Today, entire stadiums full of grown men will cheer on other grown men playing a game. There will be fights amongst fans of opposing teams comprised of vagabond players, perhaps the most laughable form of tribalism mankind has ever witnessed. These men will yell as loud as they can for other men to hurt other men. And in the end, there will be blood and tears, more yelling, and a victor. Many of these men will proudly wear on their backs the name of these other men, apparently unaware of the emasculation of such a display. These men will feel a connection to these other men, using the first-person plural pronoun "we" to describe a team full of players who could not care less about them. And in these drunken moments, these men will actually measure their own personal worth consistent with their favorite team, apparently unaware of how pathetic their own lives have become to do so.
But to those that watch to merely enjoy, to those that understand the farce of modern sports fandom, to those that understand it's just a game, to those that can enjoy sports as a momentary means of nostalgia for the trappings of youth, to those that root but don't cry, to those that view sports as a microcosm of our larger social landscape, to those that think about sports as fun not "Breaking News from our Bristol headquarters!! - sit-ups in the driveway", even to those that get really excited when their favorite team wins and really pissed when their favorite team loses, just within reason - have fun today. I know I can't wait. (For the record, I'm still a huge NFL fan - it's sort of my one irrational vice.)
Rooting interests: Pats and Giants: Come on, everyone wants to see this game again in the Super Bowl. Plus, these are easily the two best and most exciting teams left, with two elite QBs (Eli may make mistakes, but he's even better than Brady in the clutch) at the top of their game. And I just like Eli for some reason.
Picks: Pats and Giants: Going with the favorites, though I'd give even odds on Niners.
68 comments:
I've always hated sports. I must be queer or something.
The Pats and Giants would be a huge East-Coast, ESPN-centric Super Bowl.
Why should all sports be organized for the fans in NYC?
"Many of these men will proudly wear on their backs the name of these other men, apparently unaware of the emasculation of such a display."
Right. I always thought that was pitiful. The guy wearing some of guy's jersey shows his worship of another man, making the wearer look pathetic.
I could see myself doing that as a kid but never as an adult. I no longer collect baseball cards because it's just weird for a grown man to collect images of other grown men like that, leave it to the boys.
Guys who don't watch sports are thought of as "gay" or "queer" among the mainstream populace, but I always thought there was something gay about grown men admiring the physical prowess of sweaty, muscular men.
Speaking of Eli Manning, if he can beat the 49ers today he will have outdone Peyton in one sense. Eli has been able to win games his team was picked to lose more than his brother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgqaf5mQyo8&feature=related
"But to those that watch to merely enjoy, to those that understand the farce of modern sports fandom"
You sound like an "I enjoy this thing ironically so its ok" SWPL.
The Pats - Ravens game is a culture clash, courtesy of Jason Whitlock.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/baltimore-ravens-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-ray-lewis-ultimate-culture-clash-011912
Jason Whitlock is the Ron Paul of sports writers. Some of his statements are logical, while the rest are batshit crazy.
This was one of the more logical ones. I'll be rooting for the Pats; haven't decided yet for the Giants-49ers.
The Jason Whitlock piece was interesting (I had no idea who he was before, so this is my first exposure.)
What he's basically saying is "I respect Brady and the Patriots, but I'm rooting for the blacker team."
Indeed, he gives multiple other examples of preferring the black thing to the white thing, because it's black. To state the utterly obvious: I'd like to see a white sports writer do something similar and then watch media heads explode.
It's a white thing. You wouldn't understand.
These big cultural issues have made football very interesting for me. I tried to get into it as a kid, but outside the big games, didn't understand what I was supposed to be getting excited about. Tebow changed that for me. Every Tebow win I feel was a victory for cultural conservatives. These were victories that we didn't have to work decades for, protest about, donate money for or endlessly hand-wring about. Call me crazy, but if Tebow had won the Super Bowl it would have scared away more vampires than any other modern political movement could have hoped to. And it would have happened overnight. As it was, I think he changed more hearts than anyone in America has over the last 20 years.
