Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this will be a very controversial question and I will get major flack for it but let me state upfront I was a long time football watcher growing up but I had an epiphany.
If we look at what is the underlying message being transmitted by the game, is it such an over reach to say it is reinforcing a social darwinistic psychology in children and fans by its example?
I mean, to me, besides the opportunity for advertisers to brainwash you, the basic message of football, stripped of all it's fanfare and cultural defenders is this:
Someone posses something of value (represented by the ball) and the object is to take it away from them by force.
I'm am particularly interested in how this may effect people's decisions in the grown up political and social realms. I'm not talking about taxes as they are the result of the choices of representatives that have been freely elected by us. I'm talking about international diplomacy and the romantic realms...Love and War.
Obviously, not everyone is a brute and some people know how to separate the psychology of violent sports from the real life world ...but I get a feeling that, for many people, the line between the two is blurred. You see so many politicians and political commentators mixing football metaphors with politics and you wonder, is that really a wise thing to do considering the social darwinistic nature of a game like football which strongly implies the use of "force" as a positive example that people should cheer.
I've been certainly guilty in the past of enjoying a good football game but I'm starting to question (actually I've questioned this since early 2000) the psychological impact and after effects of being trained through constant advertising to become mentally attached to a game that induces an endorphin rush in our brains at seeing the metaphor for the use of force on a field.
Comments, alternative views, death threats?
I'll be back later.
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 12-05-2011 at 07:38 AM..
you are right about the nature of the game and a little less stripped down it is a game of men in tights fighting over territory...
either way...i find it sad that we reject our roots ( i dont really watch football or tv at all honestly )
i mean that a little violence is natural, a little dirt is natural, the idea that we have risen above all of our faults as a collective society is preposterous i know it has not been stated but it seems to be the general consensus ...this is why hardcore academics are the scariest people to me
seriously go in a room of academics and you are likely to encounter a lot of snobbishness if you start talking about football, girls, hunting etc...they feel that is 'below' them - that they have risen above it...not true not true, only disconnected and thus have become less of a person
i am not saying football is vital to being a complete person - i am saying that embracing our nature is, and violence is definitely within our nature
just my .02
so i do not think football is a bad thing because of this..
what i do think is bad is a middle aged man who hasnt had a glimpse of glory since his senior year of high school football being addicted to watching men live their dreams while his life passes him by...this is bad.
The food chain mentality is all pervasive.
Football is a relatively small and irrelevant facet of a culture that thrives on (and is deteriorating because of) competition, domination and control.
Unless human beings evolve out of this way of being (and quickly!), we and the planet and all of its inhabitants are doomed imo.
The possession of the ball (which isn't a ball actually but that's another story) is not really the issue, as I see it.
The point of the game is that one tribe tries to do X better than another tribe.
Its not supposed to be serious or something about life or death.
That's why its called a game and not "fight to the end" thingy.
But all of life is a fight and no-one should be under any illusion that it isn't. Animals and plants don't have any such illusions.
All humans have done of late is to deceive and pretend that we have "evolved" to a higher being, when really, we haven't moved very much if at all.
The discovery and use of language has greatly aided that deception and has tricked many a person (just look at politics), but underneath that courteous, charming and smiling social facade, we're all just animals in the end, just trying to survive and none of us are more than a few steps away from killing someone, if the right ingredients are in place.
The possession of the ball (which isn't a ball actually but that's another story) is not really the issue, as I see it.
The point of the game is that one tribe tries to do X better than another tribe.
Its not supposed to be serious or something about life or death.
That's why its called a game and not "fight to the end" thingy.
But all of life is a fight and no-one should be under any illusion that it isn't. Animals and plants don't have any such illusions.
All humans have done of late is to deceive and pretend that we have "evolved" to a higher being, when really, we haven't moved very much if at all.
The discovery and use of language has greatly aided that deception and has tricked many a person (just look at politics), but underneath that courteous, charming and smiling social facade, we're all just animals in the end, just trying to survive and none of us are more than a few steps away from killing someone, if the right ingredients are in place.
well, i wouldn't say all of life is a fight. some species do cooperate to mutual benefit.
I know this will be a very controversial question and I will get major flack for it but let me state upfront I was a long time football watcher growing up but I had an epiphany.
If we look at what is the underlying message being transmitted by the game, is it such an over reach to say it is reinforcing a social darwinistic psychology in children and fans by its example?
I mean, to me, besides the opportunity for advertisers to brainwash you, the basic message of football, stripped of all it's fanfare and cultural defenders is this:
Someone posses something of value (represented by the ball) and the object is to take it away from them by force.
I'm am particularly interested in how this may effect people's decisions in the grown up political and social realms. I'm not talking about taxes as they are the result of the choices of representatives that have been freely elected by us. I'm talking about international diplomacy and the romantic realms...Love and War.
