JuntoOnline

30,000... and climbing.

Thank God for priorities.

http://www.chron.com

Quote from: Beef on October 09, 2005, 06:26:35 PM
30,000... and climbing.

Thank God for priorities.

http://www.chron.com

Typical of the Houston and American press.  I've hardly heard anything about this earthquake while I keep hearing story after story of cute girls getting murdered and numerous in depth stories of hurricane after effects.  We're so myopic as a country.

It didn't happen in America, so I don't care.

Quote from: ignom on October 09, 2005, 06:48:31 PM
It didn't happen in America, so I don't care.

That's about the size of it too.

The thing is, I get that a lot of people are excited about the win and the nature of the win.  I understand that the rest of the world does not stop when major catastrophies happen elsewhere.  I get that baseball, while no longer the most favored sport in America, is still a multi-million dollar business.  And, I get that this is Texas.

I get all of that.

Still, let's break this down to the basics:

30,000 people killed vs. a baseball game.

Which one ought to be leading the front page?

To the Chronicle's credit, the story had been leading all day.  It wasn't until later when the rah-rahing suddenly became more important.

And no, I don't think it's the only paper who did it.  Nor are we the only country whose media probably did it.  Perhaps if it had hit a more modernized city or area... had more white or at least yellow people in the area... had happened somewhere not considered "third world"... maybe then...

Maybe we fulfilled our give-a-shit quotient for "lesser developed" peoples for the next few years with the tsunami. 

Maybe all that is inconsequential.  Maybe it's more about business, and how local media stand to profit more by covering large scale local events.

I don't know.

I think it's, perhaps, a combination of all of those things.  And more.

I know I'm probably no better about it than anyone else.

But I also know a baseball game shouldn't be more important.

But dude, it was 18 innings. That's, like, two games worth of baseball!  :-\

Quote from: Beef on October 09, 2005, 06:26:35 PM
30,000... and climbing.

Thank God for priorities.

http://www.chron.com

i dont care for sports and i agree with you.  called natural selection.

And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

Quote from: Beef on October 11, 2005, 09:48:02 AM
And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

well you got my vote..  will you be my president?

Quote from: Automan on October 11, 2005, 09:48:02 AM
So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

i think you're painting some black and white options there, myself. i mean, it's not quite either/or because there are three, but still.

i think there's a difference between being a realist and not feeling anything. like i think there's a difference between being objective and not feeling anything. mostly because i don't believe that it's humanly possible to not feel anything. feelings don't come with an on/off switch. we can choose how we respond to them, but they don't conveniently disappear just because we're not interested in them.

there's also a vast difference between the idea that everyone deserves mourning because they are human beings and the idea that everyone has the best intentions.

and the concept that good people and good things they do are "clearly in the minority" is something you'd need more data for on both sides, if you're going to take the objective approach.

Quote from: Automan on October 11, 2005, 09:48:02 AM
And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

In America, it's not.  But that's why the rest of the world thinks we're pieces of shit.  Often times, I agree with them.  America represents the best and worst of humanity.  We hide our shitty deeds behind the veil of our good ones and then break our arms patting ourselves on the back as we lie to each other about how great we all are.

Quote from: vikingjuice on October 11, 2005, 11:13:31 AM

Quote from: Automan on October 11, 2005, 09:48:02 AM
And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

In America, it's not.  But that's why the rest of the world thinks we're pieces of shit.  Often times, I agree with them.  America represents the best and worst of humanity.  We hide our shitty deeds behind the veil of our good ones and then break our arms patting ourselves on the back as we lie to each other about how great we all are.

sadly we've been doing that since we annexed ourselfs from england and have been giving everyone we didnt like the big ole FU since then.  Probably wont be able to change what politics and the courts have made standard practice, and if we try, will take be a long road to*recovery*

Quote from: Marixis on October 11, 2005, 11:31:56 AM

Quote from: vikingjuice on October 11, 2005, 11:13:31 AM

Quote from: Automan on October 11, 2005, 09:48:02 AM
And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

In America, it's not.  But that's why the rest of the world thinks we're pieces of shit.  Often times, I agree with them.  America represents the best and worst of humanity.  We hide our shitty deeds behind the veil of our good ones and then break our arms patting ourselves on the back as we lie to each other about how great we all are.

sadly we've been doing that since we annexed ourselfs from england and have been giving everyone we didnt like the big ole FU since then.  Probably wont be able to change what politics and the courts have made standard practice, and if we try, will take be a long road to*recovery*

True that.

you guys are on the black and white roll today.

while i won't defend our 'ugly american' image - because we do a lot of crappy stuff and are smug and self-satisfied and greedy - i will disagree and say that we have not given the rest of the world the big FU since we threw tea in the harbor. like many other countries, we support what we like, we don't support what we don't like. i don't think we're alone in that, though. it's not like japan is rushing in and helping a bunch of countries out of the goodness of their hearts.

and people in other countries don't hate us the way you might think.i know that gets a great deal of press, but i have not really experienced that. i can't believe that americans are even allowed to *visit* hiroshima and nagasaki, for example. what we did to their country is, i think, unforgiveable. but that's not how they see it, and it's not just because we helped them rebuild after the war. we helped france a lot more than we helped japan, and the french still don't like us. whatever. maybe it's because we let the the japanese buy a lot of american companies and then beat the crap out of us in auto and tech production. hard to say. 

i'm not saying that we're a fantastic country, and i'm certainly not saying that we are not arrogant capitalistic bastards, because we are. but we also give away a lot more money than other countries do, even wealthy ones. do we pick the developing areas we prefer when we send aid? yes, usually. but if that were entirely true, we would never ever send aid to, say, the congo. did we take their diamonds? yes. did we probably have at least one hand in the assassination of patrice lumumba? yep. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any developed countries - with the possible exception of maybe switzerland or something - that don't have similar choice items in their history.

i don't know - i'm as critical of our government, our national policies and our international relations as anyone - moreso than many, in fact. i don't lie about how great we are. but the entire rest of the world does not think we're assholes. nor should they.

Quote from: nishi on October 11, 2005, 02:13:50 PM
you guys are on the black and white roll today.

while i won't defend our 'ugly american' image - because we do a lot of crappy stuff and are smug and self-satisfied and greedy - i will disagree and say that we have not given the rest of the world the big FU since we threw tea in the harbor. like many other countries, we support what we like, we don't support what we don't like. i don't think we're alone in that, though. it's not like japan is rushing in and helping a bunch of countries out of the goodness of their hearts.

and people in other countries don't hate us the way you might think.i know that gets a great deal of press, but i have not really experienced that. i can't believe that americans are even allowed to *visit* hiroshima and nagasaki, for example. what we did to their country is, i think, unforgiveable. but that's not how they see it, and it's not just because we helped them rebuild after the war. we helped france a lot more than we helped japan, and the french still don't like us. whatever. maybe it's because we let the the japanese buy a lot of american companies and then beat the crap out of us in auto and tech production. hard to say. 

i'm not saying that we're a fantastic country, and i'm certainly not saying that we are not arrogant capitalistic bastards, because we are. but we also give away a lot more money than other countries do, even wealthy ones. do we pick the developing areas we prefer when we send aid? yes, usually. but if that were entirely true, we would never ever send aid to, say, the congo. did we take their diamonds? yes. did we probably have at least one hand in the assassination of patrice lumumba? yep. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any developed countries - with the possible exception of maybe switzerland or something - that don't have similar choice items in their history.

i don't know - i'm as critical of our government, our national policies and our international relations as anyone - moreso than many, in fact. i don't lie about how great we are. but the entire rest of the world does not think we're assholes. nor should they.

ok silent bob    :evil:

Quote from: nishi on October 11, 2005, 02:13:50 PM
you guys are on the black and white roll today.

while i won't defend our 'ugly american' image - because we do a lot of crappy stuff and are smug and self-satisfied and greedy - i will disagree and say that we have not given the rest of the world the big FU since we threw tea in the harbor. like many other countries, we support what we like, we don't support what we don't like. i don't think we're alone in that, though. it's not like japan is rushing in and helping a bunch of countries out of the goodness of their hearts.

and people in other countries don't hate us the way you might think.i know that gets a great deal of press, but i have not really experienced that. i can't believe that americans are even allowed to *visit* hiroshima and nagasaki, for example. what we did to their country is, i think, unforgiveable. but that's not how they see it, and it's not just because we helped them rebuild after the war. we helped france a lot more than we helped japan, and the french still don't like us. whatever. maybe it's because we let the the japanese buy a lot of american companies and then beat the crap out of us in auto and tech production. hard to say. 

i'm not saying that we're a fantastic country, and i'm certainly not saying that we are not arrogant capitalistic bastards, because we are. but we also give away a lot more money than other countries do, even wealthy ones. do we pick the developing areas we prefer when we send aid? yes, usually. but if that were entirely true, we would never ever send aid to, say, the congo. did we take their diamonds? yes. did we probably have at least one hand in the assassination of patrice lumumba? yep. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any developed countries - with the possible exception of maybe switzerland or something - that don't have similar choice items in their history.

i don't know - i'm as critical of our government, our national policies and our international relations as anyone - moreso than many, in fact. i don't lie about how great we are. but the entire rest of the world does not think we're assholes. nor should they.