So finally it appears real issues are being played out on the football field. And it beats the shit out of joining the Republican Party and spending 30 years beating your head against the wall. So shit, I'll take it. Nothing else is changing. We're addressing all kinds of stuff now through football that the glacial pace of politics would take forever to resolve. And it's in a different kind of non-threatening language. It's just a game.
So I'll be taking a look at the Pats-Ravens game. Perhaps we can blow a couple of holes in the black supremacy cult. Eh. Maybe that's too optimistic. But hell, I think these single-day battles are having more effect on the culture of our country than any politics has in the last 30 years.
I'm still not sure what drives people to worship these teams outside of these issues, but I understand it a bit better now. If a personality type is drawn to this type of event, I suppose a particular team's color might be enough to inspire devotion.
Anyway, it's interesting that real politics is becoming fantasy (insofar as what happens, happens regardless of what we do), while real issues are now being fought out in what was once the fantasy.
I have become dismayed about how sports crazy this nation has become and watch very little of it these days. However, I have to think it is performing a valuable service. I suspect this releases a lot of pent up male aggression that otherwise would be harmful to densely populated societies.
I enjoy sports. Power-lifting and strongman are my non work related passions, but those are sports I actually engage in.
I played football and put the shot as a kid, and in college. My sons played for the same high school I did, and my middle son will play college ball. I spent a lot of time in the Army so I like to watch the Army games. I watch those games because I have a connection to them. Watching those games is also bonding time with my sons, gives the kids a chance to remember their old man wasn't always old and broken and act as additional training for my sons who play
I sort of don't get how folks who never played the game, or played for the college get so tied up in it.
What I do get is, sports is one of the last endeavors where men can be masculine, tough, strong, driven etc and receive praise for it. Any other time a man is those things our effeminate culture tells him he should be more lady like. Which might be why the you're a fag if you don't like sports thing came about
Strength sports and UFC (combat sports in general) are also good places to go to see the myth of the weak, non athletic White man get crushed.
There is nothing wrong with men enjoying spectator sports. I just think they should try to play some also.
Various observations of mine:
-Also consider that the tribalism is artificial, since the players have little or no allegiance to the team and trade around numerous times in a career. Contrast this with college sports where, for the most part, athletes only play for one school, and, even if they take joke classes, they at least are pat of the school's social scene
-I'd argue that it is equally emasculating to idolize politicians, scientists, writers, etc. But we all idolize someone, so it's a matter of signalling who you choose to idolize.
-Most of the winter olympics is beyond idiotic
-What about participating in recreational football/soccer/basketball leagues?
"Eli has been able to win games his team was picked to lose more than his brother."
Don't I know this is the truth; a quite painful truth it is.
I'm still in a state of shock after last week!@
these are easily the two best and most exciting teams left
Giants pretty much suck. Green Bay blew the game rather than the Giants winning it. I watched that game and could not believe that either of them were in the playoffs. Niners should bury them today.
OT
If I try to preview my comment, blogger tells me "The characters you entered didn't match the word verification. Please try again". Even if the characters are correct.
I get around this by just hitting "Publish" and not previewing.
"Strength sports and UFC (combat sports in general) are also good places to go to see the myth of the weak, non athletic White man get crushed."
For my part, I've never been much of a fan of the new-era of combat sports, having followed regular boxing a bit years ago. But after it was pointed out to me at a thread here last summer, I have noticed that a lot of the champs and up-n-comers in these new, UFC-type combat matches are white; specifically, Eastern Europeans from former Soviet bloc nations.
I'm glad to see it, cuz I believe that to whatever extent we'll see white men break recent stereotypes about being more effete and soft in the he-man pecking order, I figure it will that much more reduce the NAMS=natural brutes and thus hold a unfair advantage in such sports. It's hard to say how much a race has an advantage in certain sports; usually the sports they're believed to have an advantage in are, quite naturally, the sports that group has long obsessed over, so that creates a chicken-or-the-egg question behind what created the advantage: biology or diligence from the obsession?
