Boston Globe Magazine: Why You Should Stop Watching Football

[goheels22002]

First texting while driving is bad(evil if you wish) and it is against the law in many states and countries around the world.
Texting while driving as been outlawed for all drivers in the following states: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota,[29] Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada. New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,[30] Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Many responses here do exactly as he said "rationalize it away"

"People get injured in every sport. Therefore, all sports are evil?"
yes injuries do happen in sports. A broken arm, knees blown out etc. Many such injuries will
have long term consequences. But injuring the brain can have long term consequence that
dramatically effects the quality of life as the injured enters the fall of their life. While many
who are watching football will retire to have freedom and joy in those years, the brain
injured football player with consequences will struggle and many will die and not be able
to enjoy the same things. All so we are entertained with a very violent sport.

I love football but I must admit the writer makes a point. So comes down to integrity.
If we believe the cost of football in terms of the lives that will suffer brain damage is
acceptable ... then we watch as unconscionable spectators of blood bathing gladiators.

If on the other hand we do not believe the cost is acceptable and continue watching then
we condemn ourselves to be lacking integrity.

The point was that Steve Almond invoked the word, "immoral." I have no problem with people who don't like football (or boxing, or auto racing, or skiing, or surfing, or baseball, or soccer) because they don't want to see people suffer head injuries. But that doesn't make those who do like to watch these sports "immoral."

If you agree with Almond and want to equate illegality with immorality, as your post implies, then you must believe that watching football should be illegal. Congress can't pass anything, anyway, but best of luck getting a bill passed that would make it illegal to watch football in the United States of America.

 

[borg]

Misogyny...really?
If it wasn't for the NFL (and NBA), the Real Housewives of Atlanta wouldn't have jobs.

 

[Ivan]

I feel bad for his mother but I really cannot remember who she played for?

 

[PATS16N0]

The whole article is one long, mind numbingly bad attempt at feigning some sense of moral superiority and sophistication, which we all know with 95% certainty he doesn't at all have in his personal life.

Basically all you're left with in the end is wishing there was a video on youtube of Kevin Nash power bombing him through his soap box.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

This was after i read the thread title...

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

My views are somewhere in the middle, so I don't expect anybody to agree with me.

• Football will get less dangerous over time, and this is a good thing, even if -- as is likely -- it diminishes the joy of the sport. The current levels of harm are just way too high.
• Football imitates war and other undesirable behavior, and this is a good thing too. Better to sublimate than to have the real version.
• Communities have often been sold a bill of goods about stadium financing. So be it. Voters and governments are, on the whole, wising up about that somewhat.

Football imitates war? But it's ok because it gets some of the potential need for war out of our system? That's some wacky connections you are making there to say the least.

There's Antietam, the Somme, Iwo, Inchon, Khe Sahn, 73 Easting. Then there are strong/athletic males in protective padding who are overseen by referees participating in a competition, albeit a competition with a distinct element of brute force, that tallies points and is normally completed within 60 minutes. How Monday night Football tangibly equates to the Battle of Stalingrad escapes me.

Saying football reinforces some level of 'undesirable behavior' is one thing. There is an argument to be put forth that it does (but certainly not limited to football or physical sporting competitions). But, again, the war connection argument is not a good one.

The connection/argument is born from, largely IMHO, a specific political point of view's belief that we live in a society that needs significant and specific shaping to their specifications. This political point of view frequently uses the negative association game (war is terrible, football is like war, therefore football is terrible) as well as hot button worlds/phrases to quiet logical dissent (for example: "you don't agree because you're a misogynist"). A political slant/view that, beneath it all, doesn't like football because it's a male only competition -- which is blatantly contradicts what they want society/people to be. It's a point of view that is pervasive within this 'writer's" profession. And it will be disregarded, hopefully, by most people.

 

[Fencer]

Football imitates war? But it's ok because it gets some of the potential need for war out of our system? That's some wacky connections you are making there to say the least.

I'll stand by that on multiple levels. For starters:

• The modern Olympics were deliberately created in large part to sublimate warlike feelings, based in large part on the not-unreasonable view that the ancient Olympics filled a similar role
• The connection between training camp and boot camp has been drawn many times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_camp
  
• And then of course there's the famous George Carlin routine. http://lybio.net/tag/george-carlin-baseball-vs-football-transcription/

 

[BSR]

What I found really odd is that the author, Steve Almond, starts off telling us a story about his elderly mother being having an acute case of dementia due to overmedication and his take away was the immorality of the NFL? I recently went through a similar thing with my father and I can't honestly say that my own self reflection couldn't have been more different.

