BirdsCommaAngry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 124
Bakergirl":3645npcl said:
We may be fortunate enough to not have a single fan capable of killing someone for something sports related but it isn't only limited to us and our intentions. If we're as upstanding as we think we are, that still doesn't rule out one of us doing some well-meaning, all in good fun trash-talk and getting killed by another team's fan for it. I don't think a fear or cautious attitude should rule how we go about doing things like it might seem like I'm implying by talking about what could go wrong, but it's also something we can't just ignore, particularly if we're as upstanding as we would like to think we are.
SNDavidson":3645npcl said:
But the behavior is rational to an extent. Talking trash can be fun. Touting the greatness of the Seahawks can feel good. Making light of the plight of a rival can be funny. But lots of things can do these same tricks which is why I've been asking for specifics.
We kind of got off on a tangent talking about those rare but horrible cases I suppose but they're an interesting, albeit morbid, topic too. I mean, take your example of Roy Horn getting attacked by a tiger. We could freak out about it and cast judgment on their profession or their fans for encouraging a dangerous act. You might interpret my posts as doing this about something bad which hasn't even happened yet (to our fans at least). Or we can ask why that incident happened in the first place and try to learn something from it. We can ask about what could be done to prevent that incident and then take the conversation to talking about what can be done with other potential problems to prevent bad events before they have a chance to happen. It's another rabbit hole but w/e it's the off-season and somethings gotta fill the void left by the uniform and QB threads of last year, so what the hell, right?
dunceface":3645npcl said:
I agree with some of what you say but it still begs the question of why football specifically? I still ask this because it can't be that simple. Take a look at nature programs. They show animals hunting, killing, and then feasting on each other. This is way more violent than football could ever allow itself to be and yet there isn't a singular multi-billion dollar industry dividing people into groups of thousands of fans who antagonize one another for their preferences and in rare cases even kill each other over their preferences. If violence were the key ingredient, PBS would have pull better ratings than football, and we'd have media outlets tripping over itself to provide footage from our various wars instead of distancing themselves because their readers and viewers are troubled by the violence of it. We'd also be, like Davidson mentioned as an example earlier, cheering stuff like Roy getting mauled by a lion instead of being horrified and this isn't the case. The appeal of violence in football is a specific kind of violence and it seems like only a smaller apart of the entire appeal.
I don't think the media has as big of a role as you're suggesting. If they're breeding complacency and consumerism it's because when they sell it, we buy it. Thus they keep selling it until our tastes force a change. If this is how it works, then the media is more of a product of us than us us being a product of them. This is also probably why I'm talking about these kinds of things on a football forum instead of a place that's perceived to be more serious, for those of you who were curious.