I think we're all arguing basically the same side of the same argument.  The only difference being who stands on what side of the America does shitty things spectrum.

And as far as the good goes, per capita, we only rank about 15th in modern countries that give to lesser countries in need during times of crisis.  I came across that interesting tidbit a few months ago and it shocked me. 

I think the point that has been lost in this back and forth about how bad or not bad America can be, is the fact that this thread was started pointing out the ridiculous way Americans have of narrowly focusing on the local and personal issues and at times, completely ignoring much bigger, much more important world issues.  And as I see it, we're guilty as charged.

I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Quote from: Beef on October 11, 2005, 04:06:15 PM
I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Except '42'.

Quote from: Beef on October 11, 2005, 04:06:39 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 11, 2005, 04:06:15 PM
I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Except '42'.

blue 22

blu22

hut....hut... psyche.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31925

Quote from: ReBurninator on October 11, 2005, 08:27:22 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31925

Just reading the headline made me laugh out loud.

Quote from: Beef on October 12, 2005, 08:44:02 AM

Quote from: ReBurninator on October 11, 2005, 08:27:22 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31925

Just reading the headline made me laugh out loud.

That was excellent.

Quote from: Marixis on October 11, 2005, 07:42:21 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 11, 2005, 04:06:39 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 11, 2005, 04:06:15 PM
I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Except '42'.

blue 22

blu22

hut....hut... psyche.

Blue 24
Blue 24
Your mother's a whore!!

HUT HUT!!

Okay, so it's well established that I could give less than your average fecal deposit about sports.  I at least appreciate football, though I don't follow it closely (what little interest I have in it is all VJ's fault).  And I'll even admit, on my list of sports I could give less than an average fecal deposit about, baseball is pretty damn low on that list.  Watching one group of adults hit balls with sticks to another group of adults... I'm sure I have something I could be tweezing.

However, I can see people enjoying it, just like any sport.  It's just not for me.

We see those articles on the Net all of the time about how ridiculous the soccer fans are in Europe and how violent and way too seriously they take that stuff.  WAY WAY over the top.  And we sit from a distance and we chuckle at them.

Well, I just got back from walking The Dud and had a message on my machine telling me that the Astros had won again tonight.  But you know what?  I already knew.

You see, just as I was walking out the door of my townhome I heard erupt some screams the like of which you simply don't hear in everyday life.  These weren't claps or woo-hoos, these were primal, vein-bursting howls.  They were coming from two streets over, and yet I could hear them as though they were just in front of me.  It's what I imagine it sounds like to hear the tormentuous cries of a person being tortured.  Though I couldn't see them, I knew instantly that they're faces were all red, that their veins bulged, straining to keep from bursting or having an aneurysm.

Way, WAY over the top, guys.  Back away from the TV and go take a walk.

I bet these guys didn't react like that when they met the love of their lives.  Or when they proposed and heard, "yes."  Or when their first child was born.  I bet there has been no moment of real benevolence or importance in their lives that was met with this level of (frightening) enthusiasm. 

You would have thought someone had just driven bamboo shoots under their fingernails, and they were loving every agonizing minute.

Fuck.  Go volunteer at a homeless shelter, get some fucking perspective.  You wanna be happy the Astros won?  Fine, be happy.  But if you're nearly giving yourself a coronary when they win, you ought to be seeking fucking professional help.

And before everyone jumps my shit, I have been to a Texans game, just to go, and had the odd cosmic quirk happen where they actually played well and won the game.  I got into it, too.  We cheered, we high fived, we did all that cliched sportsfan crap.  I was into it.  I get it.

None of us were about to blast off into the fucking sun, however.  "Yay, they won!!", not "OMFG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *spill beer* WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *pelvic thrust the air* FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKINNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I completely understand your argument, and to some degree think you're right. You miss the point.

Sure, it's quite silly that people get so enamoured with that silly thing known as sports.  After all, it's grown men, occasionally women, indulging in the most completely out of place-out of time activities.....play.  Is it ridiculous that people get paid more than teachers, cops, fireman or soldiers to play a child's game?  Sure.  Is is ridiculous that grown adults spend countless hours a week planning and orchestrating the imaginary teams that they "own" online?  Sure.  Is it ridiculous that people buy, collect, horde, trade and study thousands of dollars worth of sports cards and memorabilia that have only the actual value that another is willing to pay to relieve them of it?  Sure.

But come on!  We live in a society where every primal, animalistic, chaotic sort of behavior is not only frowned upon, it's downright taught to be socially unforgivable.  We have no real moments in life where it is considered acceptable to pound your fist in the air in triumph.  We have no moments where it is considered acceptable to roar like a caveman who just slaughtered a large beast, enough to feed his small clan.  We have no moments where it is considered acceptable that we can dance with no music, no alcohol, and no indwelling of mystical spirit(like church).  We have no moments where it is considered acceptable to revel in the moment of watching grown behemoths battle other behemoths and fight to sudden death.

But we have sports, an event that is obviously quite trite in the big scheme of life.  But none the less, it captures the hearts and imaginations of millions across this planet.  It rings like a tuning fork in the deepest level of the human psyche and it resonates in some primal place that we socially bred out of most people considered mature by the age of 10.  And it trumpets something indescribable but long forgotten deep within us all. 

In a way, at least for me, sports is the ultimate celebration of life and all it's mechanical and biological beauty.  It's the running of the most perfectly constructed machine at it highest possible level of functioning.  Sure, it's in the context of a child's game.  But that's not the point.  It's that the men and women who perform on these giant stages and in front of national and international audiences do something that we ourselves, just aren't good enough to do at this high of a level.

It's all those things and more!  It speaks to the most sophistocated aristocrat as well as the least socially developed modern neaderthal at the same time.  Its a place where a homeless man, who should be worried about being homeless and finding food and shelter, and where a rich urbanite, who should have enough sense and social conscience to make better time and use of his many financial and intellectual gifts, can sit side by side in a sports bar or bleacher somewhere, and for 3 hours, be an equal to one another.  They can speak the same language and revel in the same moment and experience.

It's the kind of thing that can bring fathers and sons together for a short time, despite the abyss of pain, suffering, and emotional neglect/abuse the resides between them.  It's the kind of thing that can be performed with such spectacle that artisans, musicians, poets and even philosophers can enjoy for three hours.  It's the kind of thing that can heal a nation's wounds in times of war and loss.  It's the kind of thing that can give entire countries a sense of international identity and pride that otherwise they would lack.

You say that these people need to get a life.  I'd argue, that in some ways, we all need that.  But in the long search for one of those myself, in the pain and misery that accompanies the often fruitless search for meaning and worth and the having of a "life" as you define it, sports provides that extra bit that gets all us fans over the hump.  And if it that joy at something trivial doesn't make sense to you, it's okay, it's not supposed to.  It doesn't even makes sense to us.  But it does make us feel good and that's still worth something.  In fact, it feels so good, that it often provides that extra umph that we all need to get through the sham and drudgery of life.

And when we howl like banshies and pound our fists in the air making noises most commonly found in the zoo adjacent to the gorilla and hyena cages, remember, that all the pain, misery, frustration, anger that weighs us down in life is coming out in these silly moments watching grown men hits balls with sticks and playing catch.  But it comes out in joy and jubilation that is not socially exceptable to express in any other place in the world except in the presence of sport.

And that my friend, is why we act the way we do.  And it's why you can find me, every single Sunday, in the house of that other famous religion in America, the sports bar.  From 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock, service is in, and I'm pumping my fist in the air and high fiving complete strangers everytime my team secures another first down on the way to a score.

PLAY BALL!!

I don't deny most of what you just said, but I'd bet 50 bucks that neither you nor anyone else at your local sports bar emit wails like the ones I heard yesterday.  At the end of the day, sports are just sports, and if they are the only reason in ones life to emit primal, soulwrenching screams (which, for an "evolved" species, shouldn't be a necessity in the first place) then I stand by the fact that a redistribution of priorities is in need.