If I was going to stand on a soapbox against a case of immorality in the world, no matter how you view it, the NFL is going to be pretty far down on the list.

 

[Fencer]

What I found really odd is that the author, Steve Almond, starts off telling us a story about his elderly mother being having an acute case of dementia due to overmedication and his take away was the immorality of the NFL? I recently went through a similar thing with my father and I can't honestly say that my own self reflection couldn't have been more different.

If I was going to stand on a soapbox against a case of immorality in the world, no matter how you view it, the NFL is going to be pretty far down on the list.

He's pretty lucky if that was his first major run-in with dementia. One of my grandmothers was a basket case. The other had strokes, which had some of the same effects. Between my wife's parents and mine we went 4-for-4 with dementia, and the only one whose dementia was entirely mild complicated it with addictions. Really just one grandfather and a deaf aunt escaped; otherwise I've seen it hit almost every elderly member of my family.

(Both grandfathers, actually, but the other one died before I was born.)

 

[BSR]

He's pretty lucky if that was his first major run-in with dementia. One of my grandmothers was a basket case. The other had strokes, which had some of the same effects. Between my wife's parents and mine we went 4-for-4 with dementia, and the only one whose dementia was entirely mild complicated it with addictions. Really just one grandfather and a deaf aunt escaped; otherwise I've seen it hit almost every elderly member of my family.

(Both grandfathers, actually, but the other one died before I was born.)

Sorry to hear that. It really is a difficult situation to deal with, especially when it is not an acute case like in this example. Between the this and the over medication of our society, I really feel he missed some larger issues if his main take away from his experience was that the NFL was immoral.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If this article had been entirely about all the things we've learned about concussions, and how football and hockey players are basically trading away quality of life for short term fame and pay, that would at least be an interesting premise worth considering. That aspect of football genuinely troubles me, and makes me feel a little more uneasy about the sport everytime I see a guy stumble off the field while some ex-player announcer says he 'got his bell rung' and complains about the resulting flag.

But "I’ve come to believe that football fosters within us a tolerance for violence, greed, misogyny, and militarism" is one of the single dumbest sentences ever written in the English language. I can at least understand the kind of mental gymnastics that might lead an agenda-driven hack to arrive at most of those characteristics, but misogyny? What the hell does football have to do with misogyny? Is physical competition just inherently misogynistic now? If so, that's one of the finest examples of the horseshoe effect that you'll ever see in action.

I'm going to give Steve Almond the benefit of the doubt and assume that he actually *does* believe this and isn't just helping the Globe push its own agenda. In which case he's a braindead idiot rather than a hypocritical sellout. He's a hack either way, though.

 

[Joker]

Brave New World.

speaking from my generational viewpoint, pre-1975,in my opinion we are basically resistant to change in NFL football. We relished the physical brutality of the sport in the 60's,70's, 80's and 90's and see all these post 2000 rules changes as diminishing the sport in some ways. This POV can certainly be flawed but it is what it is I believe.

Post 1975/80 I see the generational resistance to change as mostly minimal with the preponderance of opinion falling mainly on the side of safety first,less violence, less overall exposure to hitting(diminished camps/reps in pads) and a desire for more scoring at the cost of long practiced defensive principles.

As with anything else that shows a progression over time in our society, my generational viewpoint will die off and be replaced by this evolving iteration of the sport. We can sit here and argue back and forth about the pros and cons until the stars burn out but ultimately attrition will win out and those of you who desire a "kinder gentler" sport will most certainly get your wishes.

 

[Tunescribe]

Brave New World.

speaking from my generational viewpoint, pre-1975,in my opinion we are basically resistant to change in NFL football. We relished the physical brutality of the sport in the 60's,70's, 80's and 90's and see all these post 2000 rules changes as diminishing the sport in some ways. This POV can certainly be flawed but it is what it is I believe.

Post 1975/80 I see the generational resistance to change as mostly minimal with the preponderance of opinion falling mainly on the side of safety first,less violence, less overall exposure to hitting(diminished camps/reps in pads) and a desire for more scoring at the cost of long practiced defensive principles.

As with anything else that shows a progression over time in our society, my generational viewpoint will die off and be replaced by this evolving iteration of the sport. We can sit here and argue back and forth about the pros and cons until the stars burn out but ultimately attrition will win out and those of you who desire a "kinder gentler" sport will most certainly get your wishes.