Eli has been able to win games his team was picked to lose
He didn't win the game against Green bay. Broncos could have beaten GB the way they played that day. Hell, the Colts could have beaten GB the way they played.
Niners should bury them today.
Trust that I hold no Giants love, but I don't see S.F. beating them today; S.F.'s offense is just to weak and spotty; The Giants shut down --- friggin' shut down ----- the most powerful pass game and overall offense in recent NFL history last weekend! How is Alex Smith going to score on that defense?
That game last week between S.F. and N.O. proved to be the most entertaining of this year's playoffs so far. I can barely believe that S.F. managed to scramble that many points together and pull it out.
But trust that we won't see Smith pulling of any 30-yard QB option-runs this week like he did last week to defeat the Saints.
*This is all academic to me and very, very bittersweet. I sort-of have to root for the NYG's out of deference to what they've accomplished as a .500 team. it's simply the old maxim: respect thy enemy.
"Hell, the Colts could have beaten GB the way they played."
Yeah, agreed. Still, I think the memory of that famed '08 NFC champtionship game at Lambeau played on them. How GB could lose a playoff game twice by the same team at home is beyond explanation. That is some serious mighty Rustbelt myth-breaking, and by a NY team no less!
I'd love to write-off that disaster as a fluke, but Eli Manning has been building a real mantle as he keeps bringing his .500 teams to NFC championships and SB's.
As for this weekend's games and the game two weeks from now? I feel like I'm forced to watch the festivities at some parties that someone else stole my reservations for.
Eli Manning has been building a real mantle as he keeps bringing his .500 teams to NFC championships and SB's.
He's been to one Super Bowl. Being champ of the NFC East is like being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
He's been to one Super Bowl. Being champ of the NFC East is like being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
You sound like me talking last week. (Have some sympathy man. I'm still grieving!)
The Giants shut down --- friggin' shut down ----- the most powerful pass game and overall offense in recent NFL history last weekend!
What game were you watching? The Giants didn't shut down jack. GB beat themselves. I doubt if SF will be so obliging.
trust that we won't see Smith pulling of any 30-yard QB option-runs this week like he did last week to defeat the Saints
Giants have a worse defense than the Saints did (they gave up more points than any other team which made the playoffs) so I don't see why not. You're letting the media cheerleading for NY cloud your thinking.
What game were you watching? The Giants didn't shut down jack. GB beat themselves.
who knows? maybe all that weeping I was doing while watching that debacle has clouded my recollection of the actual game.
My coping mechanism has been: well, it only be worse if we lose to the NYG, then S.F. beats up on them.
If NYG's have to beat GB, then I'd rather they go the rest of the way.
*(BTW, none of this would've happened had GB had the sense to resign Cullen Jenkins last summer, and Nick Collins didn't nearly break his neck against N.O. in the season opener).
I like sports, just not the modern-day Colloseum version of sports with political correctness. Too many blacks and a couple of annoying feminists have put me off.
I always thought there was something gay about grown men admiring the physical prowess of sweaty, muscular men.
Are you calling Ancient Greeks and Romans gay or something? Are you calling modern day Christians and Muslims gay too? What the heck?
You know this is my problem with all of the "gayness!" (e.g. gay identity) obsession going on thanks to gay activists.
Men back in the day, in patriarchal societies, could share rooms, houses, have close male friendships, exchange compliments, letters and admire one another without being called "gay!". Today there's so much pressure and it's no thanks to gay activists and their "homophobia!" cry.
They created this hypersexualized atmosphere where men can't even touch, exchange communication or look at one another without being called "homos" because "men are oh so sexy!". Thanks a lot. Freaks.
My heart as a woman goes out to everybody who wants to have strong friendships. Don't let those freaks deteer you. Don't listen when they talk about the "sexy men! oh my. men are so sexy!" mantra. Female friendships are perhaps in worser shape with all of the herd-thinking, cat-fighting, meanness and feminism (I know... I've experience it).
We're addressing all kinds of stuff now through football that the glacial pace of politics would take forever to resolve.
