4 ms·

The US has a violence fetish, the same way that the UK has a class fetish. The football quarterback is the highest status kid in the school because he is the le

The US has a violence fetish, the same way that the UK has a class fetish. The football quarterback is the highest status kid in the school because he is the leader of an organization demonstrated to deliver and endure violence.

tgb 8y ago
Surely this is better explained as just another instance of best-player-of-most-popular-sport-is-popular? The same dynamic happens in countries where the considerably less violent of the two "footballs" is played. And star basketball players also are extraordinarily popular. Maybe the only distinction in American football being that a single individual gets to make nearly all the scoring plays and is designated with a specific role so that everyone knows who they are.
adventured 8y ago
Your premise is very weak in relation to US sports being a supporting argument. It comes across as though you've never actually played football or been on a football team. Players on one team largely go out of their way to avoid injuring players on the other team. The vast majority of the game is free motion, not the application of violence. Another large fraction of the game is what can best be described as aggressive shoving and using your body to push or block, not super violent at all. The quarterback, further, doesn't lead the defense. The job of the offense, which the QB leads, is to score. Ideally that occurs with the minimum amount of violence necessary, not the maximum amount. Offensive players mostly want to avoid that whenever possible. The quarterback does not inherently lead the team and does not lead the defense at all (ie the primary appliers of violence). The quarterback is popular because he's the center of the offense, which does the scoring, which is exciting. Not because he leads a violent machine. Basketball players in high school that are talented, are equally popular, because scoring points is exciting in every sport. Hockey is occasionally a quite violent sport. Gretzky wasn't one of the most popular players in hockey history because he was violent - it was because he scored at a rate nobody else ever has. The same goes for Mario Lemieux and countless other scorers. Baseball is particularly not violent. You know, America's pastime sport that tens of millions of people go to see every year and is wildly popular. Basketball is no more violent than soccer.
- ForRealsies 8y ago
  You're using premises. It's 2018. We only use feels now.
- privacypoller 8y ago
  You sound like maybe you've played football. If so, you must recognize that it's nothing particular about any sort of violent acts that makes it so dangerous, but the technique where action at the line teaches driving up from the shoulders to the head which leads to repetitive contact. The big open-field head-on-head hits are horrific but not the ones that lead to every single brain that's been analyzed showing evidence of CTE. The NFL will live with having to handle the freak accidents; they can't exist in a world where playing football => long term traumatic brain injury
- ggg9990 8y ago
  Perhaps a military metaphor is best —- the QB role is no more violent than Army general, and the players and soldiers are the ones who are most sickened by the violence and injury. That doesn’t change the fact that both football and war have fans who watch on TV and love to see the biggest hits and biggest bombs.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - salvar 8y ago
    Given how strongly you talk about football here you must have a good understanding of the sport. How much experience have you had with football, either playing or watching?
    - ggg9990 8y ago
      A lot of watching, and my claim is only about the fans, not the players, so I’m not sure how any playing experience would help me here. I know that millions of people have watched Lawrence Taylor’s career ending tackle of Joe Thiesmann while Lawrence Taylor has himself never watched it.

tgb 8y ago

Surely this is better explained as just another instance of best-player-of-most-popular-sport-is-popular? The same dynamic happens in countries where the considerably less violent of the two "footballs" is played. And star basketball players also are extraordinarily popular. Maybe the only distinction in American football being that a single individual gets to make nearly all the scoring plays and is designated with a specific role so that everyone knows who they are.

adventured 8y ago

Your premise is very weak in relation to US sports being a supporting argument. It comes across as though you've never actually played football or been on a football team. Players on one team largely go out of their way to avoid injuring players on the other team. The vast majority of the game is free motion, not the application of violence. Another large fraction of the game is what can best be described as aggressive shoving and using your body to push or block, not super violent at all. The quarterback, further, doesn't lead the defense. The job of the offense, which the QB leads, is to score. Ideally that occurs with the minimum amount of violence necessary, not the maximum amount. Offensive players mostly want to avoid that whenever possible. The quarterback does not inherently lead the team and does not lead the defense at all (ie the primary appliers of violence). The quarterback is popular because he's the center of the offense, which does the scoring, which is exciting. Not because he leads a violent machine. Basketball players in high school that are talented, are equally popular, because scoring points is exciting in every sport. Hockey is occasionally a quite violent sport. Gretzky wasn't one of the most popular players in hockey history because he was violent - it was because he scored at a rate nobody else ever has. The same goes for Mario Lemieux and countless other scorers. Baseball is particularly not violent. You know, America's pastime sport that tens of millions of people go to see every year and is wildly popular. Basketball is no more violent than soccer.

ForRealsies 8y ago
You're using premises. It's 2018. We only use feels now.
privacypoller 8y ago
You sound like maybe you've played football. If so, you must recognize that it's nothing particular about any sort of violent acts that makes it so dangerous, but the technique where action at the line teaches driving up from the shoulders to the head which leads to repetitive contact. The big open-field head-on-head hits are horrific but not the ones that lead to every single brain that's been analyzed showing evidence of CTE. The NFL will live with having to handle the freak accidents; they can't exist in a world where playing football => long term traumatic brain injury
ggg9990 8y ago
Perhaps a military metaphor is best —- the QB role is no more violent than Army general, and the players and soldiers are the ones who are most sickened by the violence and injury. That doesn’t change the fact that both football and war have fans who watch on TV and love to see the biggest hits and biggest bombs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- salvar 8y ago
  Given how strongly you talk about football here you must have a good understanding of the sport. How much experience have you had with football, either playing or watching?
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    A lot of watching, and my claim is only about the fans, not the players, so I’m not sure how any playing experience would help me here. I know that millions of people have watched Lawrence Taylor’s career ending tackle of Joe Thiesmann while Lawrence Taylor has himself never watched it.