Obviously, not everyone is a brute and some people know how to separate the psychology of violent sports from the real life world ...but I get a feeling that, for many people, the line between the two is blurred. You see so many politicians and political commentators mixing football metaphors with politics and you wonder, is that really a wise thing to do considering the social darwinistic nature of a game like football which strongly implies the use of "force" as a positive example that people should cheer.
I've been certainly guilty in the past of enjoying a good football game but I'm starting to question (actually I've questioned this since early 2000) the psychological impact and after effects of being trained through constant advertising to become mentally attached to a game that induces an endorphin rush in our brains at seeing the metaphor for the use of force on a field.
Comments, alternative views, death threats?
I'll be back later.
Actually I think it's the opposite. Our biological drive for competition and dominance is the reason why sports were invented in the first place. (especially football and rugby) It's socially acceptable and less chaotic way to play out these darwinistic urges then having an all out war or massacre for that object of value.
Last edited by Ro2113; 12-05-2011 at 04:18 PM..
Reason: were instead of was
Actually I think it's the opposite. Our biological drive for competition and dominance is the reason why sports were invented in the first place. (especially football and rugby) It's socially acceptable and less chaotic way to play out these darwinistic urges then having an all out war or massacre for that object of value.
Well that's a good point though it still retains the mentality of those urges. I think Freud would call that "transference".
Actually I think it's the opposite. Our biological drive for competition and dominance is the reason why sports were invented in the first place. (especially football and rugby) It's socially acceptable and less chaotic way to play out these darwinistic urges then having an all out war or massacre for that object of value.
This is true and those who decry competitive sports are denying their own biology.
Why don't they decry the competition that exists elsewhere in society, such as school, work, personal relationships, other social situations?
The line of thought expressed by the OP often comes out of weak minds of those people who have failed in life somehow or are dissatisfied with life or who cannot compete themselves. They therefore try to explain why its "not right" that XYZ exists. No-one who is successful complains or moans about it.
I have often not been able to compete at something but the answer wasn't to say that X is wrong but to say "how can I be better at doing/playing X" or "O.K., I'm no good at X, what else can I do?"
To pretend that we can live in a splendid amiable world, where we are all civil to each other, all the time (the society that Demolition Man is awoken into is a good example) and everything is at least what we have today is a total illusion to those who sit down and think freely. It all comes at a very high cost.
There are, of course, those who still believe, despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary, that some kind of social engineering towards a "one world" society or socialist society is possible, but these baseless and defective ideas are only peddled by psychopaths, narcissists and 100% maniacs, who have failed to get what they want in the free world and who only pretend that we can all be one world for their own ends.
But we will all be one very poor & wretched world, more slaves than we are today while a small group of people control the world in untold opulence.
Such people really don't care about the masses and never have. They just use the masses and pretend to them that they are "fighting for the people". Such deceivers pretend that they want equality or fairness for all and to bring everyone equally up, but what they really want is to bring everyone equally down. Just think about it.
When has any government been responsible for human development where the government don't benefit themselves and often, disproportionally?
The poor all over the world keep voting for left leaning politicians but they are still poor. Doesn't anyone ask "When will the promises be delivered"?
If you read history, you will see how the left side of politics are the ones who have repeatedly kept the masses down, despite the endless rhetoric and the myths that left leaning politics are there "for the regular folk", pervade among many modern societies. It has been a total deception.
Political correctness is one of the key mechanisms for the above as is having the most powerful person in the world as a sympathizer.
There is of course, lots that can go wrong and will go wrong for those planning such an idea, with the meltdown of the Eurozone countries being a good current example of the consequences of trying to conjoin disparate cultures and languages, especially when no-one really wanted it.
Ultimately, some form of socialism is the denigration and destruction of the human life spirit and is based on the fallacy that we can plan & account for everything in human life.
Just look at all the trillions that have been spent on social programs and which are continuously lauded as a "good thing".
Mostly, these programs just keep people from trying and experimenting and who are kept by the taxpayer like a bottle fed baby, for years & years.
There is a price for everything in life and so you have to decide if you are willing to pay it.
Sorry for my digressing, but I have found in life that everything is connected to everything else, and such a big subject as the OP has begun is prone to touch on other areas.
Last edited by ISTJ Vortex; 12-06-2011 at 07:40 AM..
Someone posses something of value (represented by the ball) and the object is to take it away from them by force.
Darwinism isn't to do with force or "who is the stronger", his argument is to do with adaptability and evolution to circumstance, as has been proven many times.
Yes, strength comes into play sometimes, but knowledge & cleverness and application of them are others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
I'm not talking about taxes as they are the result of the choices of representatives that have been freely elected by us.
Elections are a deception, foisted upon those without power by those with. How did it happen that free thinking and intelligent adults just hand over so much of their money to an accountable black hole, every year, with very little benefit?
Last edited by groggo558; 12-06-2011 at 09:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
