[oofabz]

This position taken by Chomsky is exactly what the article is denouncing, and I think Chomsky comes off as a smug jerk here.

If Chomsky believes cheering for your classmates is stupid, then he must believe that we should be perfectly objective and treat everyone exactly the same. If you're a judge or President, you have an obligation to the public to act that way. But me, I'm glad I have the luxury of showing preference to my friends and family. I care about my neighbors more than people on the other side of the world. And yes, I will root for my home team and cheer when they win.

I don't believe it's irrational or wrong to play favorites this way. And even if it were, it's so fundamental to being human that we could not be any other way. Perhaps we are a jingoistic species.

[jamesmcq24]

I agree that it's completely rational to care more about your neighbours or family than people far away from you, but I don't think that this completely transfers to sports. You might feel good for a short time if your "home team" wins a game, but it really doesn't matter in any sort of concrete way. It won't have any lasting effect on your life.

Your neighbours or family or country succeeding could very well make a real difference in your life. I think those that dislike sports do so not because they reject preference or a sort of tribalism, but because beyond some short-lived feeling of vicarious success, sports are completely meaningless.

Mind you, so is a huge majority of entertainment...

[robg]

We are a tribal species. Teams (and schools) are modern tribes.

[jpindar]

Schools, nations, races, religions, you name it, we're just as tribal as apes. At least in sports it's fairly explicit that while I think my tribe is the best, you naturally think your tribe is the best, and that's OK, it doesn't mean either of us are bad people and we can agree to disagree.