Jump to content

NFL: The Politics of Superb Owls or Trumping the Fail-Cons


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

kal:

For starters let me just say that I believe you feel you are morally superior for not watching the NFL.  I think from the moment you declared publicly (during the Bengals-Pittsburgh playoff game) that you were no longer watching the NFL; to the statements in your last rant, to your desire to explain how morally inferior these people are (I mean... some of them voted for Donald Trump, after all [clutches pearls]); that you wanted to virtue-signal how much wiser and evolved you were than others.  You have, after all, stated a few times that you are glad you are no longer watching the NFL... by stopping here to remind us that you are not watching the NFL. That is the very definition of virtue signaling.  With this evidence I have no doubt in my mind that this is your chance to attain unearned morally superiority.  Again, if you wanted to simply be virtuous, you would have just ... stopped commenting.  But here you are. 

But to your point, I was wrong to say the NFL is amoral; that is without a foot in either camp (moral v. immoral).  The NFL can be immoral and has been with their dereliction to concussions being Exhibit- A in that area.  They can also be moral (community outreach, volunteering etc).  But you were correct, calling them amoral was inaccurate.  

What I was getting at was that I do not the the NFL is immoral because some of its people voted for Trump.  Individuals vote, not organizations.  ; just that I do not think that people who voted for Trump makes the NFL immoral.  It was your comment that I objected to- namely that not supporting the NFL was "the moral thing to do" (in relation to Trump voters).   

In fact, I do not think people who voted for Donald Trump are per se immoral or even bad people.  While it could be evidence that they are bad people, its not an absolute.  And that was the point of me quoting myself; that the moralizing of the election has spurted out of control (made worse because Trump won).  And now we are reduced to saying that the NFL is immoral because it has a few people who voted for Trump.  Well what about Alshon Jefferey, Mike Tomlin and the other active NFL players and coaches who supported HRC?  Are they moral?  Was Tomlin moral when he tripped than Raven in the middle of the game?  Or only when he pulled the lever for HRC?  When was Bill Belichick immoral?  When he voted for Trump or when he sent that amazing letter of support to Pat Tillman? 

But the point is you believe that the NFL is immoral because of Trump voters?  And that not supporting the NFL is "the moral thing to do?"  What nonsense.  While I do believe that the NFL has acted immorally with its attempts to de-legitimize concussion research, I do not believe its immoral to vote for Donald Trump.  Hence, I do not believe the NFL can be immoral merely because some of its members voted for him.  The reason is because that logic has no sanity when universalized; when used to ascribe immorality to large groups of people.  

As an example, if you owned a business, you would not hire a Trump voter?  Would that make you or your business immoral?  OR more accurately, would it make you moral to not hire them?  Would you fire them if you discovered they were; would that be moral?  But its deeper, lets a say there was this group that you found immoral because they treated women like second-class citizens and were against women's right to choose and believed that some pretty innocuous behavior was evil... And that this group allowed, say, AIDS to spread across Africa because of their profound stances against Birth Control;   In other words, do you think all Catholics are immoral?  Would you refuse to hire them?  There is no end in sight for that sort of "morality."  

Now, as far as my "support" of the NFL, I support the NFL as an Entertainment consumer - that is for the last 16+ months I have enjoyed the Pats from the comforts of my own home on regular, HDTV; given the NFL's advertisers, I have not purchased a car and I do not drink much beer.  MY support is what it is; but is it immoral to spend whatever it is I spend on the NFL because some of them support Trump?

This begs the question: what about all those that do not play on "Team Awful?"  Again, what about the dozens of players who voted for HRC?  Or the thousands of other employees?  Do... do they "offset" the immorality of Trump supporters? Or is it the way of the zealot: one particle of rot makes it all rotten?  Well, then, what groups does that NOT effect?  Can I own a cell phone or can't I?  I'm sure the President of Samsung is nice to his wife, but what if he secretly hates gay people?  

