Lmao, that's the most domesticated-ass take I can imagine. I mean I entirely agree with your take on football being an inherently violent sport, and it's silly to disguise it as anything else, but uh... I'm pretty sure people are funneled into violent sports because of those 32 bum-ass owners who value money/empire over health. The same type of folk who cried about NILs.
Anyway, to the topic: this rule, like many, could potentially be good for safety and still preserve what little is left of hard defense, but as has been noted - it's _all_ about enforcement.
Concussion protocol is a really great idea - given our understanding of CTE, the likelihood for tau protein bundling after repeated concussions within small time frames, creating a measure to significantly reduce that risk is important.
Yet we still got the scary Tua situation two seasons back. Everyone in the league and every single fan said "uh yeah what the **** do not put this man in the field."
It's all about application.
Well, this requires a more rigorous discussion - one we will of course not have, neither here nor as a nation - but here are a few thoughts:
Work is activity for which we are paid because we would not do it for free. That's the deal. Work, that is, exacts a price in time, in stress, sometimes in injury, in loss of autonomy, and so on. We are compensated for these sacrifices, for these losses. We "make a living"; we
earn a living. Work creates value: a lump of ore becomes an engine block, a pile of wood becomes a home, a man with a knack for violence becomes a millionaire, and so on. Work, that is redounds to the general good (or can: whether it serves the general good that we can watch knuckledraggers collide is another question) beyond what it offers the worker in the form of compensation.
Those who arrange situations in which we are compensated for work which then redounds to the general good are known as capitalists. Weaklings of various stripes love to whine about this. As we are now a nation in decline, such whiners are more abundant than they once were. The rationalization for these decadent failings typically takes the form of a sort of childish rendition of Marxist thought under which anybody who requires us to do anything is "exploiting" us. We are "victims" of "oppression" by "the bad man."
On a more philosophical level, we have lost faith in the possibility of what Locke called "
enlightened" self interest. We read all self-interest
other than our own, of course, as selfishness. Our inability to see the distinction will be fatal to our freedoms and to our autonomy.
The attitude particularly among the young is that work is an evil, an imposition to avoided if at all possible, creating the following prospect: Work will not get done, products and services will be of lesser quality and available at a higher cost. We will pay others in more vigorous nations to do our work for us, or we will import workers to do our work for us here at home. We will import "barbarians," that is, as the declining Romans did, to do what we have grown too soft to do for ourselves. We will shift from production to consumption and, as we no longer produce anything to offer in exchange, we will sell our capital assets to the still productive nations - our land, our core industries, and so on. We see this in the news every day.
We are seeking a free lunch. There is no such thing, not in the long run.
We shall see how this sort of simpering horseshit works out for us.
It won't. Look around: it isn't. As the young in other nations learn how to - work - our young people stare down their shorts in bafflement over their choice of gender that week. They do calculus: we do TikTok. They get busy
rebuilding their fallen bridges. We wring our hands over whom we might blame and wallow in the event as an occasion for weepy enjoyment of a human interest story.
So there's a little Jeremiad of a Thursday mornin'. Now I have work to do. I shall expect the usual insulting deflections. Whatever. GFY.
.
