The Liberal Assault on the NFL

[djAdvocate]

idolizing athletes and other leaders helps cement attitudes of submission to authority, Virgil. 

you're welcome. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 18, 2014 9:41:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

idolizing athletes and other leaders helps cement attitudes of submission to authority, Virgil. 

you're welcome. 

How do athletes represent submission to authority?

You'll have to explain your thinking on that one.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 9:49:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 18, 2014 9:41:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

idolizing athletes and other leaders helps cement attitudes of submission to authority, Virgil. 

you're welcome. 

How do athletes represent submission to authority?

You'll have to explain your thinking on that one.

first of all, i said "athletes and other leaders", not "athletes".  i am talking about people that are PERCEIVED as leaders. i could have just said "celebrities".

and i didn't say "represent"- i said they are actors in a system that helps cement submissive attitudes.  now, to your question:

when a person idolizes someone, they attribute traits to them that are superior to themselves.  therefore, when they (the celebs) do or say something, they (the idolater) will presuppose that it is "right", and something that should be followed.

there are a great many things that follow from this, including many practical implications for business and government, but i am sure you can get there on your own, now. 

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, i don't think that any of this is "conscious" on the part of the idolater.  it is just how it works.

they are not thinking "he is a doctor, therefore he knows better", but if you survey people about stuff like this, that is, in fact, what they think.

which is why adverts OFTEN use people that are perceived as experts.  it triggers a submissive response.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 10:07:24 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well, let's look at where the sports culture morphed from.

At one time it was perceived that sporting activities would be a dandy way to keep kids occupied while:

1. Keeping them physically fit.

2. Teaching them how to work with others and work together for a common goal.

3. Show the benefit of hard work, practice and tenacity in achieving a goal.

4. Demonstrate the importance of "playing by the rules".

Much of this is true and applicable today, after all.

totally true.  most of what i see as problematic comes from two things:

1) sports as a business
2) the IDEA of celebrity

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 18, 2014 10:02:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 18, 2014 9:49:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

How do athletes represent submission to authority?

You'll have to explain your thinking on that one.

first of all, i said "athletes and other leaders", not "athletes".  i am talking about people that are PERCEIVED as leaders. i could have just said "celebrities".

and i didn't say "represent"- i said they are actors in a system that helps cement submissive attitudes.  now, to your question:

when a person idolizes someone, they attribute traits to them that are superior to themselves.  therefore, when they (the celebs) do or say something, they (the idolater) will presuppose that it is "right", and something that should be followed.

there are a great many things that follow from this, including many practical implications for business and government, but i am sure you can get there on your own, now. 

OK, but I don't see how emulating an athlete helps cement a submissive attitude to authority.

I could see it if athletes were strutting around like Soviet-era nationalist icons, i.e. "I win gloree for Mother Russia", which admittedly some of them do--mainly during the Olympics. But professional athletes are more often examples of renegade behaviour, loose living, and stark individualism. They boast and showboat and flout the law in many cases. Truly some of them couldn't show any less respect for authority. Kids would probably be better off emulating the die hard nationalists.

They follow the almighty dollar, and they're often treated more like commodities than human beings. Is that what you're driving at?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 14:50:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 18, 2014 10:02:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, i said "athletes and other leaders", not "athletes".  i am talking about people that are PERCEIVED as leaders. i could have just said "celebrities".

and i didn't say "represent"- i said they are actors in a system that helps cement submissive attitudes.  now, to your question:

when a person idolizes someone, they attribute traits to them that are superior to themselves.  therefore, when they (the celebs) do or say something, they (the idolater) will presuppose that it is "right", and something that should be followed.

there are a great many things that follow from this, including many practical implications for business and government, but i am sure you can get there on your own, now. 

OK, but I don't see how emulating an athlete helps cement a submissive attitude to authority.

I could see it if athletes were strutting around like Soviet-era nationalist icons, i.e. "I win gloree for Mother Russia", which admittedly some of them do--mainly during the Olympics. But professional athletes are more often examples of renegade behaviour, loose living, and stark individualism. They boast and showboat and flout the law in many cases. Truly some of them couldn't show any less respect for authority. Kids would probably be better off emulating the die hard nationalists.