As far as bad people being involved in the NFL- I like that Greg Hardy and the Giants punter and Aaron Hernandez and Ray Rice and on and on ... don't work for the NFL.  Does that make the NFL, now, moral?  I can't see how it could; I can only see that I like are getting better.  When will I no longer have to avert my eyes?  I'm sure somebody will tell me; somebody who knows better.  

I don't need to tell people about my rejection of those things to actually reject those things.  And by rejecting them you are not actually doing anything moral; you are simply looking at somethings you don't and telling us all you con't like them.  

Again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL is a disgusting organization. Not because individuals within it voted Trump (that says something about the character of those individuals not the league), but because of the multitudes of well-documented awfulness that the league engages in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

kal:

For starters let me just say that I believe you feel you are morally superior for not watching the NFL.  I think from the moment you declared publicly (during the Bengals-Pittsburgh playoff game) that you were no longer watching the NFL; to the statements in your last rant, to your desire to explain how morally inferior these people are (I mean... some of them voted for Donald Trump, after all [clutches pearls]); that you wanted to virtue-signal how much wiser and evolved you were than others.  You have, after all, stated a few times that you are glad you are no longer watching the NFL... by stopping here to remind us that you are not watching the NFL. That is the very definition of virtue signaling.  With this evidence I have no doubt in my mind that this is your chance to attain unearned morally superiority.  Again, if you wanted to simply be virtuous, you would have just ... stopped commenting.  But here you are. 

Okay. I can only tell you what I think. You may be right, and I can certainly believe that you're right; rationalizations are tough to self-diagnose, and it's a big reason why I talk to others who observe me. For myself, my rationalization is that many friends of mine on these boards and other places still watch the NFL, still follow it quite a bit, and are on the fence. And for them, many of them cannot even imagine simply...stopping. I talk to them because a lot of times they're curious - how do I deal? How do I lose that gap, that itch? Isn't it hard? 

The other aspect is that I do, honestly, believe that the NFL as it stands is a fairly horrific organization. I don't personally think I'm particularly superior to those who continue to happily support it, but I absolutely do think that it is a good thing to be able to say why I don't, and it's a good thing to tell others that yes, it's okay to not support it. I would think it would be considered virtue signalling if I was stopping by a bunch of people who were totally AGAINST the NFL and saying how much I hated it. I'm doing the opposite. And I've gotten - and continue to get - flak for doing so. How is sticking your neck out virtue signalling? How is going into a thread with a bunch of fans signalling to others that we have the same values and I'm with you guys? Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by virtue signalling; it's typically used as a means to show how virtuous and pure you are among people with similar views. 

Are you really against talking to anyone about what you believe is good and bad? Somehow, given your large rants in general about all sorts of things, I kind of doubt it. 

Another way to put this in a litmus test is this: have I once put anyone down for continuing to watch the NFL? Have I told anyone that they're bad for doing so? 

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

What I was getting at was that I do not the the NFL is immoral because some of its people voted for Trump.  Individuals vote, not organizations.  ; just that I do not think that people who voted for Trump makes the NFL immoral.  It was your comment that I objected to- namely that not supporting the NFL was "the moral thing to do" (in relation to Trump voters).   

That wasn't what I stated. I was stating that not supporting the NFL was the right thing to do because so much of the NFL - including the vast majority of owners, coaches, and many of the players - not only support him, but do so loudly and apparently quite proudly. Belichick didn't just 'vote' for Trump, after all - he is friends with him. Same with Brady. Peyton's going to go talk with him in the near future. That's a pretty big difference, no? Compare this to the NBA, where people like Mark Cuban openly feuded with Trump, or Gregg Popovich calls him out multiple times, or the players are as one refusing to stay in Trump hotels. 

And since I'm not talking about voting for Trump as the issue, the rest of your point about how all the people voted for X might be good or bad is immaterial, so I cut it all out. It's not a point I cared about or made.