What does this mean? Street blacks are going to stop beating up whites because Tim Tebow has taught them respect? Jeez.
Interesting post and comments. I never got into following major sports teams. Main reason, I think, is that my Dad wasn't into it. I didn't see him get into it so I didn't either. I'm first generation born in the US. My Dad grew up in southeastern Europe and the only interest in sports there was soccer. And soccer, at that time, wasn't the big deal it is now. It mainly consisted of games and rivalry between nearby small towns where the young men formed teams. When I was growing up, soccer was hardly known in the US.
The big stink about the Superbowl every year has only been around since the 60's. Before that, I think the emphasis was more on baseball. It's mainly TV and the profits it generates because of its ability to draw crowds of viewers which has driven pro-sports to the status they have today.
I really don't have a problem if some men like to follow pro-sports. It's a matter of moderation, as in any pleasure. I'll catch a football game once in a while and can get into the game at a Superbowl party. Also, I enjoy the Olympics.
If a guy doesn't know what's going on in the world outside of sports or is so fat he can hardly roll off the couch, maybe he should spend less time watching and more time learning and doing.
The linked to video of Jones has good points. Too many Americans are hypnotized and placated by bread and circuses - just as in ancient, corrupt Rome.
I haven't watched a football game for years, although I will listen to one on the radio if I'm driving somewhere. Too many incompetent camera directors who think that the what the fans really want to see are closeups of the qb's face, or worse, the back of his helmet. And then there was the time the commissioner fined the Lions %500k (or something like that) for violating the Rooney rule when they had to hire a coach quickly, and then the stuff came out about concussions. Add to that the cheerleaders are made to dress like cheap hookers. So I'm morally opposed to much of it.
Division 1 college football isn't much better. Most programs lose huge sums of money that the students or taxpayers have to make up. The athletes usually aren't academically qualified and in some cases are paid under the table and are thugs, and often have nothing to show for the time they put in except their injuries. Not to mention that the NCAA is too politically correct when it comes to team names and logos. So I've pretty much given up on pro and college football.
"What does this mean? Street blacks are going to stop beating up whites because Tim Tebow has taught them respect? Jeez."
Yeah, that's what it means you harpy cunt. Go bake some cookies.
I've always hated sports. I must be queer or something.
For the most part, this is actually true.
I could see myself doing that as a kid but never as an adult.
Didn't mention this, but it's totally fine when kids do it. In fact, I'd encourage kids to do it as long as the player is a respectable guy.
You sound like an "I enjoy this thing ironically so its ok" SWPL.
Not at all. Some atheists go to church - same thing. I know it's irrational, but I like it anyway.
Watching those games is also bonding time with my sons
Good point. Rooting for the same sports team is a very social activity. By-far my favorite sports writer, Bill Simmons, often mentions his dad and his young son in regards to watching sports.
Men back in the day, in patriarchal societies, could share rooms, houses, have close male friendships, exchange compliments, letters and admire one another without being called "gay!". Today there's so much pressure and it's no thanks to gay activists and their "homophobia!" cry.
They created this hypersexualized atmosphere where men can't even touch, exchange communication or look at one another without being called "homos" because "men are oh so sexy!". Thanks a lot. Freaks.
Great comment. I wrote something similar awhile back:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/10/masculinity-and-male-emotions.html
I will admit I don't understand the "we" concept of fandom.
"We" didn't do shit, somebody else did. Like the "we're number one" you see at shitty bowl games from the fans of the winning team. Who's number one?
I watched a football playoff game last week and was kind of stunned, I have them on a few times a year but they usually are nothing more than background noise to me. Anyways, do the negroes always act like what I saw in NO vs. SF? Is there no behavior they find to be embarrassing on the field?
For the record, I have never owned a team jersey.
Every year that passes I find I dislike the worship more and more and just wish for it to end so I can go into a bar on a Sunday evening that is not showing NFL games.
I really think it is kind of pathetic, a bunch of grown White men worshiping degenerate negroes.
