[rinon]

Having a valid reason why some activity is intrinsically bad (e.g. fast food) is very different from disliking such activities because they are "beneath" you. Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad. (I'd even argue that fast food itself is not intrinsically bad, but that's a different discussion)

However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. There's a difference between saying something is bad, and saying that someone is bad because they participate in or enjoy it. Making people feel bad for eating McDonalds is unlikely to make or keep friends and is therefore by definition a problem with your social skills.

[tjradcliffe]

> Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad.

Professional sports are also incredibly problematic in multiple ways. One can argue against those issues--from the corrupting influence of money to the homophobia (now finally breaking down just a little bit) to the willingness to use up players to the normalization of violence (in hockey, in particular). In the same way, one can argue that fast food has virtues that make up for its supposed "intrinsic badness" (which I don't see at all: nothing is "intrinsically" good or bad... it depends on how it is used for what for.)

> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Having strong and forthrightly held tastes and opinions is a virtue and a delight.

When I see the vast amount of money and time that is dedicated to professional sports it makes me despair of humanity. Do I want to hang around people who spend a good part of their lives on such activities? I do not. This is not a problem with my social skills.

It would be a problem with my social skills if I did hang around with them and bitched about it. But saying, "I'm glad you're having fun, but I think it's completely crazy to spend so much time and money on the activity of being a fan" is not.

And just to be clear: no one has ever been shy about telling me how far beneath contempt I am for caring more about science, art and poetry than sports. So perhaps problems with social skills exist outside of stereotyped groups that it is currently fashionable to berate regarding them.

[muaddirac]

Is the damage American Football causes to its players a valid reason for disliking the activity?

[briandear]

They know the risks and accept them. If it were dogfighting there might be an argument. I don't like football simply because I find it a bit boring. However, perhaps ironically to some, I like baseball; it's like fishing, mildly hypnotic with occasional bursts of excitement.

[steveax]

How do you square that with high school football, where the participants are minors? Would there even be a NFL without high school leagues?

[rsanek]

So do people who eat fast food also know & accept the risks or are they ignorant?

[dragonwriter]

> Sports are widely loved and not intrinsically bad.

"Sports" are not the issue. The currently-popular set of professional sports brands is the issue -- this discussion isn't about sport in the abstract, but the particular professional sports brands with which tribal identity is a major factor in contemporary American culture, and how people who aren't with the masses on this should shut up and join the masses, or else they are snobs. Or something.

[civilian]

The amount of commercials required to watch a game of football is intrinsically bad. The tax exempt status of the NFL is intrinsically bad.

[metellus]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/nflexempt.asp

Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."

[kyllo]

The fact that NFL teams get taxpayers to foot the bill for new stadium construction and then the team retains the facility as private property, now that is what I have a problem with. Those facilities are bought with public money and should be public parks.

[parineum]

I generally agree with the principal you present but you have to acknowledge that the government (and therefore, theoretically, tax payers) gain value through the stadiums presence in the community. More directly through sales tax and tourism but possibly other less direct means like property values and property taxes.

Furthermore, if that's what people want to be done with their tax money, that's their business. If enough people felt the way you do, the story would be different. See the San Diego Chargers situation for example. They may end up relocating because of lack of political backing on building a new stadium.

[XorNot]

We only establish or change what "people" want done with their tax money by public discourse on whether we think it's a good idea. That something is done by the government is hardly a reason to not question it.

[onewaystreet]

The decision to construct a new stadium is often done through a referendum, so taxpayers do get a say.

[civilian]

Ahhhh, owned by snoped. I feel dumb.

But kyllo has another good taxy point.

[omegaham]

Chinese stream. No commercials. It is, by far, the greatest thing that has happened to football.

[teddyh]

Why do the Chinese streams exist? The Chinese streams exist because Chinese people are interested in watching the games. Why are they interested? Because they are betting money on the games. Why are they doing that? Because their local teams and sport are susceptible to corruption. The obvious result? Chinese organized crime are sending people to influence these teams as well, causing corruption.

So, the Chinese streams may seem like a good thing, but they are a symptom of a bad thing.

[nwienert]

But you being a snob about it to other people is also intrinsically bad. Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.

Intrinsically bad.

[dragonwriter]

> Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that that generality is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the actual issue here; particularly, I'm not sure how hobbies that are subsidized at public expense -- and therefore at the expense of competing public priorities -- can be said to "cause no harm to others".

[dragonwriter]

> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.

Any action can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. That that is true of an action has no substantial meaning.

[darkmighty]

If you don't enjoy an activity, it is intrinsically bad for you.

[refurb]

What? So if I don't enjoy exercising it's intrinsically bad for me?

[toolz]

Sports are not intrinsically bad? Let's pretend a world without sports for a second. What do you see? I see a world where scientists and philanthropists are common household names. Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen. I see a world where when someone makes a couple hundred million a year, they don't go immediately bankrupt after retiring because their industry wasn't intrinsically broken. That healthy panhandler who refuses to contribute to society gets no credit and recognition. Why should I recognize an athlete that take illicit drugs to perform well and teaches our youth that to be recognized you need to do something completely arbitrary and useless to society.

[RobAtticus]

Maybe that's the case if you also got rid of the other professions that make up celebrities: musicians, actors/actresses, etc. I doubt removing just sports would suddenly make scientists/philanthropists household names. You'd essentially have to get rid of all forms of entertainment to do that, which seems a bit ridiculous. Besides, many athletes ARE philanthropists, who work hard to give back to their communities.

As to your last points, you shouldn't recognize athletes who take illicit drugs. Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially, take care of their family/community, and so on.

And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?

[toolz]

> Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially

In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.

And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?

Nothing. I'm not commenting on something as fickle as society, I'm commenting on the future of our species, to which I can say with great confidence that education and ingenuity will affect peoples lives infinitely longer than the contributions of any sport. The fact that some of these professional athletes contribute money is a moot point when we're discussing whether they should exist. Those resources would still exist and the chances they would be distributed to a cause that would have lasting impact would likely increase.

In fact, some of those athletes would contribute more than just money. They may be the very person who makes a mark on the history of mankind.

[t0nyh0]

> In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.

That is quite the accusation. Stereotyping at best. Because that incentive model exists in your head does not mean it reflects reality.

[michael_h]

> Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen

Not sure if you've talked to any kids lately then. My son has a small freak-out if we get near a fireman. If he got to meet an astronaut, I think me might pass out.

...and no, of course sports are not intrinsically bad. They're good exercise, a tremendous amount of fun to play, and they take focus to master. It might not be a skill that you appreciate, but it is a skill nonetheless.

All sports, presumably, sprouted from a few folks having fun and then deciding to codify the rules. Imagining a world without sports is imaging a world without fun.

[Ar-Curunir]

I'm pretty sure you're more than a bit deluded.

Sports unite communities in way few other human activities can. Plus, at least outside the US, interest in professional sports often inspires children to go outside and play, especially in the case of cricket and soccer.

[Glyptodon]

I'd say sports as an activity are good, but sports as a culture are often bad, it's just the most people don't draw a distinction.

Just look at tailgating -- at any university you can witness loads of adults setting a great example for their children by getting dead drunk en mass in front of them at every Saturday home game.

[Glyptodon]

I'm surprised at the vote swings on this one. Do people think there's nothing wrong with getting drunk in front of 5 to 11 year old children multiple weekends a year? Because I have witnessed this in my city each fall and find it troubling.

It's also a weird double standard when a lot of college campuses don't allow booze except for football tailgating.