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

Now, as far as my "support" of the NFL, I support the NFL as an Entertainment consumer - that is for the last 16+ months I have enjoyed the Pats from the comforts of my own home on regular, HDTV; given the NFL's advertisers, I have not purchased a car and I do not drink much beer.  MY support is what it is; but is it immoral to spend whatever it is I spend on the NFL because some of them support Trump?

Again, 'support' is not the same thing here. And you didn't go to a game this year? That surprises me. Whether or not it is immoral for you to do what you do is your choice, not mine; my argument was as I stated before, which is that it is decidedly not an amoral choice. 

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

This begs the question: what about all those that do not play on "Team Awful?"  Again, what about the dozens of players who voted for HRC?  Or the thousands of other employees?  Do... do they "offset" the immorality of Trump supporters? Or is it the way of the zealot: one particle of rot makes it all rotten?  Well, then, what groups does that NOT effect?  Can I own a cell phone or can't I?  I'm sure the President of Samsung is nice to his wife, but what if he secretly hates gay people?  

These are all completely valuable points. It's up to you to decide what you want to support or not, based on what you know about them. I don't want to make that decision for you. My point is simply that you should not simply give up because it's too hard, or because you think it's not that big a deal and you don't want to think about it. Just because it's a normal thing doesn't mean it is moral to do it. Just because others do it doesn't mean it's outside of morality. As an example to some of the things you said before, I can easily see people boycotting a business because their owner supported Trump as a moral thing to do, and I can see a business owner not wanting to support a Trump supporter as an employee for a similar reason (especially depending on the business). The weighing of value vs. loss is up to them, but it doesn't mean it isn't a moral decision. For me, given how completely awful Trump has been in the last week, I'm making a lot of hard decisions on what to support, where to support, and how to support. You may not, and that's cool - but that doesn't make the decisions invalid. They're just not as important to you. And that's okay. 

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

As far as bad people being involved in the NFL- I like that Greg Hardy and the Giants punter and Aaron Hernandez and Ray Rice and on and on ... don't work for the NFL.  Does that make the NFL, now, moral?  I can't see how it could; I can only see that I like are getting better.  When will I no longer have to avert my eyes?  I'm sure somebody will tell me; somebody who knows better.  

Were any of those incidents handled particularly well? Would the punter still be employed if the news hadn't got a hold of information? Would Ray Rice? Would Hardy? Would whats his face from the 49ers? Making the decision to fire someone after news gets out and outrage gets generated is okay - kind of the bare minimum -  but for me, that wasn't enough. 

Is Goodell still involved? Kinda think he is.

And here's another thing that I think you reminded me of before - it wasn't just that the league was doing all these horrible things. It was that the league was bad and the product sucked. If you recall, I gave up after watching the Steelers/Bengals game with the billions of personal foul penalties last year. I was done, and that was the final straw because, simply, the product wasn't good enough to justify the rationalizations. That certainly doesn't sound particularly virtuous, does it? I absolutely confess - if the Bears were doing better, or I was more entertained by watching random games - I'd probably be watching it. Still. (well, likely not given the other shit that happened this year in my life personally like the cancer, but I'd probably not have sworn it off completely)

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I don't need to tell people about my rejection of those things to actually reject those things.  And by rejecting them you are not actually doing anything moral; you are simply looking at somethings you don't and telling us all you con't like them.  

Again. 

You're absolutely right - I don't need to tell  people about my rejection of things to reject things. And for the most part, I don't. I bring it up when yet another bullshit thing happens. I didn't bring it up for months until that bullshit with the punter happened, and yes, I totally brought it up then. I bring it up now because hey, the Brady/Belichick friendship with Trump along with Peyton's Trump leanings? That fucking sucks. The Kaepernick BLM stuff earlier this year and the outrage about it - that sucked too. I try to bring it up when I think it's relevant to the conversation, because I don't want to derail people's happiness about something they love. But when something shitty happens that pisses me off again, well, I bring it up. 

My rejection of the NFL is based on moral grounds. It is decidedly doing something moral. "looking at something you don't like and telling other people you don't like it" is basically the definition of morality as described to, like, Trump or somebody with poor vocabulary. It isn't a moral act of me to tell people about it, but my rejection certainly is. 