They follow the almighty dollar, and they're often treated more like commodities than human beings. Is that what you're driving at?

i didn't say emulate, either.  and it doesn't have to do with athletes, per se.  i am talking about idolatry.

let's say i love Michael Jordan.  if he is giving an interview on CNN,  i am watching.  if he says that he is giving money to AIDS research, and mentions a name, i might write it down.  if he mentions a diet or exercise regimen, i might look it up.  if he says he likes Obama, i might like Obama.

but i need not choose such an obvious example.  lots of people will tend to respond this way to people in the military, or police officers, or guys in suits, or people with PhD in their name, or movie stars, or rock stars or ..... (fill in the blank).

are you saying that non-celebrities don't respond to celebrities in a submissive way?

[steff]

At least it's a football discussion with goal posts that constantly move. 

are we at 2nd and 10?  So far only 5 yard penalties.  Deleted posts are a 15 yard personal foul. 

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- there is a more general statement i wanted to make, but we are getting sidetracked by details.  i was actually more referring to the whole "rooting for a team" phenomena, as far as being a training exercise in primary jingoism.  people will actually get into fights over this nonsense, they take it that seriously.  but idolatry has a similar problem.

[steff]

Sept 18, 2014 15:17:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- there is a more general statement i wanted to make, but we are getting sidetracked by details.  i was actually more referring to the whole "rooting for a team" phenomena, as far as being a training exercise in primary jingoism.  people will actually get into fights over this nonsense, they take it that seriously.  but idolatry has a similar problem.

I'll never forget, when Houston blew the 35 point lead to Buffalo in the playoffs, a man in Houston shot his tv 9 times.  Made the news and everything. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 15:12:56 GMT -5 steff said:

At least it's a football discussion with goal posts that constantly move. 

are we at 2nd and 10?  So far only 5 yard penalties.  Deleted posts are a 15 yard personal foul. 

i get bored easily.  particularly with sports talk.  but i do like sociology. 

[billisonboard]

Sept 18, 2014 15:18:49 GMT -5 steff said:

... I'll never forget, when Houston blew the 35 point lead to Buffalo in the playoffs, a man in Houston shot his tv 9 times.  Made the news and everything. 

Too bad the guy missed his story being told on the news.

[steff]

Sept 18, 2014 17:44:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 18, 2014 15:18:49 GMT -5 steff said:

... I'll never forget, when Houston blew the 35 point lead to Buffalo in the playoffs, a man in Houston shot his tv 9 times.  Made the news and everything. 

Too bad the guy missed his story being told on the news.

It's why I keep a basket of beanie babies under my desk for throwing at the tv during football season. 

[happyhoix]

I maintain that it is neither an employer's responsibility nor its prerogative to dispense justice or manage their employees lives beyond contractual terms, no matter how high profile the employees may be. If there are unforgivable acts totally inconsistent with the corporate doctrine, etc., codify them using morals clauses in the employment contract with specific penalties and enforce the contract. Aside from that, butt out. Your social responsibility is to mind your own business

Virgil the NFL is not dispensing justice. That is up to the court system. 

The NFL is guarding their image, and at a time when they are actively trying to court female fans, they do not want to appear, in the media, to be indifferent to the fact that a wife beater works for them.  

The problem is not that this guy beat his wife - the problem is that he did it where it was captured on videotape, and THAT is what forced the NFL to take action. 

I don't care where you work, if you are caught on video tape knocking your wife unconsious and that tape and your identity makes it into the news, your employer will fire your ass. Companies do not want that kind of negative publicity. And since most jobs are at-will jobs, your employer can pretty much fire you for anything he wants.

 

[happyhoix]

Also as an interesting side note - I can't show a link for this because I heard it on the news this morning - some federal judge got arrested for beating his wife at a hotel (I think it was Atlantic city).

A FEDERAL JUDGE.

And he got something like two weeks of counseling and he's back on the bench.

A FEDERAL JUDGE. Seriously.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 19, 2014 7:11:40 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I maintain that it is neither an employer's responsibility nor its prerogative to dispense justice or manage their employees lives beyond contractual terms, no matter how high profile the employees may be. If there are unforgivable acts totally inconsistent with the corporate doctrine, etc., codify them using morals clauses in the employment contract with specific penalties and enforce the contract. Aside from that, butt out. Your social responsibility is to mind your own business

Virgil the NFL is not dispensing justice. That is up to the court system. 

The NFL is guarding their image, and at a time when they are actively trying to court female fans, they do not want to appear, in the media, to be indifferent to the fact that a wife beater works for them.  