My personal "generational gripe," as everyone knows, is the younger (ADD) generation's desire for instant stimulation/gratification from long pass plays and scoring. This is driven chiefly by fantasy football, whose concept contradicts the essence of team play on which football is based. Sadly, the money-hungry owners cater to this in slowly legislating defense out of the game toward basketball in pads. I love DEFENSE and BALANCED play, which apparently makes me a relic. Watch any NFL game from the '60s on Youtube and it almost looks like a different sport. It's frustrating.

As for the concussion/injury issue, this eventually will be solved by advancements in technology and medical science.

 

[Lavictoire]

The author starts out saying his mother has a reaction to medication that affects her brain and that gets him thinking football is evil and dangerous. Maybe big pharma and their dangerous drugs are evil and dangerous! At least write an article about that. Every other ad on tv is for drugs and then they run 30 seconds listing the side effects including blindness, violent episodes and death. Two years from now that drug is pulled off the market and the class action suits begin. Drugs hurt millions of people versus the relatively few athletes who are healthy and choose the risk for a big payday.

 

[Mainefan]

The problem with Steve Almond's article is that it presents only one side of the story. Football has many virtues. It asks people to do their best. It combines the intellectual with the physical with an intensity rarely seen elsewhere. It promotes camaraderie and team spirit. It encourages racial understanding. It brings families and communities together. It offers opportunities for people who would never otherwise have them. It provides a chance for people to exercise the desire to excel, which is an intrinsic part of human nature. It rewards effort and skill. It is a non-military way to channel aggressive impulses (like the Olympics). It provides entertainment for tens of millions and enriches our lives. Almond's points are not wrong, but he has ignored the benefits of the game, not to mention the improvements that are being made, which greatly weakens his case. And by the way, this is not a liberal/conservative argument. I'm a liberal and I love the game--despite its problems. This is a disagreement between people with a certain sensibility, a variety of idealism that yearns to eliminate all that is dangerous about life, and those who think danger can be minimized, but not eliminated, and that this is the nature of life.

 

[BradyManny]

Just a writer trying to get attention. This is really drivel.

Football is a beautiful sport. Really it's creation probably marks the pinnacle of competitive sports because its the only sport that allows just about every type of athlete to get on the field and contribute. It's for this reason, it becomes the most complex and intricate game.

There's obviously a player safety and health issue going on with the game. The game needs to change. But I don't see why it can't be made safer. Players will fight it (ironically), but over time it will change. More kids growing up these days are being told not to play football, and unless football adapts, some portion of talented young athletes are going to choose basketball, soccer, etc. over football. Over time, that would affect quality of product in the NFL. So it would be in football's best interest to change, and change quickly.

 

[primetime]

Morality is about Good vs Evil.

Only for, like, Aristotle, Aquinas, and maybe Heidegger. Kierkegaard and the German philosophers would certainly have a bone to pick with this, to say nothing of 20th century thinkers like Foucault and Sartre. It's probably misused here but morality is not just good vs evil.

I'm a lot more sympathetic to the argument that football is inherently problematic because of its danger than a lot of posters here but this article is pretty putrid in laying it out. TNC had a good article on the NFL and Tony Dorsett at the Atlantic people should check out though.

 

[shmessy]

Morality is about Good vs Evil.

Only for, like, Aristotle, Aquinas, and maybe Heidegger. Kierkegaard and the German philosophers would certainly have a bone to pick with this, to say nothing of 20th century thinkers like Foucault and Sartre. It's probably misused here but morality is not just good vs evil.

Ummm..........can any of these guys rush the quarterback? I heard Heidegger had an impressive vertical leap at the combine.


.

 

[Clonamery]

Morality is about Good vs Evil.

Only for, like, Aristotle, Aquinas, and maybe Heidegger. Kierkegaard and the German philosophers would certainly have a bone to pick with this, to say nothing of 20th century thinkers like Foucault and Sartre. It's probably misused here but morality is not just good vs evil.

Ummm..........can any of these guys rush the quarterback? I heard Heidegger had an impressive vertical leap at the combine.

I don't know about any of that but I once heard Emmanuel Kant couldn't. But take that for what it's worth.

 

[Gwedd]

No, I suspect he's a Loyalist!

Damned Torries....... We need pots of hot tar and barrels full of chicken feathers for to treat those rat bassids!

But seriously, to paraphrase a comment of mine from another thread, the Globe has devolved from "Breaking Stories!" to just "Breaking Wind". Red Sox sycophants, the lot of 'em.