Whether you choose to reject the NFL based on what you know about it is entirely up to you. You can decide whether Belichick, Brady and Kraft supporting Trump openly and loudly is enough of a dealbreaker for you and is the final thing that breaks you (like it is apparently getting close to with @DanteGabriel) or you can continue. Only you can decide if this is still fun for you or not. For me, it wasn't fun enough to justify how bad I felt about it. This political season didn't do much to contribute to my continued decision, but what little it did certainly was more negative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Reny of Storms End said:

Do you even hate the Rooney family?

ETA: I hope I am one of those decent football fans of the club.

 

10 hours ago, Reny of Storms End said:

PQJ thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. 

 

ETA:

Didn't realize we could direct message. So I edited the first part of the post and just messaged the person.

There's a lot of soul searching going on in this thread, but let me say that I can't think of any grievance I have with you. Like I said, I loathe the Steelers football club and resent the organization not the fans or every individual person within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe this craptastic "discussion" is still going on here. Even worse I keep feeling compelled to dive in.

Are any companies / businesses innocent? Hell no. So who the fuck else is reading this get over yourselves.

Name any company that has been in business as long as the NFL and if you dig you will find out that the company and or people who work for them have murdered, polluted, bribed, raped, railroaded etc. If you think otherwise you are as naïve as your are dumb.

The big three use hire people to brutalize union organizers.

Politicians have been caught doing everything illegal that exists

Religious leaders from all faith have committed every sin that they preach against

Charities that claim to be all about helping people routinely give less than 5% of the funds they receive to the groups they claim to be helping

The government has always told the "truth" that fits their agenda

Newspapers have led with stories that were shaped to fit the agenda they wanted

NCAA any better? Hell no it's a cottage industry that now rules over kids who are amatuers

SEC, Big 10 etc, all the same crap as NCAA just on smaller level

 

So before anyone gets high and mighty and boycotts any business because of the stupid ass reasons I have seen here you better do some research because the clothes you are wearing likely came from a sweat shop, as did your shoes, and the glasses you are wearing were made by the same company that put all others out of business by being ruthless. Oh, and drive your electric car that actually is more hazardous than my gas powered one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Again, 'support' is not the same thing here. And you didn't go to a game this year? That surprises me. Whether or not it is immoral for you to do what you do is your choice, not mine; my argument was as I stated before, which is that it is decidedly not an amoral choice. 

I just want to get this one point out of the way; I didn't attend any games this season, not even in the playoffs.  I could say it was out of moral revulsion for the Pats (*virtue*), but it was more on convenience ground: the Pats had a lot of prime-time and Mon night games and there is no way to attend one of those games and then be productive the next day (you are, at best, getting home at 2AM).  This point gets too granular to be interesting after that because we have to decide how I get to the game and come by my ticket (A close friend is a season-ticket holder and I buy one off him... but he;s already given the Pats his money so... I have never purchased a dram of food at any game because ... well... its stadium food).  

My biggest issue with this entire topic (outside of the fact that it is a topic) is how voting for somebody is now a moral issue and that you can put a weight of immorality on somebody for their vote, which you did when you specifically stated that seeing all the Trump voters/supporters in the NFL shows that not following the NFL was "the moral thing to do,"   And yet while you did not discuss the HRC supporters in the NFL, you, for some reason, discussed the ones in other sports - not sure why Greg Popovitch matters but Mike Tomlin doesn't, but that's what you are saying.  

I don't think voting for Trump makes you immoral; you seem to indicate it does.  Donald Trump is a loathsome horror-story and he himself is likely immoral (but then so would Bill Clinton, in all honesty and with drone strikes, likely Obama too ... so we can't vote for anyone now?).  But I can envision reasons to vote for Trump that do not make one immoral.  So to say- as you did - that people who voted for (or supported) Donald Trump shows immorality is untenable. I think you can be a great person and vote for Donald Trump; you, otoh, say that if you voted for Trump its reason to support a "moral" decision to stop consuming their product.  

