm in a chanting crowd the first thing I think of is Triumph of the Will.

Ty Webb wrote:I lettered in two sports, smoked weed, and fucked cheerleaders.


Sports breaks even.

I raced MX, played pond hockey, and fucked cantalopes that I would heat up in the microwave, so perhaps we should lean towards the letter sports.

PEPPER! wrote: when I'm in a chanting crowd the first thing I think of is Triumph of the Will.

Heh. I'm sure you're not alone.

But if that feeling is fleeting, then the comparison with Triumph of the Will is specious, isn't it? You can't have it both ways - sports as dangerous brainwashing opiate and sports as illusionary esprit de corps.

I think the "jocks suck" argument is a wholly personal, subjective attack, while the developmental benefits of sports are relatively well defined. To both our points, the social benefits are considerably more up for debate, but I don't want the grand ills of mass-market spectator sport or the local evils of jock culture to substitute for all of sport.

vockins wrote:I raced MX, played pond hockey, and fucked cantalopes that I would heat up in the microwave

Did you ever read "Suttree"?

"Who's been fuckin' my watermelons?"