There are far, far more inherently meaningful moments in life that, theoretically. deserve that kind of emotional conduct.

That said, those dinks wanna make fools out of themselves, it's fine by me.  I reserve my right to mock, laugh, and consider them dinks for it.

Besides, VJ, you damn well this is Houston... they probably didn't even give half a shit about the Astros until a week ago.

You know, now that I've had my pills and taken the dog for a walk, my head is clearer and I have to flag VJ's post.  I have to take an exception to writing blank checks for stupidity.

I can honestly say that the only times in my life where I have ever emitted (or wanted to) the kinds of howls I heard yesterday were when my Crohns was so bad, so inflamed, that it had swollen and hit the nerve endings in my back and my entire torso and insides felt like they were on fire.  The kind of pain that no pill could help, but I just had to endure without choice.  And, for me, at least, that was legitimate reason to howl on that level.  So, admittedly, when I see some yahoo doing something similar over something as ultimately meaningless as a baseball game, I can't help but take exception to it.

I've heard the sports are a celebration of life and a way to channel humanity's urges argument many times before.  I think there are some superficial legitimacies to it.  But for me that's where it ends. 

Humans are competitive by nature, yes.  When it is channeled positively, it ends up in something meaningless like sports (yes it may feel good at the end of the day, but whoever wins the game means absolutely squat in the overall scheme of things).  When it is channeled negatively, you get genocide, religious persecution, war, etc. 

By saying that we need avenues to act in these overemotional ways - by justifying riots and fights and overreactions to trivial bullshit - well, like I said, it's a blank check to act like a moron and not conduct yourself in a respectable way.  And, in truth, it shows a real lack of priorities if that's what you get most worked up over.

Again, this isn't about being a fan and cheering on your team or being happy they win.  This about overreacting to it.  This is about allowing those feelings to go too far into realm of ridiculousness.  It's*a*fucking*game.

People seem to get this overarching sense of personal hubris attached to sporting events and teams in this country.  95% of people seem to channel this in at least a reasonable manner (You wanna paint your face, fine, but I reserve the right to chuckle about it; you wanna dress up like a jedi, fine, but I reserve the right to chuckle about it).  The other 5% get into fist fights, gun fights, riots, etc. as a result of some game.  That is NOT reasonable behavior from an elevated species like our own.  We ought to be able to prioritize and say, well, it's great we won, and it'll be fun to talk about tomorrow, woowoo rahrah let's get a beer and a drumstick.  But is acting like an animal or some kind of primal thing a reasonable reaction to an ultimately superfluous thing?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think it's irresponsible and shows a real lack perspective.

We're lucky in that our species has the option to prioritize importance.  We can look at life and experience and formulate what is and isn't grounds for happiness, despair, etc.  Our society, especially in Texas, thinks it's okay to act fools over sports.  I see it as misplaced emotional venting excused as rational behavior because it's easier than actually admitting that it isn't really that important.  And that goes for pretty much all hobbies - I like movies, but I can reasonably state that they're not very critical to existence.  I tear up at the end of Star Wars 3, because I have a reasonable emotional interest in the 5 films that came before it - as do people who follow a sports team through a season - but when I walk out of the theater I don't howl and moan and give myself a heart attack over the end of the series.  I can look down at my little brother and understand that the film may have moved me, but there are way more important things in life.

Nobody who isn't under some dire circumstance has to act like that.  Nor, I argue, do we as humans need to.  Many of us do, and then excuse it with varying degrees of bullshit.  Just because we can doesn't mean we should, you know?

If the people yesterday had just been clapping and yoohooing, I wouldn't have said anything at all.  But when I can hear you bursting your veins from a couple of streets over and hear the strain in your voice as though you were giving birth, you need to calm the fuck down and reprioritize.

Of course, as usual, all this is a reflection of how I ideally would like to look at humanity.  Reality is different, and not at all ideal. 

If JimBob and Daryl wanna give themselves an aneurysm over a home run, I say thanks Darwin. 

Beef:

QuoteI've heard the sports are a celebration of life and a way to channel humanity's urges argument many times before.  I think there are some superficial legitimacies to it.  But for me that's where it ends. 

See, you miss the point-again.  If that's where it ends for you, then you don't fully grasp the way in which sports exhilarates our society.  Of course it's hubris, of course it's vicarious living, of course we should be living our own lives with that sort of gusto.  But many of us, myself included, have lives that for the most part are ho-hum, occasionally depressing, very stressful and often short of what we want it to be.  Sports is a chance to cut loose from those restraints and just run wild for a few hours.

I'd dare to say, that you've never, or perhaps very seldom, had sports get into your blood in a way that you wanted to jump through a brick wall with excitement or on the down side, wanted to smash something big and expensive with a brick or a bat with frustration.  That's the way it is for some people.

For you to not understand is reasonable.  For you to act with disdain, okay there too.  For you to slam these people with contempt and arrogance because you "don't get it" is just as ridiculous as them doing it.  And it makes you look like you have a stick up your ass.

Now as far as the yahoos in your neighborhood, sure, they probably didn't give two shits about the Astros until they made the playoffs.  They're the same asshats that cheer for San Francisco when they're winning, Green Bay when they are, and so on and so forth.  We have many names for these dinks: Bandwagoners, Team of the weekers, "real" fans, and of course, dipshits.

But for you to lump every fan who hollers like a maniac in celebration, because you don't see it the same way, into some innane redneck moronic category, I think it says as much about you in the negative as it does about them.

/me does a Sox win dance.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 06:58:16 AM
That is NOT reasonable behavior from an elevated species like our own.

The man who told you humans are an elevated species has been sacked.

Otis invented the elevator.

Quote from: ignom on October 17, 2005, 09:27:49 AM
Otis invented the elevator.

I thought he just made the first autobrake for elevators...

Quote from: hattmoward on October 17, 2005, 09:29:47 AM

Quote from: ignom on October 17, 2005, 09:27:49 AM
Otis invented the elevator.

I thought he just made the first autobrake for elevators...

I just know he had something to do with them because his name is always in the crossword puzzle.

Quote from: ignom on October 17, 2005, 09:30:59 AM

Quote from: hattmoward on October 17, 2005, 09:29:47 AM

Quote from: ignom on October 17, 2005, 09:27:49 AM
Otis invented the elevator.

I thought he just made the first autobrake for elevators...

I just know he had something to do with them because his name is always in the crossword puzzle.

The elevators at work are Otis elevators.  If you call 317-259-6440 you can listen in on our elevators.

Quote from: Vikingjuice on October 17, 2005, 08:09:59 AM
Beef:

QuoteI've heard the sports are a celebration of life and a way to channel humanity's urges argument many times before.  I think there are some superficial legitimacies to it.  But for me that's where it ends. 

See, you miss the point-again.  If that's where it ends for you, then you don't fully grasp the way in which sports exhilarates our society.  Of course it's hubris, of course it's vicarious living, of course we should be living our own lives with that sort of gusto.  But many of us, myself included, have lives that for the most part are ho-hum, occasionally depressing, very stressful and often short of what we want it to be.  Sports is a chance to cut loose from those restraints and just run wild for a few hours.

I'd dare to say, that you've never, or perhaps very seldom, had sports get into your blood in a way that you wanted to jump through a brick wall with excitement or on the down side, wanted to smash something big and expensive with a brick or a bat with frustration.  That's the way it is for some people.

For you to not understand is reasonable.  For you to act with disdain, okay there too.  For you to slam these people with contempt and arrogance because you "don't get it" is just as ridiculous as them doing it.  And it makes you look like you have a stick up your ass.

Now as far as the yahoos in your neighborhood, sure, they probably didn't give two shits about the Astros until they made the playoffs.  They're the same asshats that cheer for San Francisco when they're winning, Green Bay when they are, and so on and so forth.  We have many names for these dinks: Bandwagoners, Team of the weekers, "real" fans, and of course, dipshits.

But for you to lump every fan who hollers like a maniac in celebration, because you don't see it the same way, into some innane redneck moronic category, I think it says as much about you in the negative as it does about them.

In terms of living in reality, as I said before, if JimBob wants to act the fool, go ahead.  I have every right to call him out for acting like an idiot.