Which is crazy to me because there are Trump supporters in other sports and some of them are prominent.  But that's not for me the key either- its the fact that you want this to be bad; you want people who supported Trump to be evil.  So to justify your decisions.  NOw, your decisions have other justifications - concussions, lack of player safety, lack of medical insurance etc after the fact etc.  But I find it ludicrous that you stopped watching the game because the product sucked.  Nonsense.  Why would you stop watching the game because of ONE playoff game (after a season with 512 games in it)?  

This does though raise another question: do you still watch college football?  Which is, in effect, slave labor?  Have you made the morally justified decision to stop watching that?  Do we think Nick Saban didn't vote for Trump?  (I don't watch college football. but I never have).  

I consume the NFL for a variety of reasons that you articulated for me and they stand on their own merits.  The fact that it provides me with something I have no problem with.  And when the NFL does something wrong I can say and do things that will effectuate change - the major one I had a problem with (out of fear it would go under the radar) was the Jonathan Martin issue in Miami where I said on these very boards that if the Pats signed Richie Incognito I would have a terrible problem rooting for the Pats (I never said if I would stop or not because, frankly, I still don't know).  

I'm a little disappointed you didn't answer ANY of my questions about who you would hire and fire; how you would react if you discovered a Catholic worked for you, etc.  Because those are all tied into the same moral "issue"- where do you draw the line?  Where does this moralizing end? 

For me, I have no problem at all if there are Trump voters in the NFL; so THAT, to me, is not a moral value.  For you it was (because you said so).  And I am grateful that you have left it up to me as to whether or not I support the NFL- thank you!  I have decided to continue to do so with my eyes and adjust as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

Can't believe this craptastic "discussion" is still going on here. Even worse I keep feeling compelled to dive in.

Are any companies / businesses innocent? Hell no. So who the fuck else is reading this get over yourselves.

Name any company that has been in business as long as the NFL and if you dig you will find out that the company and or people who work for them have murdered, polluted, bribed, raped, railroaded etc. If you think otherwise you are as naïve as your are dumb.

The big three use hire people to brutalize union organizers.

Politicians have been caught doing everything illegal that exists

Religious leaders from all faith have committed every sin that they preach against

Charities that claim to be all about helping people routinely give less than 5% of the funds they receive to the groups they claim to be helping

The government has always told the "truth" that fits their agenda

Newspapers have led with stories that were shaped to fit the agenda they wanted

NCAA any better? Hell no it's a cottage industry that now rules over kids who are amatuers

SEC, Big 10 etc, all the same crap as NCAA just on smaller level

 

So before anyone gets high and mighty and boycotts any business because of the stupid ass reasons I have seen here you better do some research because the clothes you are wearing likely came from a sweat shop, as did your shoes, and the glasses you are wearing were made by the same company that put all others out of business by being ruthless. Oh, and drive your electric car that actually is more hazardous than my gas powered one.

Yeah, "other people are doing it" is not a justification for reprehensible behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sperry said:

Yeah, "other people are doing it" is not a justification for reprehensible behavior.

But that's not entirely what he's saying.  What he's saying is is that if we used the standard that if any money you spend ends up in the hands of an "immoral" company, you are supporting immorality, then none of us can really spend money.  Because 1) we know the company does things that could be immoral (pollution, anti-gay measures [Chik-Fil-a], anti-women measures [Hobby-Lobby] ) 2) we do not know all the intricacies of the company and, therefore, have to guess if a member of the company is doing immoral things.  

And then we all have to have some agreement as to whether or not the thing is immoral in the first place.  

And there is not a product any of us own that is not subject to this cascade of moralizing from cell phones to cars; Where are the products made?  Is that country even mildly oppressive?  What are the working conditions like there (here's a hint: they don;t have Unions there); what deals are being made to get products to the market? Do those deals hurt people?  Is the product harmful in other ways?  Does it pollute?  How bad is the pollution?  The hedonistic calculus necessary to reach the decision would be arduous if not for the fact that we know people reach a conclusion first and then justify it later.  

