Whats funny is that you could actually bring up this topic with fans of mainstream sports (especially for the NFL) and probably get a decent discussion going. Just mention things like TV timeouts and you'll probably get some level of agreement on how annoying things have gotten these days.

Of course, if you phrase it in a way similar to how you did above, people will most likely just think you were an asshole.

Of course, a similar thought most likely crossed my mind when I read the parent comment.

I love basketball. I grew up playing and refereeing it. I lost interest for about a decade, because the culture got to be too much about the personality and antics, and not the game. I've only just gotten back into it in the last year because it seems to have shifted back. And there is a lot of fun to be had attending a game.

I encourage you to quote that part of my comment. For bonus points, quote the part where I said I can't understand why people enjoy sports.

Go ahead, say, with a straight face, that such a remark was not effectively a paraphrasing of what I said and was a non-loaded question asked with sincerity. To claim that you were not implying some corporate brainwashing in what you said is, frankly, disingenuous.

I think the commenter was being a bit of an ass too, but I think he still has a defensible point, and it's not the absurd point that you're making it out to be.

Suffice to say, this: I think that it's possible to enjoy sport at a professional / high level (or local for that matter), in itself, whilst still having something of a disdain for overly crass commercialization (which varies between sports).

However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. There's a difference between saying something is bad, and saying that someone is bad because they participate in or enjoy it. Making people feel bad for eating McDonalds is unlikely to make or keep friends and is therefore by definition a problem with your social skills.

Professional sports are also incredibly problematic in multiple ways. One can argue against those issues--from the corrupting influence of money to the homophobia (now finally breaking down just a little bit) to the willingness to use up players to the normalization of violence (in hockey, in particular). In the same way, one can argue that fast food has virtues that make up for its supposed "intrinsic badness" (which I don't see at all: nothing is "intrinsically" good or bad... it depends on how it is used for what for.)

> However, even expressing contempt for intrinsically bad activities can be interpreted as offensive and hostile.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Having strong and forthrightly held tastes and opinions is a virtue and a delight.

When I see the vast amount of money and time that is dedicated to professional sports it makes me despair of humanity. Do I want to hang around people who spend a good part of their lives on such activities? I do not. This is not a problem with my social skills.

It would be a problem with my social skills if I did hang around with them and bitched about it. But saying, "I'm glad you're having fun, but I think it's completely crazy to spend so much time and money on the activity of being a fan" is not.

And just to be clear: no one has ever been shy about telling me how far beneath contempt I am for caring more about science, art and poetry than sports. So perhaps problems with social skills exist outside of stereotyped groups that it is currently fashionable to berate regarding them.

"Sports" are not the issue. The currently-popular set of professional sports brands is the issue -- this discussion isn't about sport in the abstract, but the particular professional sports brands with which tribal identity is a major factor in contemporary American culture, and how people who aren't with the masses on this should shut up and join the masses, or else they are snobs. Or something.

Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."

Furthermore, if that's what people want to be done with their tax money, that's their business. If enough people felt the way you do, the story would be different. See the San Diego Chargers situation for example. They may end up relocating because of lack of political backing on building a new stadium.

But kyllo has another good taxy point.

So, the Chinese streams may seem like a good thing, but they are a symptom of a bad thing.

Intrinsically bad.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that that generality is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the actual issue here; particularly, I'm not sure how hobbies that are subsidized at public expense -- and therefore at the expense of competing public priorities -- can be said to "cause no harm to others".

Any action can be interpreted as offensive and hostile. That that is true of an action has no substantial meaning.

As to your last points, you shouldn't recognize athletes who take illicit drugs. Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially, take care of their family/community, and so on.

And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?

In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.

And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?

Nothing. I'm not commenting on something as fickle as society, I'm commenting on the future of our species, to which I can say with great confidence that education and ingenuity will affect peoples lives infinitely longer than the contributions of any sport. The fact that some of these professional athletes contribute money is a moot point when we're discussing whether they should exist. Those resources would still exist and the chances they would be distributed to a cause that would have lasting impact would likely increase.

In fact, some of those athletes would contribute more than just money. They may be the very person who makes a mark on the history of mankind.

That is quite the accusation. Stereotyping at best. Because that incentive model exists in your head does not mean it reflects reality.

Not sure if you've talked to any kids lately then. My son has a small freak-out if we get near a fireman. If he got to meet an astronaut, I think me might pass out.

...and no, of course sports are not intrinsically bad. They're good exercise, a tremendous amount of fun to play, and they take focus to master. It might not be a skill that you appreciate, but it is a skill nonetheless.