The problem is not that this guy beat his wife - the problem is that he did it where it was captured on videotape, and THAT is what forced the NFL to take action. 

I don't care where you work, if you are caught on video tape knocking your wife unconsious and that tape and your identity makes it into the news, your employer will fire your ass. Companies do not want that kind of negative publicity. And since most jobs are at-will jobs, your employer can pretty much fire you for anything he wants.

 

I understand that it's a public relations issue, and why the NFL execs took action. In this thread I'm arguing generally against the "social responsibility" of corporations to police their employees' private lives.

[happyhoix]

Sept 19, 2014 7:27:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 19, 2014 7:11:40 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Virgil the NFL is not dispensing justice. That is up to the court system. 

The NFL is guarding their image, and at a time when they are actively trying to court female fans, they do not want to appear, in the media, to be indifferent to the fact that a wife beater works for them.  

The problem is not that this guy beat his wife - the problem is that he did it where it was captured on videotape, and THAT is what forced the NFL to take action. 

I don't care where you work, if you are caught on video tape knocking your wife unconsious and that tape and your identity makes it into the news, your employer will fire your ass. Companies do not want that kind of negative publicity. And since most jobs are at-will jobs, your employer can pretty much fire you for anything he wants.

 

I understand that it's a public relations issue, and why the NFL execs took action. In this thread I'm arguing generally against the "social responsibility" of corporations to police their employees' private lives.

Corporations do that in any number of ways. Drug testing. Checks on DMV reports. For jobs that require a security clearance or handling Chemicals of Interest, criminal background checks. For jobs that require handling money, a credit check. Since I manage hazardous waste I had to get fingerprinted and get a criminal background check done.

I guess if you don't want to have your company poking into your financial/criminal/driving record then don't apply for one of these positions - but there are actually good reasons for companies to do them (and many of them, like the fingerprinting requirement, is federally mandated). Not 'social responsibility' but liability reasons for doing them.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 19, 2014 7:14:17 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Also as an interesting side note - I can't show a link for this because I heard it on the news this morning - some federal judge got arrested for beating his wife at a hotel (I think it was Atlantic city).

A FEDERAL JUDGE.

And he got something like two weeks of counseling and he's back on the bench.

A FEDERAL JUDGE. Seriously.

Lawmakers call for resignation of judge charged with domestic violence

[mmhmm]

I would have lost my job as hospital nursing supervisor in a heartbeat over something like this. There's no way it would have been tolerated as it would have brought negative publicity to the hospital - and I wasn't paid the big bucks these guys are paid. I had no problem with that. If I'd had a problem with that, I could have chosen another place to work, or another profession.

[happyhoix]

Thanks Tennesseer.

Now that you provided his name I googled him a bit to see what actually happened. Apparently his wife called the police to their hotel room and substance abuse was involved. If he does some counseling on domestic abuse and substance abuse the battery charge will be dropped.

He is saying that he regrets that the details of what happened in the hotel room won't come out in court, so I assume he believes this wasn't a straight up battery. 

www.ajc.com/news/news/battery-charge-will-be-dropped-if-federal-judge-ge/nhGcz/

He's also saying he won't resign - don't know that a federal judge should be involved in any kind of drunken physical argument in a hotel room.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 19, 2014 9:28:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 19, 2014 7:27:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I understand that it's a public relations issue, and why the NFL execs took action. In this thread I'm arguing generally against the "social responsibility" of corporations to police their employees' private lives.

Corporations do that in any number of ways. Drug testing. Checks on DMV reports. For jobs that require a security clearance or handling Chemicals of Interest, criminal background checks. For jobs that require handling money, a credit check. Since I manage hazardous waste I had to get fingerprinted and get a criminal background check done.

I guess if you don't want to have your company poking into your financial/criminal/driving record then don't apply for one of these positions - but there are actually good reasons for companies to do them (and many of them, like the fingerprinting requirement, is federally mandated). Not 'social responsibility' but liability reasons for doing them.

I don't put things like criminal background checks and drug testing in the same category as policing private behaviour. These have very clear implications for safety and security on the job site. A football player who brawls with his wife, on the other hand, poses no reasonable threat to his fellow players.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2014 9:28:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 19, 2014 7:27:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I understand that it's a public relations issue, and why the NFL execs took action. In this thread I'm arguing generally against the "social responsibility" of corporations to police their employees' private lives.