In terms of idelism, I couldn't disagree more.  Again, there is a difference between happy cheering and the level of stupidity I am describing.  Having a ho-hum life is an excuse, nothing more.  What you fail to see is that we as humans have no inherent need to act that outrageously.  By your rationa,e it's okay for people to riot after a game because they have nothing to be happy about.  I couldn't disagree more.  Now, was what these guys were doing yesterday at the expense of anyone else?  Well, its arguable, though if I can hear them from two streets away I bet it is at the expense of their neighbors.  Regardless, there is such a thing as limits, and prioritizing, and there OUGHT to be limits to how fricking agitated one becomes over trivial matters.  No one is saying you can't cheer or be happy.  I'm saying there is such a thing as too much.  And for me, if you're standing, red faced, screaming over and over, like you just won the lottery, over the meaningless actions of someone else, and you are making your presence known for blocks around.  Yeah, you deserve my disdain.  You can cheer and be happy without overdoing it.

In fact, I saw lots of people outside talking about it when I was walking the dog.  People were excited.  There was a positive vibe in the air.  It was pretty cool.  Except for the jerk-offs two streets over.

It's just another example of people coming up with a plethora of excuses for behavior that they want to justify, even if they maybe shouldn't.  Hell, most people don't even think long enough to come up with an excuse.

And hey, people can think negatively about me all they want.  I'm still going to look at the next guy who is overreracting like that and call them an ass for it.  Because I think they are.

You guys sure talk a lot.

Quote from: Jessie on October 17, 2005, 10:25:30 AM
You guys sure talk a lot.

I'm actually shouting at my computer as I type.

Why is it no one else has an opinion on this matter other than VJ and I? 

I have an opinion, but I choose to wait until I can find the right words to post it.

Quoteif they are the only reason in ones life to emit primal, soulwrenching screams (which, for an "evolved" species, shouldn't be a necessity in the first place)

i thought that was an interesting idea.

outside of the whole sports discussion, i would say that being an evolved species does not negate the necessity for primal feelings and primal expressions. do i think they should be associated with sports? no. but i don't think that our evolution outranks our level of feeling. in some ways, it amplifies it, because the feelings we have are so much more complicated.

it's an intriguing thought. does our evolutionary level and our level of civilization mean that we should either not have or not express primal feelings?

on the opposite end of sports, i think of death and grief, since that is where i have seen (and experienced) feelings that i would consider 'primal', but maybe my definition of that is different than yours.

Og make fire.

Quote from: nishi on October 17, 2005, 10:33:41 AM

Quoteif they are the only reason in ones life to emit primal, soulwrenching screams (which, for an "evolved" species, shouldn't be a necessity in the first place)

i thought that was an interesting idea.

outside of the whole sports discussion, i would say that being an evolved species does not negate the necessity for primal feelings and primal expressions. do i think they should be associated with sports? no. but i don't think that our evolution outranks our level of feeling. in some ways, it amplifies it, because the feelings we have are so much more complicated.

it's an intriguing thought. does our evolutionary level and our level of civilization mean that we should either not have or not express primal feelings?

on the opposite end of sports, i think of death and grief, since that is where i have seen (and experienced) feelings that i would consider 'primal', but maybe my definition of that is different than yours.

Thank you for your response.

That's a good question.  I guess for me, who internalizes a lot, it's hard for me to see someone acting at the level of what I heard yesterday and justifying it, for almost any reason.  You had to have heard these guys - it was WAY over the limits, into the extreme. 

I suppose one could wail like that for reasons of distress.  Like I said, I have done so out of pain, which pisses me off all the more that people would act like that over something stupid.  The next time you have a real issue worth screaming about, let me know.

Screaming helps them win...

(http://www.theamericanpatriots.com/images/scream.jpg)

right?

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 10:37:13 AM

Quote from: nishi on October 17, 2005, 10:33:41 AM

Quoteif they are the only reason in ones life to emit primal, soulwrenching screams (which, for an "evolved" species, shouldn't be a necessity in the first place)

i thought that was an interesting idea.

outside of the whole sports discussion, i would say that being an evolved species does not negate the necessity for primal feelings and primal expressions. do i think they should be associated with sports? no. but i don't think that our evolution outranks our level of feeling. in some ways, it amplifies it, because the feelings we have are so much more complicated.

it's an intriguing thought. does our evolutionary level and our level of civilization mean that we should either not have or not express primal feelings?

on the opposite end of sports, i think of death and grief, since that is where i have seen (and experienced) feelings that i would consider 'primal', but maybe my definition of that is different than yours.

Thank you for your response.

That's a good question.  I guess for me, who internalizes a lot, it's hard for me to see someone acting at the level of what I heard yesterday and justifying it, for almost any reason.  You had to have heard these guys - it was WAY over the limits, into the extreme. 

I suppose one could wail like that for reasons of distress.  Like I said, I have done so out of pain, which pisses me off all the more that people would act like that over something stupid.  The next time you have a real issue worth screaming about, let me know.

and about the sports - yes, i'm a freudian, so i think that people sublimate a lot of things into sports. the less outlet for regular feelings you have, the bigger and freakier those feelings are going to get - so when you have an "opportunity" to express them, there you go.

again, i'm thinking about death (a regular event, but more specific in this thread). for instance, when the news is showing some horrible report about some unimaginable death of a child - sometimes you see parents there respond in that kind of primal way. i'm using what i hate - televised tragedy - because i think that when people express things like that, it is usually an extremely private moment and so we don't see it. i think our culture is more repressive about it - we've inherited a certain amount of the british stiff upper lip. when children in india or pakistan are hauled dead from earthquake rubble, or pulled from an exploded vehicle in iraq, then you see women - and men - screaming. wailing. ripping their clothes, tearing their hair, scratching their faces. i don't have a child, but i can certainly imagine myself responding in exactly that way in the same situation - not in the 'nice' american way of quiet tears or speechless shock.

and i know that there have been a few times in my life where i have been in enough emotional pain - again, almost exclusively associated with death and loss - that i have literally screamed myself hoarse. i feel confident that i could have outdone your neighbors.


what just now occurred to me is that i wish that, when someone made those kinds of noises - out of happiness, loss, shock, anger - that it had to do with something that was really *theirs*. that that passion wasn't just about watching the actions of others. that may be more of what you're talking about, beef. i think people are absolutely capable of that kind of feeling - i find it frustrating if they're directing it at someone else's life rather than their own.

i yell while watching a hockey game - but not nearly as loudly as i've yelled about other things.


on the third hand..... are sports, like music, like film, like art, like theatre, like literature - transformative? are we *supposed* to put ourselves in the middle of that, let those warriors fight on our behalf (like we let them do in movies?), feel their losses, their injuries, their victories? i think yes, but not to the extent that it eclipses our own ability to act and feel in our own lives. i think that's why so many people watch the olympics, even if they're not usually sports fans (and i suspect it's why things like water ballet remain "sports").

i need more coffee.

I am going to attempt to type what I am thinking.

I feel like sports is an escape.  It is also something that is used for bonding.  I remember watching football with my dad, cheering when he cheered, being dissapointed when they lost (and being Redskins fans, that was a lot).  I yell, jump up and down and cheer.  I yell at the screen when something goes wrong.  Hell, I have hugged perfect strangers in a bar when we won.  Sports are a major part of my life.

With you, movies and television are big to you.  You like to analyze, pick apart, and think about the meanings, how they are filmed, who is doing what...a rabid sports fan may not understand you.

Sometimes people are extreme when showing emotions over a sport, but to a lot of people, it is a representation of what their life is about...it brings them back to the days where after the game, they would go out in the yard and do the game winning play in their backyard like they were in the game.  They would do the commentary and for that one moment in time, everyone would see them being the one that won it all.  I knew about football before I knew about fashion.  That is always something special to me.  My dad was so excited when he found out how close I was to RFK Stadium...it reminds him of his childhood.  Sports were an escape from a not so good family life. 

The only time that I have ever truly screamed, just a noise, not screaming words, was during the week between finding out I was losing my baby and actually going through with it.

I've never experienced any joy that brought me anywhere near that.

Cheering and crying can be very cathartic experiences.   Some people experience catharsis through books, movies, other people... and some people experience this through sports.  While it may seem odd to you, it could very well be their outlet of emotion.  Just because you can't understand that certain outlet doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

I had a ton of fun watching the Final Four and I didn't even care who won, really.

Quote from: Jessie on October 17, 2005, 11:39:55 AM
I had a ton of fun watching the Final Four and I didn't even care who won, really.

I did.

Then I proceeded to do a dance with my friend Colin. 

No wailing or screaming though.  Although, there were TONS of fireworks last night.

Quote from: Alice on October 17, 2005, 11:37:20 AM
Just because you can't understand that certain outlet doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

People keep inferring that I am saying that cheering or celebrating is bad.  If anyone would like to take the time to go back and read what I posted, I at no time stated this.

