4 ms·

Unacceptable to whom? Is the US a free country or not?

deelowe 9y ago
I thought this was pretty obvious. The OP was implying that it's comparatively unacceptable given what's happened for other professions. Also, let's not forget that there's accusations of a cover up by the NFL.
saulrh 9y ago
Well, we already ban: * Selling cigarettes to children * Building buildings that burn to the ground with everyone trapped inside * Murder So... I guess that America isn't a free country? If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems. But since none of those things are true, there're all sorts of predatory and greedy-counterproductive practices that are, yes, unacceptable, things that we have to ban for our civilization to continue to improve. I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing.
- Goladus 9y ago
  We don't ban selling cigarettes to adults, and tobacco use has plummeted since 1965. Building codes affect the general public. There is a clear and direct link between owner negligence and public harm. Building codes also help to reduce fraud and sheer incompetence among builders. It is easy to describe situations where fraud and criminal negligence leads to death and property damage to other people (not just yourself). Meanwhile there are plenty of dangerous occupations, truck drivers, for example, that are not deemed unacceptable and banned by authoritarian morality police. > If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems This standard is hardly necessary. All that is necessary is to have sufficient information to take responsibility for decisions you make and their consequences. That is known as agency. Of course it's different if your decisions affect others. I could certainly see holding certain people or organizations (like the NFL) responsible if there has been some kind of cover-up about the long-term effects of concussions. But that's far different from a crude authoritarian ban. > I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing. In other words, you don't like football and you don't like the tradition, so you see no problem banning it. For you there's no downside, only upside. No, banning is not necessary, at least not some kind of national ban issued from on high. It starts with education. Parents stop letting their children play Pop Warner. High schoolers in most of the country decide not to take the risks of playing football. HS football programs decline. College recruiting pools dry up, leading to a decline in the quality and popularity of College football. From there, it's anyone's guess how the NFL will survive. Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I can assure you that the consequences of trying to issue an overnight ban of the most popular sport in the US would not be pretty.
soundwave106 9y ago
Parents, perhaps? I've seen plenty of articles headlined with something along the line of "should my kid play football?" If you knew your kid would have a 10% chance of developing CTE by playing the sport... well, I would think many parents would pause and reconsider. Certainly I would. It's still a free country. Football is nowhere near the state of being "banned" or anything close to that. Plenty of other sports with probable worse concussion issues are also popular (see: MMA) American football's huge prominence merely puts a bigger spotlight on this issue. In my opinion, the most likely outcome is equipment and/or rules changes. American football has changed rules and/or mandated equipment in the name of safety before.
enraged_camel 9y ago
What pure drivel. What does it mean to be a "free country"? Many things in the US are illegal. Does that mean we aren't "free"?
- Goladus 9y ago
  The pure drivel is this response. I strongly object to bland appeals to authority to shut down things you don't like. There are strong arguments associated with the banning of most illegal behavior. Usually these arguments are also very specific, lead to very specific restrictions, and are implemented at the most relevant jurisdiction.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    I don't want football to be illegal. But I also want the NFL to own up to and be fully transparent and forthcoming about the risks of the sport. For example, it would be great if there was a short message before each game is aired that said "the sport you are about to watch is know to cause X in players. X is an extremely painful and debilitating condition." Then play a short clip of patients suffering from X. Similarly, anyone who wants to become a player should be required to watch such a video educating them about the risks.
    - Goladus 9y ago
      I think that's still a bit heavy-handed, but it's much better than what the parent to my original comment had implied.
thephyber 9y ago
It depends in the metric. In terms of {alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, hair braiding, etc}, there are at least parts of the US that are far from "free". That concept is just marketing or propaganda, depending on who is pushing it.
- Goladus 9y ago
  Hair braiding? Could you elaborate?
Frondo 9y ago
This response, "is the US a free country?" is a thought-terminating cliche. It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. "free country" is too vague to be meaningful; we have our freedoms curtailed in big and small ways all day every day. Wanna test this? Go ignore traffic lights. Go walk into someone else's house. Traffic laws and property rights are acceptable constraints on freedom, but they are still constraints on freedom. Please, if you're going to contribute, make it a useful contribution.
- Goladus 9y ago
  It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. You did not quote my post in its entirety. Before the saying anything about the US being a free country, I asked a pointed, important question that the parent had left undefined. The OP glibly asserted that this was "unacceptable." I asked: "unacceptable to whom?" The glib question about US being a free country was rhetorical and intended to provide some context for interpreting the first, more important question. In retrospect, I probably should have left it off, given that only one of six responses even attempted to address the more important question. It's no surprise that soundwave106's comment is far and away the most thoughtful and interesting response. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330.) I intended the 1st question to be literal and the 2nd question to be rhetorical. Instead everyone appears to have read the 2nd question to be literal and the 1st one to be rhetorical. For a more detailed version of my own thoughts on the matter, feel free to review this follow-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549

I thought this was pretty obvious. The OP was implying that it's comparatively unacceptable given what's happened for other professions. Also, let's not forget that there's accusations of a cover up by the NFL.

saulrh 9y ago

Well, we already ban: * Selling cigarettes to children * Building buildings that burn to the ground with everyone trapped inside * Murder So... I guess that America isn't a free country? If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems. But since none of those things are true, there're all sorts of predatory and greedy-counterproductive practices that are, yes, unacceptable, things that we have to ban for our civilization to continue to improve. I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing.