Many of those fans' wives would probably leave them for the negroes they've been schooled to love, if given the chance.
I find it similar to Michael Steele's sister the pediatrician being married to the degenerate definitely retarded Mike Tyson.
I don't know who will win the Niners -Giants game, but I guarantee that the officials will have much more influence on who wins than they should have.
That's the real reason I don't take the NFL seriously.
Chasing a ball is the kind of thing that amuses my dog. But he's far too intelligent to waste his time watching a bunch of Babuntus doing it.
These men will feel a connection to these other men, using the first-person plural pronoun "we" to describe a team full of players who could not care less about them.
How is this any less rational than nationalism, which you like? You seem to think tribalism, nationalism, racialism, etc. are somehow more meaningful than sports fandom, when they're all simply arbitrary ways that human beings seek to identify with one another.
OneSTDV,
Off Topic
I was listening to a guy on the radio from a faith based organization talking about providing malaria nets instead of using DDT. Malaria net usage is like a shit test of an entire continent. Anyway, I have figured out that malaria nets are more properly termed The African Eugenics Program. Basically anyone who is too stupid, lazy, forgetful, drunk, or otherwise lacks sense and diligence, dies or suffers extreme morbidity.
So, how long will it take to raise the genetic IQ in malaria prone areas by 1 point?
The other African Eugenics program is HIV treatment. Keep them alive and not afraid of HIV and let selection do the rest.
How is this any less rational than nationalism, which you like
Nationalism is a struggle to ensure the future for one's children and one's way of life. Thus, it's very rational.
I judge people's intelligence by how violently they detest watching sports.
Q said... I don't know who will win the Niners -Giants game, but I guarantee that the officials will have much more influence on who wins than they should have.
That's the real reason I don't take the NFL seriously.
Q brings up something I was thinging about while I was in the ideation chamber (shower). negroes only seem to excel in sports in America where there is heavy referee/official involvement in the game and very often questionable calls. I would also include in this involvement the "fake injury" time-outs, which the Williams sisters took to a whole new level in tennis (this actually caused me to stop watching tennis in the mid 90s).
(Regarding tennis, with "burst" being what makes negro backs so desirable. Wouldn't "burst" be a huge advantage to negro men's tennis players .... i.e. why are there no serious caliber negro players?)
I think the time I was pretty much done with watching pro sports was right after 1998 NBA Finals - Utah Jazz Vs. Chicago Bulls, ironically right after I had started viewing again. Utah could have and should have probably won, but the leniency given Chicago and the egregious calls against Utah were just too much to overcome in the end. The fix was in ....
How is this any less rational than nationalism, which you like? You seem to think tribalism, nationalism, racialism, etc. are somehow more meaningful than sports fandom, when they're all simply arbitrary ways that human beings seek to identify with one another.
Nationalism is also irrational, but it's highly adaptive for a society to imbue its citizens with collective pride. It's logically erred, but practically effective. Like religion. One could argue sports fandom has this same affect on a local scale, but there's no way it has the same impact as the "Bowling Alone" problems of a society without a collective ethos. (Wasn't this extremely obvious? And I love the haughty "gotcha" tone to an incredibly easy question.)
negroes only seem to excel in sports in America where there is heavy referee/official involvement in the game and very often questionable calls.
Come on. Like track right? Why do some whites on reactionary sites like to argue that blacks are not more athletic? It actually really hurts HBD and race-conscious conservatism than helps it. Plus, there's the little fact that it's obviously false, i.e. blacks really are more athletic.
Nationalism is also irrational, but it's highly adaptive for a society to imbue its citizens with collective pride. It's logically erred, but practically effective. Like religion. One could argue sports fandom has this same affect on a local scale, but there's no way it has the same impact as the "Bowling Alone" problems of a society without a collective ethos. (Wasn't this extremely obvious? And I love the haughty "gotcha" tone to an incredibly easy question.)
You only see the positive aspects of nationalism, and ignore the tens of millions killed in World War I and World War II. It's a double edged sword, which may help society a little bit but may also destroy it.