What I did state, and will continue to state, is that there are limits to rational involvement, and therefore reaction, to things like sports, movies, whatever.  There is a point where it shouldn't go past.  Where it shouldn't be that important.  When I see someone screaming, not cheering, but outright fucking screaming, for minutes on end, red faced, crying, like out of something out of a Greek mythological tragedy... over a game... a movie... I think it's wrongheaded.  I think they need a fucking reality check.

I don't care if people cheer.  I wouldn't go to the movies if I didn't feel the same way.  It's all about involvement and suspense of reality.  I'm saying there is something either as a human or in Western society that encourages us to take these things much farther than we should, and this is true especially in sports.  I've never seen someone react to a movie like I heard those guys yesterday, but I have seen repeated instances of people doing it over sports.  Come jump in the amazingly wrongheaded Texas A&M vs. UT argument sometime - it's one of the biggest, most obnoxious wastes of oxygen in this state, and I'm counting Tom DeLay.  An enormous amount of irrational animosity and energy over nothing.  Self-generating bullshit.

I have not said don't cheer.  I did not say don't bond or have a good time.  I am being met with a bunch of kneejerk reactions from people who aren't paying attention to my point.  Which is:

There.  Ought.  To.  Be.  Limits.  And they should be self-imposed. 

But again, most people don't spend time thinking.  They just do.  And so, if someone wants to overreact in such a manner, it is their right to do so.  But then I have every right to call them an asshole with perspective problems for doing it.

Oh, sorry.  I just skimmed to be perfectly honest - tried to pick up main points.

But yes, if people are turning bright red from screaming at a sports game - they have anger issues that should be thoroughly examined.

/me takes out  stopwatch, mirror and color swatches, to make sure he doesn't overdo the screaming over anything irrational.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 11:55:17 AM

Quote from: Alice on October 17, 2005, 11:37:20 AM
Just because you can't understand that certain outlet doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

People keep inferring that I am saying that cheering or celebrating is bad.  If anyone would like to take the time to go back and read what I posted, I at no time stated this.

What I did state, and will continue to state, is that there are limits to rational involvement, and therefore reaction, to things like sports, movies, whatever.  There is a point where it shouldn't go past.  Where it shouldn't be that important.  When I see someone screaming, not cheering, but outright fucking screaming, for minutes on end, red faced, crying, like out of something out of a Greek mythological tragedy... over a game... a movie... I think it's wrongheaded.  I think they need a fucking reality check.

I don't care if people cheer.  I wouldn't go to the movies if I didn't feel the same way.  It's all about involvement and suspense of reality.  I'm saying there is something either as a human or in Western society that encourages us to take these things much farther than we should, and this is true especially in sports.  I've never seen someone react to a movie like I heard those guys yesterday, but I have seen repeated instances of people doing it over sports.  Come jump in the amazingly wrongheaded Texas A&M vs. UT argument sometime - it's one of the biggest, most obnoxious wastes of oxygen in this state, and I'm counting Tom DeLay.  An enormous amount of irrational animosity and energy over nothing.  Self-generating bullshit.

I have not said don't cheer.  I did not say don't bond or have a good time.  I am being met with a bunch of kneejerk reactions from people who aren't paying attention to my point.  Which is:

There.  Ought.  To.  Be.  Limits.  And they should be self-imposed. 

But again, most people don't spend time thinking.  They just do.  And so, if someone wants to overreact in such a manner, it is their right to do so.  But then I have every right to call them an asshole with perspective problems for doing it.

I read every bit of your original writing and each of the subsequent responses.  Your point may have been about limits but that's not at all the way it came across.  It came across as that of a pompous ass who doesn't understand that people see in sport the same that you see in art and who is pointing the finger of condemnation from a perilous perch on a high horse.

I still think you're being pompous to a degree, but I at least understand your point now.

Certainly, in ALL things, even exuberant expression, there SHOULD be limits.  No one, even by my rationale as you defined it, should be breaking things and rioting and pillaging and such.  Though I have broken a great many things in my repeated frustration over my beloved Dolphins, I too realize the need for restraint.

And as far as people needing a reality check, I agree, we could ALL use that.  But let's be honest, reality sucks sometimes and fantasy and vicarious living is a pretty damned fun diversion sometimes.  Otherwise, why would you ever see a film? Or listen to a song, or dance or sing or whatever?  And some might argue, since we're discussing things that need limits, that your DVD/Music collection is in the same vein of things run amouk and in need of reality checks.  I'm not condemning, I just pointing out that your argument of needing limits and being self-imposed goes in other directions.

We ALL have our "thing" that we get obsessive and a little nuts about Beef.  Mine has always been sports, football to be exact, and most anything related to it.  Your's just isn't the same thing.

Having a hobby or a collection or a habit is not the same thing as overreacting.  You are not inherently in need of a reality check just because you have one of the above.  When you act like you were just responsible for the death of your child when a movie sucks or a game is lost, then you are need of a reality check.

If it is pompous to call out people who overreact as loons, then I'm cool with being pompous.  Hell, I'm proud of it.  Being that stimulated by a game is just crap.

Now, that being said, I think we can all agree that the sports world is unique in that it actually encourages such behavior, as opposed to... I don't know... comic lovers or movie lovers or people who like knit.  It is behavior that almost everywhere else would be frowned upon.  Yet not in the sports world.  Is it that sports encourages it?  Or that the sports culture just allows for it?  Is it an extension of that same urge to compete that I touched upon with the UT vs. A&M feud?  Do we have some internal need to be odds with someone, no matter how ideologically shallow the foundation of that struggle is?  Is that compulsion a human trait, or a societal trait?

I wonder if Nishi has any thoughts about how the monks view conflict of this nature.  I bet it's vastly different than our daily perceptions.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 01:00:30 PM
Having a hobby or a collection or a habit is not the same thing as overreacting.  You are not inherently in need of a reality check just because you have one of the above.  When you act like you were just responsible for the death of your child when a movie sucks or a game is lost, then you are need of a reality check.

If it is pompous to call out people who overreact as loons, then I'm cool with being pompous.  Hell, I'm proud of it.  Being that stimulated by a game is just crap.

Now, that being said, I think we can all agree that the sports world is unique in that it actually encourages such behavior, as opposed to... I don't know... comic lovers or movie lovers or people who like knit.  It is behavior that almost everywhere else would be frowned upon.  Yet not in the sports world.  Is it that sports encourages it?  Or that the sports culture just allows for it?  Is it an extension of that same urge to compete that I touched upon with the UT vs. A&M feud?  Do we have some internal need to be odds with someone, no matter how ideologically shallow the foundation of that struggle is?  Is that compulsion a human trait, or a societal trait?

I wonder if Nishi has any thoughts about how the monks view conflict of this nature.  I bet it's vastly different than our daily perceptions.

They probably don't give a crap about sports.  But don't cross them in dominoes or penuckle.  You'll see one seriously ruffled monk!!

This makes me think....

You think the world of sports and fan behavior is out of control.  What do you think of people who wait in line for hours, days or even weeks just to see a movie or get a book?

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 01:09:13 PM
This makes me think....

You think the world of sports and fan behavior is out of control.  What do you think of people who wait in line for hours, days or even weeks just to see a movie or get a book?

Also really obessive and nuts.  Having said that, I've waited in those movie lines, I've waited in the ridiculous NFL Experience lines, and also do the waiting in Toy Store Lines for new SW toys.  In retrospect, none of those proved to be worth my time except the 3 SW film and that was only because I just waited a couple hours.

Quote from: Vikingjuice on October 17, 2005, 01:03:52 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 01:00:30 PM
Having a hobby or a collection or a habit is not the same thing as overreacting.  You are not inherently in need of a reality check just because you have one of the above.  When you act like you were just responsible for the death of your child when a movie sucks or a game is lost, then you are need of a reality check.

If it is pompous to call out people who overreact as loons, then I'm cool with being pompous.  Hell, I'm proud of it.  Being that stimulated by a game is just crap.

Now, that being said, I think we can all agree that the sports world is unique in that it actually encourages such behavior, as opposed to... I don't know... comic lovers or movie lovers or people who like knit.  It is behavior that almost everywhere else would be frowned upon.  Yet not in the sports world.  Is it that sports encourages it?  Or that the sports culture just allows for it?  Is it an extension of that same urge to compete that I touched upon with the UT vs. A&M feud?  Do we have some internal need to be odds with someone, no matter how ideologically shallow the foundation of that struggle is?  Is that compulsion a human trait, or a societal trait?