Really, we would not be able to do much of anything if we purchased products based on our belief as to whether or not the product's creators, distributors or producers were immoral.  And that belief would be highly subjective the vast majority of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

But that's not entirely what he's saying.  What he's saying is is that if we used the standard that if any money you spend ends up in the hands of an "immoral" company, you are supporting immorality, then none of us can really spend money.  Because 1) we know the company does things that could be immoral (pollution, anti-gay measures [Chik-Fil-a], anti-women measures [Hobby-Lobby] ) 2) we do not know all the intricacies of the company and, therefore, have to guess if a member of the company is doing immoral things.  

And then we all have to have some agreement as to whether or not the thing is immoral in the first place.  

And there is not a product any of us own that is not subject to this cascade of moralizing from cell phones to cars; Where are the products made?  Is that country even mildly oppressive?  What are the working conditions like there (here's a hint: they don;t have Unions there); what deals are being made to get products to the market? Do those deals hurt people?  Is the product harmful in other ways?  Does it pollute?  How bad is the pollution?  The hedonistic calculus necessary to reach the decision would be arduous if not for the fact that we know people reach a conclusion first and then justify it later.  

Really, we would not be able to do much of anything if we purchased products based on our belief as to whether or not the product's creators, distributors or producers were immoral.  And that belief would be highly subjective the vast majority of the time. 

There are plenty of companies that are worse than others. There is also the ability to affect change by doing something about it when companies are doing something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm glad you're still participating in the thread, Kal. Ironically enough, this thread helps keep me coming back. It's likely I'll stick around here even after I've stopped watching games -- however long that takes.

I agree Kal, I enjoy when you are active in this thread. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sperry said:

Yeah, "other people are doing it" is not a justification for reprehensible behavior.

Read what I said instead of looking for something that isn't there, never said what you put in quote marks. Also never said that any of it was justified. Just stated the obvious, that if you truly are offended by the NFL for what it does, then you pretty much need to live off the grid and not consume anything from any business including the computer you are using to read and type this, the internet provider and the electricity to power each.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

My biggest issue with this entire topic (outside of the fact that it is a topic) is how voting for somebody is now a moral issue and that you can put a weight of immorality on somebody for their vote, which you did when you specifically stated that seeing all the Trump voters/supporters in the NFL shows that not following the NFL was "the moral thing to do,"   And yet while you did not discuss the HRC supporters in the NFL, you, for some reason, discussed the ones in other sports - not sure why Greg Popovitch matters but Mike Tomlin doesn't, but that's what you are saying.  

Again, not saying Trump voters. You can keep pinning that on me, but I never said it, didn't mean it, and continue not to mean it. 

The NFL's stance on Trump as an organization - and the outspoken friends that he has in the organization - make it easier to not support the NFL. It is similar to the WWE, which has been heavily supportive of Trump as an organization. It's not the same - they're far more in bed with him - but it's similar. It has nothing to do with who voted for him. 
 

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I don't think voting for Trump makes you immoral; you seem to indicate it does.  

Okay, I'll say it point blank: it doesn't.

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

 So to say- as you did - that people who voted for (or supported) Donald Trump shows immorality is untenable. I think you can be a great person and vote for Donald Trump; you, otoh, say that if you voted for Trump its reason to support a "moral" decision to stop consuming their product.  

I say people who openly and happily support Trump are being fairly immoral in my eyes, yes. But simply voting for him is not that level of support. There are lots of reasons that someone might have voted for Trump. There are many fewer defensible reasons to declare him a friend of yours, say that you heavily support him, and think he's a great guy. 

