About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The video of this debate (featuring Buzz Bissinger & Malcolm Gladwell vs. Tim Green & Jason Whitlock) can be viewed here:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/589-ban-college-football

Jason's quote is found at 34 minutes into the video. Also, a transcript of the debate can be found here:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/images/debates/past/transcripts/ban-college-football.pdf

Jason's quote is found on page 14 of the transcript.

I watched the entire debate and found it to be entertaining and satisfying. Unfortunately, the "good guys" lost this debate as Bissinger & Gladwell played to the audience's fear of some destructive boogeyman spawned from unrelenting freedom and liberty, and the resolution of such fear by offering them a socialist 'escape-back-to-the-womb' devil's bargain.

Ed


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

I also watched the whole debate, but Jesus--the audience was from NYU.

Why didn't the moderator qualify the audience:

"How many of you have ever played football at any level?"

(Not Buzz. Not Malcolm. And guaranteed, not much of that NYU audience.)

What I don't understand is, colleges like BU(ooops! BU- Boston University, or NYU, but not 'BYU') have banned football, so what is the problem? Colleges are totally free to ban football.

You know what this sounds like? And it was hinted at greatly during the debate(which probably alienated the audience)

It is the revenge of the little kids on the playground who were always picked last for kickball or whatnot, finally getting healthy. You can see that in Buzz's writing as well as his energetic rant, when his little hands were flailing about like butterflies on a hot Texas night.

And I don't just mean "Friday Night Lights." I also just read "Father's Day" not so long ago, in which Buzz tries to get healthy after decades of self flagellation for not having a second verse by using his special needs son like a prop, and documenting his bullying abuse of the son who can't fight back and won't. My wife couldn't finish the book, she was that upset at this a-hole and his 'embarrassment' over his son.

It's not embarrassment over his special needs son; it's his own rage at his own pansy assed-ness, left over from his being that kid on the playground, which is why he comes across as a bully.

Being around his special needs son has not kept him from being a complete a-hole. That is his failing, not his son's.

Buzz and Malcolm were both 'watchers' and don't get football from afar, which is fine, but they take it further and propose banning it for all, as if they were the Prissy Emperors of What Others May Do In Freedom.

Let BU ban it; we have. Let NYU ban it. No problem. Ban it nationwide?

Who are these prissy emperor wannabees, and I do mean 'prissy?'


(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/17, 10:17am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Good response. While Buzz's rant might have gotten you the most upset (because you knew his pitiful, loathing backstory), what got my goat was Malcolm Gladwell's pseudo-intellectual pretensiousness. Instead of just being okay with, say, some kind of signed waiver/disclaimer stating:
The activity of football can be hazardous to your health.
... he want's to appoint himself as the Football Czar, dictating where, when, and how the game will be played everywhere. What a control freak!

Ed


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What struck me about Malcolm's argument was that it was largely based on 'we don't know so we should ban it' ... after over 100 years of head banging fun.

But we're supposed to value his opinion on the subject because he 'watched' some football once or twice and didn't get it, and so, nobody else in the world should get it, because after all the world is all about what Malcolm likes and doesn't like.

I started reading his premise in 'Blink' and took his advice; my instant gut response to his book was 'this is crap, and this guy is a complete twit' and so I immediately stopped wasting my time.

So he and the other whiner are going to keep pouting until the world is covered in 18 inches of Nerf and it is safe for them to flail around with limp wrist abandon.

Nobody is telling them not to prance through life wearing all the brocade and feathers and sequins they want; they aren't being asked to play football, to attend football games, to watch it on tv, to eat wings, to drink beer, to attend any college other than BU or NYU, or even, if they attend Michigan, to bleed blue on fall weekends.

But nobody is anointing them Emperor of All That Others May Do In Freedom, either... except for their fellow timid tribe members in that NYU audience.

Not D1 college, but I'm picturing poor Malcolm and Buzz the outcasts in High School imagining that they were not welcome to show up at practice in August and play the game. The fact is, I've never heard of a football program in Jr High or HS that actually 'cut' players. Folks cut themselves. They either hung around and stuck it out, or they quit, but I never heard of anyone being 'cut' from the football team, unlike most other sports in HS. (Track is another example.) Anyone who wanted to hang around and do what was asked of them was free to do so. They might not start, they might not play much, but they would be part of the team, they would be respected for sticking it out with everyone else no matter if they played or not, and 99.9% of the memories and often year long experience are other than playing the games in the fall, most former players will tell you that. Perhaps that is what enrages Malcolm and Buzz about the game; they were the only ones keeping themselves from the experience, and now they rage at the idea of anyone enjoying what they feared and loathed from afar for whatever reason.

The 'Free-Dumb' argument did not resonate with the pinheada at NYU, who are all about effete elitists finally being in charge and getting healthy after all those years of getting endless wedgies... in their minds. As if, the purpose of our nation was to organize itself in such a manner as to finally allow these timid few with memories of fearful hurt feelings from their youth to finally get healthy. Malcolm and Buzz need to get over the fears and failings of their youth and just grow the f**k up.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So he and the other whiner are going to keep pouting until the world is covered in 18 inches of Nerf and it is safe for them to flail around with limp wrist abandon.
Geezus, Fred, do you ever have a way with words!

:-)

Ed


Post 5

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Ed said! Go Fred!

Post 6

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Fred. Warmed my cockles (again).

Post 7

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Seriously...this debate was on a college campus that banned football in 1942; NYU.

All in favor ... of doing what we long already did 70 years ago?

Tim Green and Jason Whitlock were travelling deep into hostile territory for this '2 on 2' debate.