I wonder if Nishi has any thoughts about how the monks view conflict of this nature.  I bet it's vastly different than our daily perceptions.

They probably don't give a crap about sports.  But don't cross them in dominoes or penuckle.  You'll see one seriously ruffled monk!!

Pinochle.

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 01:09:13 PM
This makes me think....

You think the world of sports and fan behavior is out of control.  What do you think of people who wait in line for hours, days or even weeks just to see a movie or get a book?

If the people in that line were howling and acting like what I heard last night, then yes they're overdoing it.  If they're just waiting in line patiently, I don't see the comparison. 

I don't have the time to wait for weeks in a movie line.  I think it's pretty ridiculous.  However, to my knowledge, none of those people are acting like they just took on 42 ninjas and defeated them all without a scratch using only a loofah. 

Sports culture supports exaggerative behavior.  In a way that is very unique.  I'm just wondering what the foundation of that is.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 01:36:13 PM
However, to my knowledge, none of those people are acting like they just took on 42 ninjas and defeated them all without a scratch using only a loofah.

That's an interesting description of Bish's O face.

They way I see it, it is the same thing, but on different scales.  I will never knock someone for waiting in line to see a movie or taking the day off so they can be first in line for the latest Harry Potter book.  I will never knock the person who paints his face and wears a Cheesehead or a dress to the game.  If they are not affecting me, I don't care.  Do I think both are weird?  Hell yeah.  Will I more than likely call you a dork?  Yes (meant in a joking way of course).  But I will try to understand why you care so much...I won't make a generalized opinion.

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 01:51:32 PM
They way I see it, it is the same thing, but on different scales.  I will never knock someone for waiting in line to see a movie or taking the day off so they can be first in line for the latest Harry Potter book.  I will never knock the person who paints his face and wears a Cheesehead or a dress to the game.  If they are not affecting me, I don't care.  Do I think both are weird?  Hell yeah.  Will I more than likely call you a dork?  Yes (meant in a joking way of course).  But I will try to understand why you care so much...I won't make a generalized opinion.

I think you're looking at the outer behavior and I'm looking at the inner processes more.  I don't care if you paint your face at the game at all.  Yeah, I'll probably snicker to myself, but whatever.  Knock yourself out.  What I'm talking about is what is driving you to scream so hard your veins are bulging and people come running to see who you just ran over.  I'm talking about overreacting versus cheering.  Some of those Harry Potter folks actually role play, and it weirds me out a bit.  But then, as long as they understand it's fantasy, I guess to each their own.  When the extreme - and I recognize they are the minority - sports fans start their howling, it's not fantasy for them - no human is going to emit that sound and not believe in why they are doing so.

I'll go you one further - if I don't know you, I couldn't give less than a shit why you're interested in something.  It's never going to affect me, probably.  And if you're just another fan, you'll be drowned out with all the others I am sure.  Cheering is healthy and fun.  That's not what I am addressing. 

I'll give you an example on the reverse side of the spectrum.  I went to the first showing of LOTR: Fellowship of the Rings at midnight the night before it came out.  I waited several hours to get in with a coworker.  There was nothing particularly rabid going on.  Everyone was exicted and laid back.  Nothing obnoxious or unreasonable.  When we got in  the auditorium, however, and the start time approached, the guy sitting next to my coworker was screaming.  I mean really fucking screaming.  There was already a lot of noise and anticipatory shuffling around going on, which is to be expected.  But for this guy, it was like he was about to eat his first baby.  It was totally obnoxious and disrespectful and unnecessary.  Thankfully, where many others failed, my coworker, being a burly and irritable ex-marine, put a stop to the dude's asshattery.  That guy was a tool for letting his behavior go too far.  The rest of the audience, talking and excited and having waited for hours, were just fans.

Lots of things cause people to lose control to different degrees-Sports, Movies, Pain, Orgasms, Drugs, Grief, Jokes, etc.  Telling someone that they can only lose control for certain things sort of defeats the purpose of losing control.

If you've never lost control of yourself due to something POSITIVE, I truly feel sorry for you.

Quote from: Bennyhana on October 17, 2005, 02:19:37 PM
If you've never seen someone lose control of themselves due to the MACARENA, I truly feel sorry for you.

;D

Quote from: Bennyhana on October 17, 2005, 02:19:37 PM
Lots of things cause people to lose control to different degrees-Sports, Movies, Pain, Orgasms, Drugs, Grief, Jokes, etc.  Telling someone that they can only lose control for certain things sort of defeats the purpose of losing control.

If you've never lost control of yourself due to something POSITIVE, I truly feel sorry for you.

If you're calling what those guys did normal, reasonable, or positive, you don't need to feel sorry for me.

I don't think they lost control.  They howl because it is just THAT important to them.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 01:00:30 PM
Having a hobby or a collection or a habit is not the same thing as overreacting.  You are not inherently in need of a reality check just because you have one of the above.  When you act like you were just responsible for the death of your child when a movie sucks or a game is lost, then you are need of a reality check.

If it is pompous to call out people who overreact as loons, then I'm cool with being pompous.  Hell, I'm proud of it.  Being that stimulated by a game is just crap.

Now, that being said, I think we can all agree that the sports world is unique in that it actually encourages such behavior, as opposed to... I don't know... comic lovers or movie lovers or people who like knit.  It is behavior that almost everywhere else would be frowned upon.  Yet not in the sports world.  Is it that sports encourages it?  Or that the sports culture just allows for it?  Is it an extension of that same urge to compete that I touched upon with the UT vs. A&M feud?  Do we have some internal need to be odds with someone, no matter how ideologically shallow the foundation of that struggle is?  Is that compulsion a human trait, or a societal trait?

I wonder if Nishi has any thoughts about how the monks view conflict of this nature.  I bet it's vastly different than our daily perceptions.

the sports world is unique in the way that it encourages that behavior. the only other person that i've recently seen publicly behave that way because they were happy is tom cruise..... god knows no one is trying to encourage him.

i would perhaps argue that people who take on the life of characters - like the trekkies - are equally passionate about something just as imagined, and they are not usually people held up as examples of good social skills.

it's interesting that that kind of behavior - short of looting and rioting and death - is "expected" around sports (and no one is really surprised by the looting and rioting and death, they just prepare for it and try to prevent it). maybe it's because knitters don't bring beer.

now, about the monks. first - their game is soccer. they're all about the world cup and try unsuccessfully to pretend that they're not thrilled when china loses. but that's the young monks.

the older monks - they would say that that kind of passion is dangerous no matter what. that attachment is suffering. and it's one thing to struggle with the suffering associated with our attachments to others, to our family, to our children, to our poor understanding of who we are. it's entirely another thing to generate attachment for things as far outside ourselves as sports or books or movies. that by allowing ourselves to become so attached to things so far outside our lives or even our field of influence, we turn our minds in exactly the opposite direction of where we should be turning them. it's like training for a marathon, but then deciding that you could probably run a mile in spike heels with no ill effects.

now, i will say that senior monks would not be the most fun people to watch a soccer game with. on the other hand, they don't have to go out of their way to find enormous fun - it's just right there. you know how the dalai lama always looks like he is happier than you've ever been in your whole life? well, it's not because he backs the astros.

Quote from: nishi on October 17, 2005, 02:32:25 PM
you know how the dalai lama always looks like he is happier than you've ever been in your whole life? well, it's not because he backs the astros.

;D

Quote from: Gamplayerx on October 17, 2005, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: nishi on October 17, 2005, 02:32:25 PM
you know how the dalai lama always looks like he is happier than you've ever been in your whole life? well, it's not because he backs the astros.

;D

i know. i totally cracked myself up.

(http://tinypic.com/6s5ncx.jpg)

You need to post in this thread more often. 

I think there are some interesting philosophical and societal things to observe and discuss if people would stop acting like I am pointing a finger at them in particular.  It's no different from the gun thread in my mind - I don't like guns, but I understand others do, and that it's the minority that makes a bad name for the rest of the gun owners.  But you take a shot at that minority and everyone suddenly feels persecuted.  You can discuss and insult the fringe without insulting everyone else.  You can discuss the larger societal implications without having to go on the defensive.  Unless we're turning into Fark, in which case I will cease posting anything other than babbling.

Quote

the sports world is unique in the way that it encourages that behavior. the only other person that i've recently seen publicly behave that way because they were happy is tom cruise..... god knows no one is trying to encourage him.

i would perhaps argue that people who take on the life of characters - like the trekkies - are equally passionate about something just as imagined, and they are not usually people held up as examples of good social skills.