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

Which is crazy to me because there are Trump supporters in other sports and some of them are prominent.  But that's not for me the key either- its the fact that you want this to be bad; you want people who supported Trump to be evil.  So to justify your decisions.  NOw, your decisions have other justifications - concussions, lack of player safety, lack of medical insurance etc after the fact etc.  But I find it ludicrous that you stopped watching the game because the product sucked.  Nonsense.  Why would you stop watching the game because of ONE playoff game (after a season with 512 games in it)?  

Like I said, I stopped watching because the entertainment value wasn't worth the price. I had mentioned that last year. You can still find the post. It's not particularly virtuous, I know - I kind of suck at this virtue signaling thing. 

And it's not like I hadn't been mad prior to that. I had cancelled my DirecTV subscription after the domestic violence issue with Hardy on the cowboys, but I continued to watch free TV. I think that was in October last year? But I still continued to watch. That ended with that playoff game.

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

This does though raise another question: do you still watch college football?  Which is, in effect, slave labor?  Have you made the morally justified decision to stop watching that?  Do we think Nick Saban didn't vote for Trump?  (I don't watch college football. but I never have).  

I stopped watching college football as well. And stopped writing on the blog about it too. That was both harder and easier for me - I had a lot more of a hobby involved in that, I care a lot more about college than professional sports in general, and it's a lot more personally important to me and my life. At the same time, I find college football's morality to be even worse than the NFL, so the moral justification was a bit easier. And unlike the pros, the team I followed was (at least until this year) pretty good and expected to be good, and I was still enjoying watching the Ducks play. 

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I consume the NFL for a variety of reasons that you articulated for me and they stand on their own merits.  The fact that it provides me with something I have no problem with.  And when the NFL does something wrong I can say and do things that will effectuate change - the major one I had a problem with (out of fear it would go under the radar) was the Jonathan Martin issue in Miami where I said on these very boards that if the Pats signed Richie Incognito I would have a terrible problem rooting for the Pats (I never said if I would stop or not because, frankly, I still don't know).  

Great! I have zero problem with you watching or consuming it. I never did. I had a problem with you saying that no one should have a problem with these things. 

5 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I'm a little disappointed you didn't answer ANY of my questions about who you would hire and fire; how you would react if you discovered a Catholic worked for you, etc.  Because those are all tied into the same moral "issue"- where do you draw the line?  Where does this moralizing end? 

I did answer - it's a personal choice that each person is going to have to make. For me, personally, I don't see every single catholic as a unified thing, and i don't see every Trump voter as the same thing - but I do think there is a difference when you as a big star come out and say that he's your friend, that you like him, and you endorse him. Or as a coach you allow yourself to be his press. You may not, and that's fine too. That's where I draw the line - openly supporting a fascist who wants to remove the rights of my friends and family. Other people have other lines. 

And yes, I know you have no way of determining if this is true or not, but I'll tell you a story - it was a shock to my kids that I had stopped watching and they had no idea I had until fairly recently. My daughter was trying to start a conversation with me this October and asked about if there were any good games on this week, and i told her then. My older son found out about it in December when he was well enough to start asking about things outside his life, and he was pretty surprised - I think it came up when we talked about whether or not he'd like Russell Wilson to meet him. My younger kids don't know about it at all, they're just happy I spend more time with them on the weekend. My point is that for the most part I haven't talked about it with people, because it's my personal value. When I typically bring it up in person it's in response to people asking me about if I still blog on AtQ, or if I caught the game - because it was a huge part of my life and my persona. 

My wife is kind of pissed off about it, honestly, because she learned to like football and still does, and now feels guilty for watching it or paying attention to it. (she is somewhat happy that she was totally right on the money about the Seahawks, Carrroll's discipine issues and the OLine sucking like no tomorrow though). She says she mostly misses me talking to her about it in detail, but political discussions have largely filled that specific void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

So, back to football!

 

Any early guesses on SB winner? My mind tells me NE wins it, but Atlanta has been on fire, makes me want to believe that they can do it.

New England, easy as the prediction (doesn't mean I think they win in a blow out, but I think they're the clear choice for winner period).  Similar caliber offenses, but New England's defense is in another tier from Atlanta's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...