| > "More precisely, 'there is no depth that is emotionally or intellectually relevant to me.'" That's less precise. By caricaturing the sport, he's not merely expressing that he doesn't care about the depth, he's implying it doesn't exist and that other people who care about the sport care about something pointless. It's an expression of contempt not just for the sport, but for their judgment. Like "the depth this sport may have shouldn't be relevant to anyone". It's like if someone caricatures computer programming as "just typing" and therefore unimportant -- they're not merely saying that they don't care about pointers and function calls, they're implying that there's something wrong with people who do care about those things. > "what about the contempt which sports-lovers have for sports-haters?" I'm glad you prefaced this with "contempt is bad" so it didn't appear to be a tu quoque fallacy. And you are correct, that form of contempt is also harmful. And the form of contempt sometimes displayed by groups of sports fans for other groups of sports fans is harmful. I don't think there's a lot of need to analyze the proposition "children are sometimes immature" -- I know I dished out and took my fair share of insults about everything from intelligence to looks to athleticism to choice of entertainment. But for adults, we should rise above. If a friend is genuinely passionate about something, whether it's programming or sports or stamps or butterflies, figure out a way to be supportive rather than dismissive -- listen a little bit, ask questions, and then move on. And when you move the conversation to areas of shared interest, do it in a way that respects your friend's interest in whatever it is you don't particularly care for. |