Goladus 9y ago
We don't ban selling cigarettes to adults, and tobacco use has plummeted since 1965. Building codes affect the general public. There is a clear and direct link between owner negligence and public harm. Building codes also help to reduce fraud and sheer incompetence among builders. It is easy to describe situations where fraud and criminal negligence leads to death and property damage to other people (not just yourself). Meanwhile there are plenty of dangerous occupations, truck drivers, for example, that are not deemed unacceptable and banned by authoritarian morality police. > If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems This standard is hardly necessary. All that is necessary is to have sufficient information to take responsibility for decisions you make and their consequences. That is known as agency. Of course it's different if your decisions affect others. I could certainly see holding certain people or organizations (like the NFL) responsible if there has been some kind of cover-up about the long-term effects of concussions. But that's far different from a crude authoritarian ban. > I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing. In other words, you don't like football and you don't like the tradition, so you see no problem banning it. For you there's no downside, only upside. No, banning is not necessary, at least not some kind of national ban issued from on high. It starts with education. Parents stop letting their children play Pop Warner. High schoolers in most of the country decide not to take the risks of playing football. HS football programs decline. College recruiting pools dry up, leading to a decline in the quality and popularity of College football. From there, it's anyone's guess how the NFL will survive. Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I can assure you that the consequences of trying to issue an overnight ban of the most popular sport in the US would not be pretty.

soundwave106 9y ago

Parents, perhaps? I've seen plenty of articles headlined with something along the line of "should my kid play football?" If you knew your kid would have a 10% chance of developing CTE by playing the sport... well, I would think many parents would pause and reconsider. Certainly I would. It's still a free country. Football is nowhere near the state of being "banned" or anything close to that. Plenty of other sports with probable worse concussion issues are also popular (see: MMA) American football's huge prominence merely puts a bigger spotlight on this issue. In my opinion, the most likely outcome is equipment and/or rules changes. American football has changed rules and/or mandated equipment in the name of safety before.

enraged_camel 9y ago

What pure drivel. What does it mean to be a "free country"? Many things in the US are illegal. Does that mean we aren't "free"?

Goladus 9y ago
The pure drivel is this response. I strongly object to bland appeals to authority to shut down things you don't like. There are strong arguments associated with the banning of most illegal behavior. Usually these arguments are also very specific, lead to very specific restrictions, and are implemented at the most relevant jurisdiction.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  I don't want football to be illegal. But I also want the NFL to own up to and be fully transparent and forthcoming about the risks of the sport. For example, it would be great if there was a short message before each game is aired that said "the sport you are about to watch is know to cause X in players. X is an extremely painful and debilitating condition." Then play a short clip of patients suffering from X. Similarly, anyone who wants to become a player should be required to watch such a video educating them about the risks.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    I think that's still a bit heavy-handed, but it's much better than what the parent to my original comment had implied.

thephyber 9y ago

It depends in the metric. In terms of {alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, hair braiding, etc}, there are at least parts of the US that are far from "free". That concept is just marketing or propaganda, depending on who is pushing it.

Goladus 9y ago
Hair braiding? Could you elaborate?

Frondo 9y ago

This response, "is the US a free country?" is a thought-terminating cliche. It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. "free country" is too vague to be meaningful; we have our freedoms curtailed in big and small ways all day every day. Wanna test this? Go ignore traffic lights. Go walk into someone else's house. Traffic laws and property rights are acceptable constraints on freedom, but they are still constraints on freedom. Please, if you're going to contribute, make it a useful contribution.

Goladus 9y ago
It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. You did not quote my post in its entirety. Before the saying anything about the US being a free country, I asked a pointed, important question that the parent had left undefined. The OP glibly asserted that this was "unacceptable." I asked: "unacceptable to whom?" The glib question about US being a free country was rhetorical and intended to provide some context for interpreting the first, more important question. In retrospect, I probably should have left it off, given that only one of six responses even attempted to address the more important question. It's no surprise that soundwave106's comment is far and away the most thoughtful and interesting response. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330.) I intended the 1st question to be literal and the 2nd question to be rhetorical. Instead everyone appears to have read the 2nd question to be literal and the 1st one to be rhetorical. For a more detailed version of my own thoughts on the matter, feel free to review this follow-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549