People who believe they are Klingons and Vulcans are loons.  They may not be as outwardly obnoxious as the guy down the street screaming himself hoarse, but they both clearly could use a little more "reality" (though that's a debate for a different thread - why is reality considered such a swell thing to strive for?).  Also, you're far more likely to come across a sports idiot than a Star Trek idiot in your daily life, simply due to the way that sports has premeated human culture.  You don't see too many Star Trek loons outside of conventions or documentaries.

I don't see what is so awful about prioritizing the level of emotional involvement in our interests and our lives.  To me, it's perfectly natural that to run over a child in a car, or to have that Crohn's pain get that bad again, would be a reasonable time to howl like life was ending.  I simply don't see a movie or a game or something as being worthwhile enough to froth at the mouth that badly.  And, in my opinion, people that do have reactions like that to trivial matters are acting like jerkoffs.  I think it's a sign of a real lack of perspective as to what is worth feeling that strongly about.  Is it hurting me?  Probably not.  But just because I'm not hurt doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on it.  Them's the breaks - we're all opinionated, even if we don't share those opinions. 

Also, not every opinion has to be of understanding and acceptance.  I have a critical opinion of the KKK.  Fuck those guys.  I hope they get run over by a bunch of tanks.  Fuck politicians.  And fuck people who can't assign worth in a respectible and adult manner.

I think one reason the sports loons stand out a bit more is due to what is normally accepted as okay behavior at sporting events.  In a movie, the normal behavior is quiet, so a guy screaming is a loon.  At a sports game - well, most mainstream sports anyway - the norm is screaming and cheering, so to stand out beyond that in the realm of overreacting you REALLY have to be acting like an ass.  And so you're gonna get plenty of attention when you do.

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 01:51:32 PM
They way I see it, it is the same thing, but on different scales.  I will never knock someone for waiting in line to see a movie or taking the day off so they can be first in line for the latest Harry Potter book.  I will never knock the person who paints his face and wears a Cheesehead or a dress to the game.  If they are not affecting me, I don't care.  Do I think both are weird?  Hell yeah.  Will I more than likely call you a dork?  Yes (meant in a joking way of course).  But I will try to understand why you care so much...I won't make a generalized opinion.

By this, I really hope you mean the "hogs" in the stands at Redskins games and only from the years 1981 to 1991.  From then on, it's just been plain sad!!  :)

Quote from: Vikingjuice on October 17, 2005, 02:52:44 PM

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 01:51:32 PM
They way I see it, it is the same thing, but on different scales.  I will never knock someone for waiting in line to see a movie or taking the day off so they can be first in line for the latest Harry Potter book.  I will never knock the person who paints his face and wears a Cheesehead or a dress to the game.  If they are not affecting me, I don't care.  Do I think both are weird?  Hell yeah.  Will I more than likely call you a dork?  Yes (meant in a joking way of course).  But I will try to understand why you care so much...I won't make a generalized opinion.

By this, I really hope you mean the "hogs" in the stands at Redskins games and only from the years 1981 to 1991.  From then on, it's just been plain sad!!  :)

It is not sad these days...I think it is still awesome.  But then again, I am odd.

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 02:56:17 PM

Quote from: Vikingjuice on October 17, 2005, 02:52:44 PM

Quote from: cnamon on October 17, 2005, 01:51:32 PM
They way I see it, it is the same thing, but on different scales.  I will never knock someone for waiting in line to see a movie or taking the day off so they can be first in line for the latest Harry Potter book.  I will never knock the person who paints his face and wears a Cheesehead or a dress to the game.  If they are not affecting me, I don't care.  Do I think both are weird?  Hell yeah.  Will I more than likely call you a dork?  Yes (meant in a joking way of course).  But I will try to understand why you care so much...I won't make a generalized opinion.

By this, I really hope you mean the "hogs" in the stands at Redskins games and only from the years 1981 to 1991.  From then on, it's just been plain sad!!  :)

It is not sad these days...I think it is still awesome.  But then again, I am odd.

It's sad because those original guys were supporting one of the best offensive lines in all of football history.  The OL today is mediocre and underperforming at best, evidenced by Clinton Portis' low productivity the last 2 seasons.  But I digress.

On a more personal note, I was pretty fucking irritated last night when I got home from my walk.  Why?  Because I've been in that aforementioned pain.  I remember vividly what it felt like.  I had no control over anything, including my body.  I had no position I could get in, no pill I could take to ease that suffering.  The only thing I could manage or control was howling and screaming, because it was all I had.  I will always remember what drove me to those moments.  When I hear a similar sound come out of someone over a sports game (or whatever hobby or interest you like), it is my natural reaction to wish a piano to fall on them.  Hard.  With lots of splinters.

That's my perspective.  And I don't feel bad about it.

This thread could have been about any extremist fanatic.  It just so happened to come up on the night the Astros actually won a baseball game.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 02:48:52 PM
You need to post in this thread more often. 

I think there are some interesting philosophical and societal things to observe and discuss if people would stop acting like I am pointing a finger at them in particular.  It's no different from the gun thread in my mind - I don't like guns, but I understand others do, and that it's the minority that makes a bad name for the rest of the gun owners.  But you take a shot at that minority and everyone suddenly feels persecuted.  You can discuss and insult the fringe without insulting everyone else.  You can discuss the larger societal implications without having to go on the defensive.  Unless we're turning into Fark, in which case I will cease posting anything other than babbling.

well, this is an interesting topic to me. my mother is a rabid university of louisville basketball fan. i grew up with a kind of sports mania that i find rather repellant - i'll get to that in a minute. and kentucky is home to the totally stupid and bitter rivalry between the university of kentucky and the university of louisville. one of those "my teams are UL and whoever is playing UK" states. my mother regulalyr complains that the louisville paper favors UK blah blah blah blah blah...

my mother displays enormous amounts of animosity towards people who are UK fans. i would almost say "she hates them", because her reaction is that extreme. if it's someone she knows (i'm thinking of a cousin of hers, who she likes very much and knew before basketball was an issue), then she kind of tolerates it. but in a way that indicates that she secretly thinks the person is an idiot. if she doesn't like them, then their basketball identity makes them a very bad person as far as she is concerned. some of you have met my mother. she's a perfectly nice lady when she isn't being insane.

so. we all have our things that we judge people on. since i have a kneejerk reaction to stuff i grew up with, i think people who dislike others SOLELY ON THE SPORTS TEAM THEY SUPPORT are pretty stupid (which means that i dislike people based on how they handle sports). my family was also full of racists - and my mom kind of still is - and so i have a similar, if not more intense, reaction there (which means i'm *prejudiced* against people who are racists....).

i know what you're talking about with that primal stuff beef, and it is different, i think, from the way most sports enthusiasts, including those in this thread, respond. it's not just yelling and jumping up and down and getting drunk and being either really really happy or really really sad. that primal thing is different. i've seen it, and it freaks me out. it's letting a part of yourself live or die based on something that someone else is doing that has nothing to do with you personally.

and i think beef and i are talking about it in slightly different ways, but it comes from the same spot. that extreme - and by that i mean completely over the top - kind of response to sports - or anything, i see it every once in a while in terms of politics or even religion, although that's harder to find - well, beef is saying it's not in proportion, and he finds that a little disturbing and really annoying. it makes me uncomfortable because their investment in the sport is serving like some kind of magnet, and is picking up little psychological metal filings that has nothing to do with liking the astros.

i think where you're being not as clear, beef, and where people are maybe misunderstanding is when, for example, you're saying that there are lots more of "those" kinds of fans or that we run into them more than we do trekkies. at that extreme end - i don't know. if trek conventions were televised as often as sporting events, then we'd see it. star trek exists and continues because it has regular fans - the same reason that sports are televised. trek conventions exist because of extremes. since sports are already on television or at regular large events, the extremists become part of the crowd and so we see them more often. but you're saying both that it's extreme and that it's common, and that's where people are becoming confused. what you're describing, in your original post, isn't necessarily about the packers fans that paint themselves green and sit shirtless at lambeau field in january.

i think the reason that i keep thinking about death during this topic is that, in our culture, men are not really permitted to howl and wail even as women might be briefly tolerated doing following a monumental loss. you guys are all probably cringing just imagining seeing someone, a man, do that. well - unless you're really on top of things, that energy has to go somewhere. there are ways that psychology is like physics - conservation of energy and all. just because you don't express a feeling doesn't mean you don't have it.