Corporations do that in any number of ways. Drug testing. Checks on DMV reports. For jobs that require a security clearance or handling Chemicals of Interest, criminal background checks. For jobs that require handling money, a credit check. Since I manage hazardous waste I had to get fingerprinted and get a criminal background check done.

I guess if you don't want to have your company poking into your financial/criminal/driving record then don't apply for one of these positions - but there are actually good reasons for companies to do them (and many of them, like the fingerprinting requirement, is federally mandated). Not 'social responsibility' but liability reasons for doing them.

I never did any of those checks for public relations.  Me speaking as a former employer, Virgil seems to be more correct on this.

[happyhoix]

A football player who brawls with his wife, on the other hand, poses no reasonable threat to his fellow players.

Perhaps not a reasonable threat, but if I had to work with a guy who I knew beat the crap out of his wife, it would significantly impact my ability to work with him. Team morale would suffer, and that could impact the group productivity. I might burn my private area attempting to piss in his coffee cup, for one thing.


So I suppose if the guy can cover up the fact he beat his wife and got arrested for it so that his boss and co-workers don't know anything about it, he could continue to work there as a productive employee, but if it was public knowledge, I think it has the potential to be so disruptive in the workplace that many employers would fire him anyway.

Where I worked before we had a guy who, over the weekend,  got drunk and hit a car with two teenage girls in it, killing them. He didn't drink on the job and wasn't a reasonable threat to his fellow co-workers, but no one wanted to work with him. The boss fired him, technically for failing to come to work without notifying his supervisor (when he first got arrested) - but having him come back to the plant, operating his forklift like he did every day like nothing in the world was wrong, would have been just too hard on morale for the rest of us.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.  We were told it did not affect his ability to do his job, and we should just let him do his job, and besides- everyone lies about sex, so it's not 'really' perjury.  And in spite of a long record of being a womanizer, including abusing his office for the purpose, and many, many credible accusations of everything from sexual harassment and sexual assault / rape-- how this might impact others ability to work with and for him was never really a consideration in many people's minds.  Glad to see some people here have 'evolved' on this issue of a person's private conduct and character spilling over into their public job.

[Opti]

Sept 22, 2014 9:50:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.  We were told it did not affect his ability to do his job, and we should just let him do his job, and besides- everyone lies about sex, so it's not 'really' perjury.  And in spite of a long record of being a womanizer, including abusing his office for the purpose, and many, many credible accusations of everything from sexual harassment and sexual assault / rape-- how this might impact others ability to work with and for him was never really a consideration in many people's minds.  Glad to see some people here have 'evolved' on this issue of a person's private conduct and character spilling over into their public job.

There is a big difference,  at least for many of us, between a womanizer

and a man who opens a can of whup ass on his wife.

I didn't take you as someone who would have advocated domestic

violence is OK if it appears she agrees with it.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 22, 2014 9:50:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.  We were told it did not affect his ability to do his job, and we should just let him do his job, and besides- everyone lies about sex, so it's not 'really' perjury. 

huh?  i don't know of anyone who says he didn't purger himself, Paul.  not a soul.  if you disagree, back it up.

And in spite of a long record of being a womanizer, including abusing his office for the purpose, and many, many credible accusations of everything from sexual harassment and sexual assault / rape-- how this might impact others ability to work with and for him was never really a consideration in many people's minds.  Glad to see some people here have 'evolved' on this issue of a person's private conduct and character spilling over into their public job.

Clinton was a pig, and a war criminal.  he should have gone to the gallows for it.  but then again, so should every president since WW2.

still see a double standard?

[happyhoix]

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.

I never saw any credible accounts of rape.

Yes he would have put his thing in a bowl of soup if it was warm, but he did it with willing partners who were happy to bang a powerful man.  

But what he did was not a felony. Immoral and sleazy and degrading to his wife and child, but not a felony.

Punching a woman unconscious = felony.

[Virgil Showlion]

[dondub]

 After wasting $58 million on the Clinton witch-hunt all the pathetic Repos had left was a blue dress, a semen stain, and a lie to protect himself on a personal matter. All the rest are just allegations that they still need, to justify the assault. Personally, I would like the $58 million back. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 22, 2014 11:22:04 GMT -5 dondub said:

 After wasting $58 million on the Clinton witch-hunt all the pathetic Repos had left was a blue dress, a semen stain, and a lie to protect himself on a personal matter. All the rest are just allegations that they still need, to justify the assault. Personally, I would like the $58 million back. 

that, and the 5 years......