All sports, presumably, sprouted from a few folks having fun and then deciding to codify the rules. Imagining a world without sports is imaging a world without fun.

Sports unite communities in way few other human activities can. Plus, at least outside the US, interest in professional sports often inspires children to go outside and play, especially in the case of cricket and soccer.

Just look at tailgating -- at any university you can witness loads of adults setting a great example for their children by getting dead drunk en mass in front of them at every Saturday home game.

It's also a weird double standard when a lot of college campuses don't allow booze except for football tailgating.

I guess you ask that rhetorically, but I think it is an interesting question. I'd say you have to listen through the music top charts. You also have to watch most popular movies every year. There are more TV-series than there is time to watch, so I'd guess I'll say you only have to watch one or two of your choice. Read synopses of the rest.

Furthermore you should have at least some passing familiarity with the most popular games, but there is no need to go all out. 10 hours each in final fantasy, mario, random flash games(10h total), mobile games(10h total), counterstrike, starcraft, league of legends, dota, wow,

The person who is into <extraordinarily specific topic, no matter how interesting> is always tiring to be around after a while (and can create a very one-sided social interaction).

There is more to "sports" than watching them on TV. How about participating in them? It's good for your health, sort of like not eating McDonald's.

>If I don't eat at McDonalds because I care about my health, am I unfit for socialization?

There's a difference between "not eating" (or "not liking"), and "showing overt contempt" towards.

So, yes. If you don't understand that, your social skills are probably lacking.

The context here -- starting with the article, and followed in the thread prior to your response -- was participation in the culture of fandom of popular professional sports.

Obvious, individual direct participation in sports is a completely different thing (and often a thing that competes with participation in fandom culture.)

I haven't seen a single case where being a fan has precluded children from going out and playing.

Perhaps as adults the situation might be different, but their are a whole host of other factors at play there, including health and time issues.

Imagine if we game all our attention and praise to teachers and all of our money to successful charities. Imagine if it was a cutthroat competition to become the first team of intellectuals to solve today's difficult problems.

Just because a vocal majority aren't hurting anyone, doesn't mean I have some moral obligation to respect your choices that do nothing for anyone.

We can imagine such an idealistic world, but this is completely unrealistic and crazy. People legitimately ENJOY watching and participating in sporting activities. You cannot (practically speaking) dictate what people should or should not enjoy. Suggesting better alternatives, fine, but insisting that others follow YOUR vision for a perfect world is self-centered and conceited.

I would argue that you do have a moral obligation to respect other humans which includes not purposefully hurting people's feelings for no reason. If you don't like sports, fine, but that's no reason to put down people who do.

As for a more idealistic world and my choice, I never even hinted at trying to legislate your ability to do what you want, but if you want me to clap and jump up and down and pick a favorite team because a bunch of grown people make ridiculous sums of money doing absolutely nothing for our future, well, count me out.

I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team. Humans are tribal creatures. Being in a majority doesn't give you some right to an unopposed position. Just because most everyone around you will agree with you doesn't make what you're doing right.

If you would like to define some criteria and have a discussion about whether sports makes this world a better place I will gladly show you the fault in sports.

Also to the person commenting that you could say the same for any type of entertainment (regarding it being useless). That couldn't be farther from the truth. I love aquaponics, for one. Finding new interesting ways to feed people is entertainment for me. It's not uncommon for people to enjoy creating and learning. That type of entertainment becoming more prevalent could have a significant impact on our future as a species.

Not only that, but sports can teach you a wide range of life skills. It is not simply a display of physical prowess. For example, tennis is not a competition on the basis of physical exertion alone, but of mental fortitude.

> I get it, it's comfortable to be in a vocal majority. I understand that in many conversations I'm not welcome if I don't have a favorite team.

Um, you don't have to have a favorite team. You can still enjoy and talk about the game. For example, I don't have a favorite football team, but I will listen and talk all day about the strategy of the game and if, for example, a QB can execute that particular strategy or choke.

I think they can potentially do plenty for the future. For example, why does Nadal always put two bottles in the exact same position while playing a tennis match? Hey, maybe this will be useful for some research in psychology. Or maybe a survey of head injuries in football can lead to better health care. These sportsmen are usually at the edge of physical ability. Any attempt to push the envelope gives us the opportunity to learn more about ourselves.

Do you feel the same way about musicians, actors or other artists making money?

You could say the same thing of any form of entertainment that humans have ever engaged in.