There are no "Blowing Alone" problems. In the old days, perhaps a shared ethos was good because you had to spend time with your neighbors and community, so you all needed something in common. Today, people can sort by IQ and interests, and have much more meaningful lives by associating with those who are more like themselves.
You only see the positive aspects of nationalism, and ignore the tens of millions killed in World War I and World War II.
Like most libertarians, you know nothing about history. WWII was not about nationalism.
Today, people can sort by IQ and interests, and have much more meaningful lives by associating with those who are more like themselves.
Life does not gain meaning by spending it in the company of people who are more like yourself. You'd know this if you didn't have the mindset of an adolescent.
there's the little fact that it's obviously false, i.e. blacks really are more athletic.
I think that contention is (a) unproven and (b) dubious. Unless you're taking some liberty with the term "blacks". I'd guess that the average white person is at least as athletic as the average black person.
You only see the positive aspects of nationalism, and ignore the tens of millions killed in World War I and World War II. It's a double edged sword, which may help society a little bit but may also destroy it.
People are evil - they have all sorts of ways of manifesting that evil: religion, nationalism, liberalism, Communism, thrill killing, etc.
But what is incontrovertible: no successful society EVER has not had a sense of civic duty and collective pride.
There are no "Blowing Alone" problems. In the old days, perhaps a shared ethos was good because you had to spend time with your neighbors and community, so you all needed something in common. Today, people can sort by IQ and interests, and have much more meaningful lives by associating with those who are more like themselves.
We might be able to self-segregate, but we still live amongst each other in the same country. This "sea-steading" notion of libertarianism is so unbelievably naive.
You only see the positive aspects of nationalism, and ignore the tens of millions killed in World War I and World War II. It's a double edged sword, which may help society a little bit but may also destroy it.
Also notice how you completely ignore the fact that I 100% answered your initial questioning of my philosophical consistency.
(Ironic especially considering your haughty, self-assured tone.)
Q says,
He's been to one Super Bowl.
Soon it'll be two; yet another playoff road game the friggin' .500 Giants won, their second on-the-road NFC championship victory in recent years.
F--k! I hope GB comes in second in their division next year and enters the playoffs as a wildcard! (lol!)
RE: whites and blacks being on-average equal-ability athletes. I think the verdict is still out on that one, though those oft-cited studies re. w.african performance in the olympics over the years, often cited on HBD sites, are pretty convincing of there being a genetic advantage in certain performance-specific events.
Soon it'll be two; yet another playoff road game the friggin' .500 Giants won, their second on-the-road NFC championship victory in recent years.
You invest far too much importance in this stuff. I used to do the same, in my twenties and early thirties.
I mentioned above that officials play too big a role in sports. After watching tonights game, I'm reminded that plain dumb luck also plays a big part. Manning threw a few balls which would have been interceptions nine times out of ten - but two Niner players went for the ball and collided with each other.
I would say blacks are not more athletic than Whites. They do excel at some sports which are very popular say football and basket ball, but...
saying they are more athletic is saying NHL players, MMA fighters, power-lifters, strongmen, Olympic lifters, throwers, swimmers etc are not athletic.
RE: whites and blacks being on-average equal-ability athletes. I think the verdict is still out on that one, though those oft-cited studies re. w.african performance in the olympics over the years, often cited on HBD sites, are pretty convincing of there being a genetic advantage in certain performance-specific events.
Obviously these say nothing about the performance of the average black or white person.
My sense is that the "athletic bell curve" for blacks (at least in America) is a little wider and lower than that for whites. More tail, less bell, so to speak.
I would also like to add to my list
Paratroopers, Rangers, Green Berets, Seals, CAG, PJ's, JTACS, Recon, SAS etc.
those men are all great athletes on top of 1st class military men, and all most exclusively White
Perhaps we see so few Whites in the NFl and NBA because young White males pick up on the fact they aren't welcomed and gravitate take to areas where they are
"You invest far too much importance in this stuff. I used to do the same, in my twenties and early thirties."