For balance, let's analyze the behavior of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, and then debate the question "Ban Hollywood?" on the campus of LSU, see how enlightening the experience is. We can keep the same four debaters, just change the topic and the audience...

regards,
Fred



Post 8

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 - 8:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Another fine point you've brought us around to. I have to admit that the venue didn't cross my mind until you brought it up. I was thinking to myself:

Where? Where did Jason and Tim "blow it"? I even had 2 parts in my mind:

1) When Jason said that he was going to show how it is that his (football-ignorant) opponents' position is "ridiculous" -- which didn't go over well with the audience.
2) When Tim seemed to put his tail between his legs and meekly said: "So, we are not talking about banning football, just reforming it?"

Jason too cocky, Tim not enough. But then you "reminded" me of where this debate took place.

Doyyyyyyyyyyng!

:-)

Ed


Post 9

Friday, July 20, 2012 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Getting back to the quote, I liked Jason's point about 'free dumb.'

To chew on it a bit, I think he meant something like

Freedom for you to do what I think is dumb, and freedom for me to do what you think is dumb, but not freedom for me to do to you what you think is dumb and not freedom for you to do to me what I think is dumb.

As well, freedom to risk injury to yourself, but not freedom to risk injury to others.

There is nobody in America forced to play or watch the game of football.

This debate was all about paternalism, not peer based freedom. Paternalism in the context of American politics is a peculiar phenomena; I don't begin to understand why it is not only tolerated as much as it is, but widely embraced with candy and flowers. Especially flowers in this instance.

We elected a paternalistic megalomaniac. That is because we don't hold telethons for PM, we throw elections.

regards,
Fred





Post 10

Friday, July 20, 2012 - 6:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

I also believe, at its root, that the purpose for the debate wasn't paternalism. Paternalism was the form, but not the cause.

The cause, I believe, was deeply political. The entire ethos/culture of football is anathema to the Nerf world seeking, boot licking effete and effeminate goo represented on that panel and in that audience.

Football is a masculine warrior icon for American freedom, and according to the new class-race-gender-sexual orientation wrist flopping warriors, it has just got to go. And yet, in the modern age, the wrist flopping is widely accepted. Not a problem. Flit around in all the brocade, feathers, and sequins you want, to your hearts content, flopping your wrists happily in a celebration of diversity. Go for it.

But show some peer-peer based tolerance of the freedom based choices of others; celebrate that holy diversity in all directions, including outside of the parades, beyond the Glee-like halftime show and on to the playing fields.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/20, 6:47am)


Post 11

Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

I agree all around, but especially with this:
Freedom for you to do what I think is dumb, and freedom for me to do what you think is dumb, but not freedom for me to do to you what you think is dumb and not freedom for you to do to me what I think is dumb.
Well put.

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,
But show some peer-peer based tolerance of the freedom based choices of others; celebrate that holy diversity in all directions, including outside of the parades, beyond the Glee-like halftime show and on to the playing fields.
Indeed, Glee-like halftime shows are over-rated, but we wouldn't want to get rid of them, nor sexy sprinter warm-ups for that matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJxtENsR-_s

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

She won that race before the gun.

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

She's at the top of her game and she knows it -- a truly dangerous woman. Great looks, great moves, and runs as fast as all get-out. Tough to top that. Tough to catch that. Worth it if you do, but don't bank on it. Be thankful that the camera was fast enough to keep her in focus.

I know I am.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/22, 9:54pm)


Post 15

Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 10:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
I didn't know you'd already posted that vid!

Post 16

Monday, July 23, 2012 - 5:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

No harm done. The more exposure she gets, the better.

In my view.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Fast as all get-out", Ed?  Your Texas is showing.  ;-)

Post 18

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Deanna,

I've always been a little "country" -- so it is only natural that I gravitated toward Texas.

:-)

I was the first person in my family to make it to grad school, though my dad made it through high school (and I have a cousin who made it through undergraduate college). Raised simply, I was not exposed to intellectuals (in person or even through their writings in the form of books). The first time I witnessed polished, professional writing was in high-school -- after I had already forged robust communication habits which were largely unrefined and even borderline "backwoods-sey." Minnesota, where I was raised, is like Illinois. If you ask an Illinoisian, they will tell you:

1) There is Chicago
2) There is the rest of Illinois

Minnesota is like that, too. There are the Twin Cities and -- just 20 miles outside of their borders -- there is the rest of Minnesota; made up of simpler, country folk. I know it's a little contradictory for me to be a high-brow intellectual who writes philosophical essays, and to be "country" -- but think about this: even the "smartest man in the world" (Chris Langen; highest recorded IQ) works a simple job as a bouncer in a local bar.

:-)

Ed

p.s., Tangent: Deanna, can I ask for your opinion on something? [I hope so because: Here goes.] Every couple of years or so, I flip-through an issue of Cosmopolitan -- in order to find out what it is that women want -- and I was reading about the top 10 things which they love regarding communication with men, and the top 10 things which they hate regarding communication with men. Somewhat troubling to me -- because I'm guilty of it -- was that one of the things they hated (according to Cosmopolitan) is when men use emoticons in electronic communication.

Do you think that that is largely true, or is it only a certain kind of woman (such as one who lives and breathes Cosmo) who may happen to feel that way?
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/24, 6:21pm)


Post 19

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 10:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
I don't know any women who would find emoticons hateful. At least, I don't think so. The topic has never come up. I'll poll my circle and get back to you with the results.

Obviously, I am a big fan of them. How better to express oneself more clearly in a medium that does not lend itself well to emotional expression?

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.