the image that keeps coming into my head if from a time that i worked at hospice. i had been working with the kids of this family while the dad/husband was dying of lung cancer. he was a high school graduate, chain smoker, divorced and remarried, kids ranging from 7 - 19. the 19 year old was married and had a 3 year old. very very low income, they lived in a horrible part of town. he threatened to haunt his children - and i mean this literally, not like he was joking - if they buried him in anything other than his UK sweats and if they dressed up for his funeral. i don't know what his actual job had been, i'm sure something that paid poorly, but he had been a volunteer fire fighter for 15 years.

i don't know if you've ever been to the funeral of a fireman, but the casket is taken from the funeral home to the cemetary on the firetruck. the casket is entirely handled by firemen. once the body is prepared and laid out, there is a formal 'guard' - one of his fellow firemen on each end of the casket - at all times. after the funeral is over, the entire company files past the casket one at a time, right before the family says their last goodbye. then the firemen close the casket, carry it to the truck, and strap it to the top.

i have never ever been to a more difficult funeral, and i barely knew the guy, beyond the argument we had where i strongly suggested that he stop talking about haunting his children. and it was so awful because there were at least 45 men in that room that were absolutely heartbroken and who had no earthly idea how to express that. the funeral was very sad. but what i found heartbreaking was watching these men flailing hopelessly inside their grief because they had no place to *put* it.

and i think that that is the kind of thing that contributes to - not causes, necessarily - insane behavior around sports. it's not the only thing, certainly. but i think it's part of it. the unlived life and all.

Thank you for all of that.

Concerning the Trek / sports fan differences, I wasn't going for anything deep at all.  I was just pointing out that sports has permeated human culture - it's everywhere.  TV, radio, live events, cards, comics, action figures.  Sports as a subject of enthusiasm is never going to ebb or die away.  It will always be prevalent in our society in one way or another.  I think the favored sports might change over the years, but not the drive to compete.

By comparison, Star Trek, which has amazingly turned into something far more huge than Gene Roddenberry could have predicted it, is still somewhat marginalized.  The film series is dead.  The TV series are dead.  It isn't always on TV, the radio, etc., though those things certainly do exist.  Just in small fewer amounts.  And you don't, at least here in Clear Lake, see too many self-professed Klingons walking around, spouting Klingon social doctrine or whatever.  For the most part, if you want to interact with that kind of person, you have to seek them out, usually by hitting some kind of fan-con.

So then, all I was trying to point out was that due to the differing level of interest in thw two subjects, and our regular/irregular exposure to them, you're more likely to run across a sports nut than a Trek nut on any given day.  At least here in the states, I think that's a solid assumption.  Germany might be different.

Oh, and bingo:

Quotei know what you're talking about with that primal stuff beef, and it is different, i think, from the way most sports enthusiasts, including those in this thread, respond. it's not just yelling and jumping up and down and getting drunk and being either really really happy or really really sad. that primal thing is different. i've seen it, and it freaks me out. it's letting a part of yourself live or die based on something that someone else is doing that has nothing to do with you personally.

:gamp:

At the risk of anyone getting heated again, I must share tonight's experience at the grocery store.

I pull my cart up to the cashier, a gentleman I guessed to be late 50s / early 60s in age.

Cashier: (smiling) Evening!

Me: Good evening to you.  How are you doing?

Cashier:  Just great!

He starts scanning my items, my focus drifts to the screen that tallies everything up for you.

Cashier:  So, looking forward to the game?

Me:  Game?

Cashier:  The game!  The Astros are playing tonight for the win!

Me:  I didn't realize they were playing again tonight.  I don't really follow baseball.

Cashier: (tone somewhat less benevolent)  Aw c'mon, sport!  The Strohs need all of Houston's support!  You gotta watch and cheer them on.

Me:  (still watching that screen)  Nah, baseball doesn't do anything for me, Houston or otherwise.  I usually watch the Superbowl every year, but that's mainly for the commercials.

Cashier: (even less pleasant, but still insistant)  H-town has to come together tonight!  We are NOT going back to St. Louis!  You have to watch!

Me:  St. Louis?  Is that who we're playing?  (I honestly didn't know.)  I'll probably watch South Park tonight.

Suddenly, the scrolling on the screen stops.  I wait for what feels like a several long moments, but it doesn't start back up again.  Slowly, I turn my head to look at the cashier.  The look on his face is of complete disgust, like I am some kind of child molestor or something.  I look back at the screen, and then back at him again.  Suddenly, he starts scanning again, really fast, as though he can't get me out of his line fast enough.  He never says a word to me the rest of the time.  Not a total amount, not a good night, nothing.  He thrusts the receipt into my hand with disgust and immediately starts pulling the next cart up with a big smile and a friendly "Good evening".  The bagboy snickers at me as I slowly leave the store, staring back at the guy.

The thing is, I was never a jerk or rude or nasty to the guy.  With people I don't know, I am either pleasant or just plain quiet.  The guy tried to initiate a conversation and I went along with it in an honest fashion.  Yet, again, I was the asshole for some reason.

I suppose he could have something against South Park, but somehow I doubt that was the issue.  I get really tired of that mentality around here.

I hope the Astros lose and that guy spirals into a depression for a week or two.   >:(

Why do you hate america?

Quote from: ReBurninator on October 17, 2005, 07:34:54 PM
Why does America hate you?

It's probably karmic.

I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

?

I wouldn't bet someone else's money on a sports game, let alone my own.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

?

I wouldn't bet someone else's money on a sports game, let alone my own.

Just looking for a way for either one of us to give a shit about tonight's game.  You know me.  Always helpful.

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:45:30 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

?

I wouldn't bet someone else's money on a sports game, let alone my own.

Just looking for a way for either one of us to give a shit about tonight's game.  You know me.  Always helpful.

Well, to be honest, I know several people who care a lot about tonight's game, and for their sake I hope the Astros win so they can ride high on it tomorrow.  I may not care about the Astros, but I like to see my friends and coworkers happy at the very least.

But not that cashier guy.  He's gonna get sprayed by a skunk tonight or something equally annoying.  I hope.

I'll be glad when baseball's over so my favorite TV shows will come on again.  I care that much about baseball at least.

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:45:30 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

?

I wouldn't bet someone else's money on a sports game, let alone my own.

Just looking for a way for either one of us to give a shit about tonight's game.  You know me.  Always helpful.

Well, to be honest, I know several people who care a lot about tonight's game, and for their sake I hope the Astros win so they can ride high on it tomorrow.  I may not care about the Astros, but I like to see my friends and coworkers happy at the very least.

But not that cashier guy.  He's gonna get sprayed by a skunk tonight or something equally annoying.  I hope.

Better yet, hope that computer problems screw up his drawer so that he gets stuck there while they figure it out and misses the game.

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:51:30 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:45:30 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

?

I wouldn't bet someone else's money on a sports game, let alone my own.

Just looking for a way for either one of us to give a shit about tonight's game.  You know me.  Always helpful.

Well, to be honest, I know several people who care a lot about tonight's game, and for their sake I hope the Astros win so they can ride high on it tomorrow.  I may not care about the Astros, but I like to see my friends and coworkers happy at the very least.

But not that cashier guy.  He's gonna get sprayed by a skunk tonight or something equally annoying.  I hope.

Better yet, hope that computer problems screw up his drawer so that he gets stuck there while they figure it out and misses the game.

I like your brand of evil.

Quote from: ReBurninator on October 17, 2005, 07:49:23 PM
I'll be glad when baseball's over so my favorite TV shows will come on again.  I care that much about baseball at least.

I want my Family Guy back!

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:53:35 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:51:30 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:45:30 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Beef on October 17, 2005, 07:39:34 PM

Quote from: dc on October 17, 2005, 07:38:31 PM
I'm confused about something.  Is it OK to get emotional if you're betting on the games?  Usually, I only care who wins or loses if it has a financial impact on me.  If there's no money in it, I could care less...

If I had a lot of money riding on a game, I would imagine that my reaction levels would be heightened.

So you're saying that you want to bet on tonight's game?

?

I wouldn't bet someone else's money on a sports game, let alone my own.

Just looking for a way for either one of us to give a shit about tonight's game.  You know me.  Always helpful.

Well, to be honest, I know several people who care a lot about tonight's game, and for their sake I hope the Astros win so they can ride high on it tomorrow.  I may not care about the Astros, but I like to see my friends and coworkers happy at the very least.

But not that cashier guy.  He's gonna get sprayed by a skunk tonight or something equally annoying.  I hope.

Better yet, hope that computer problems screw up his drawer so that he gets stuck there while they figure it out and misses the game.

I like your brand of evil.

It's all part of the training to become a retail manager.