Hardly. for me, it's a measured mix of escape, enjoyment and fodder for family bonding. Local pro and alma mater teams only.
I read some of these anti-sports screeds in this thread, the stuff about 'surrending to the black machismo while wearing their jerseys'-stuff and have to laugh. I think to believe in it that way ---- or even to interpret it in such a dour way ------ means that one is already gone overboard.
I do enough pensive pondering in my job; a few hrs. per-weekend of brand-NFL indulgence is just sweet catharsis, however ultimately foolish.
I picked the Pats and Giants. I didn't think the Pats would have as much trouble with the Ravens as they did, but they squeaked by in the end. I guess God wanted the Ravens to lose, too, because damn if they didn't have all of their bad luck on the last couple of plays. That arm just stuck right in there and turned that touchdown into an incompletion. Talk about skin of your teeth. Then God came down and put the laces inward and they missed the chipshot field goal. LOL. I hate the Ravens. They're such a nigger jailbreak team (I know, I know, but you know I'm right and the word is apt). Ray Lewis is such a piece of shit. Everybody saw that cheap shot he took at Brady's back on the QB sneak touchdown, which had the sole purpose of injuring him after the play was over, right? Yeah, I'm so sure he never murdered anyone.
Ray, if you're reading this, you're a...aw, you know what you are. Everybody knows what you are.
Anyway, it was fun to watch the Whitest offense in football (I mean that receiving corps, wow!) send the Ravens back to their rightful place. Ever notice how the teams tend to match the cities?
I think the Giants look stronger than the Pats. The Pats did not look good against the Ravens. Maybe they'll stack up better against the Giants. I haven't followed football for a long time, so what do I know? In any case, I'm rooting for the Boston Yankees over the NYC Yankees on this one. Here's to Brady's 4th ring.
Oh, One, I think you give the players short shrift on not caring about the fans. I bet a lot of those guys love the fans and take the whole "we" thing as seriously as the fans do. Not that I'm defending the disgusting spectacle of sports fanaticism (genetic dead ends, if you ax me), mind you.
Svigor
How is this any less rational than nationalism, which you like? You seem to think tribalism, nationalism, racialism, etc. are somehow more meaningful than sports fandom, when they're all simply arbitrary ways that human beings seek to identify with one another.
Absurd. Racial nationalism makes sense. Sports tribalism is a neutered substitute.
Come on. Like track right? Why do some whites on reactionary sites like to argue that blacks are not more athletic? It actually really hurts HBD and race-conscious conservatism than helps it. Plus, there's the little fact that it's obviously false, i.e. blacks really are more athletic.
I disagree. I just think that case has not been made. I think this assertion rests on the conflation of spectator sports and athleticism. IMO, athleticism is a proxy for real world physical pursuits. But not all physical pursuits lend themselves well to spectator sports. But that doesn't invalidate them as athletics. E.g., ultra-running, the sort of athleticism displayed by Pheidippides, is dominated by Whites. Pure athleticism? Yes. Great spectator sport? Not so much. But in the real (ancient) world, it does rival jumping or sprinting as a physical pursuit. That mammoth isn't going to butcher itself.
Ask yourself how Blacks would fare without the generous substitution rules we see in Football and Basketball. But the spectator sport aspects would suffer, so...
I also have to wonder WTF the whitest offense in the NFL (my guess anyway, like I said I don't pay much attention any more) is doing in the Superbowl, why there were no Black QBs in the playoffs (AFAIK), etc.
Svigor
Stonelifter, warriors don't belong on the list because combat is not athletics. There's too much intelligence involved.
Obviously the White man is the world's supreme warrior. No contest.
But combat knows no rules. Rules are integral to athletics.
Svigor
I guess it's a grey area, and depends on how you define terms and approach the issue. E.g., yes, if you think Cornerback is the pinnacle of athleticism, then obviously Blacks are dominant. If you think Quarterback is the pinnacle, then Whites are dominant.
But all Black domination of athletics requires intellect be removed from the equation. E.g., we all know who'd win at "team survivor" (culture aside, anyway) Black vs. White. We all know Blacks would lose pretty much any free-form group competition that involves substantial amounts of thinking, cooperating, etc. Even if it did involve running and jumping. And free-form teamwork, ironically, ties into just about every pursuit upon which Black athletic domination is based. IOW, sure, if I want someone to run a fast 40, I go get a Black guy. And if I want someone to run a marathon, I go get a Kenyan guy (never mind that they're both "Black," and both suck at the other activity). But if I want a pack of guys to go run after a Mastodon and bring it down, or go take some scalps, I want White guys.
There's probably a good book in there somewhere.
Svigor
P.S., did anyone else just know the aptly-named Woodhead was going to put the rock on the ground as soon as his frantic little feet got pumping? There's something about a White guy on a kick return trying a little too hard that says, "uh-oh, fumble coming." I hope Belichick gave him a good ass reaming for that one.
Note to Woodhead: White guys should not be fumbling the ball, they should be protecting it. Keeping the simple things in mind and covering the basics is a White thing.
Was it Woodhead that let that bullet go through his hands, too? Coulda been Eidelman or Welker, though. Yeah it was a bullet, but you gotta catch those things. Catching a ball (or at least, not deflecting it up in the air like a buffoon) is not all that difficult.
I'm always astounded at what poor hands NFL receivers have, and how generous sportscasters are in praising routine catching, forgiving poor catching, etc.
Svigor
Oh, and for the last of my seemingly endless comments, WTF was with the two pendejos running backwards? Ravens back got stuffed and starts running the wrong way. Woodhead gets stuffed on a kick return and starts running the wrong way. They stop teaching these hammerheads to cut their losses and go down, or something?
It was like watching Forrest Gump.
Svigor
Both conference championship games were closer than I expected, particularly the Pat’s vs Ravens game. Brady was having s somewhat off afternoon. As well unlike last week against the Denver Broncos, the Pat’s secondary pass defense did terribly a lot of the time.
This new commenter "Q" is apparently Markos Moulitsas' roommate. Not only does he deny black athletic superiority, but he claims that "birds of a feather" denotes adolescence. Actually, sir, isn't the opposite quite in evidence? Isn't it high school kids and 20-somethings who conspicuously consort seen with blacks, browns, AC/DC's and anything else that's anti-mainstream or anti-majoritarian? Isn't this what "rock the vote" is all about?
This new commenter "Q" is apparently Markos Moulitsas' roommate. Not only does he deny black athletic superiority ..
Markos Moulitsas denies black athletic superiority?
he claims that "birds of a feather" denotes adolescence
I said nothing about "birds of a feather, you semi-literate goof-ball.
I said that those people (like BReeda) who want peoples identity to be based on "IQ and interests" and not on things like race, tribe or ethnicity, are adolescent in outlook.
You don't have to agree with what I say. But you'd impress me immensely if you displayed the ability to understand what I'm saying.
I simply take you at your word, sir. To the assertion that people would live "more meaningful lives" by associating with people like themselves, you responded that such woulod be "adolescent." How, then, does my response fail to rebut your position?
Incidentally, Mr. Q, I suspect that when you're are in the company of the black people you say you spend so much time around, you're somewhat less caustic with your comments, true?
there
soldiers are not warriors or athletes, but it takes a tremendous amount of athletic ability to make in to specops
I simply take you at your word, sir. To the assertion that people would live "more meaningful lives" by associating with people like themselves, you responded that such woulod be "adolescent." How, then, does my response fail to rebut your position?
I already explained that to you, you semi-liberate goofball. It hinges on the definition of "associating with people like themselves". Tell me what part of it you failed to understand and I'll try to guide you through it step by step.
I suspect that when you're are in the company of the black people you say you spend so much time around, you're somewhat less caustic with your comments, true?
As usual, you display the intellect of a head of cabbage. On what do you base that peculiar assumption? Do you suspect that, in addition to being as stupid as you, I'm also as gutless?
Post a Comment