This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
ESPN just released an article on the top athletes of the 21st century. The list is…interesting.
Shocking Phelps is ranked No 1. This is contra evidence against culture war fodder. He is white, male, and I assume straight. But then, their No 2 is Serena. The list is allegedly about how great they were at their sport. There is no good argument where Serena had a better career than Novak Djokovic. Novak has more slams, masters, career grand slams, only golden master, calendar slam, weeks at No 1. And Novak did it against the two other greatest tennis players of all time. Serena’s field was weaker. And of course, Serena wouldn’t last on the ATP whereas Novak wouldn’t lose a set on the WTA.
But Serena became famous for being good at a white sport while being black. And Novak (who shocking is ranked lower than Roger Fed despite clearly being better) is famous for refusing to take the covid vaxx.
So culture war? But then how do I explain Phelps at No 1? Maybe ESPN is just bad at its job? After all Brady is at five. On the other hand, ESPN has a ton of WNBA players on the list. Which is funny. The WNBA is not a good league and doesn’t generate (at least historically) a lot of money. There is no way the three of the top 34 athletes of the 21st century are WNBA players. Yet shockingly no female soccer players that high. What am I missing?
ETA: 8 of the top 100 athletes of the 21st century happen to be WNBA players per ESPN. And that is out of all Olympic sports, soccer, cricket, football, hockey, MMA, etc. Why so many WNBA players — a minor league that wouldn’t generate sufficient revenue to attract this alleged level of talent.
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/40446224/top-100-athletes-21st-century
Why are we all doing Top 100s of the 21st century this week? Seems like weird timing. Not a slow news week, in sports or in general. Not the end of the year, when it would hit the 1/4 mark. No one died who makes us assess legacies. So...what gives?
Anyway, the answer is either Steph Curry or GSP at #1. Until those guys nobody played like those guys.
Steph revolutionized the game of basketball in a way comparable only to Babe Ruth in baseball. The 3 point game has never been the same since Steph burst onto the scene. Lebron might be great but he is great in the same way that MJ was great, Steph is great in a whole new way. From the year he first got MVP votes (2012-2013) the number of Three Point Attempts per game in the NBA has increased 75%, from what was previously more or less flat for years.
GSP did something similar in MMA. Before GSP it was mostly still in a style v style mode, a wrestler against a boxer or a BJJ guy against a brawler. GSP came in and did everything, and he did it better than anyone else. Jon Jones is probably better P4P, and Anderson Silva at his peak was a legend, but GSP did it first, and the attitude problems that Silva and Jones have had mar their legacies in my mind.
Brady in my mind comes next, then Woods, then Federer, then Bolt, then Djoker and Nadal and Lebron and Jon Jones and Mike Trout and Messi. Then all the minor sports gods: Phelps and White and the other Olympic guys, the auto racers, the cyclists.
I wouldn't put any basketball players on any list extolling greatest athletes. Basketball has a huge height filter. Be seven feet tall and have any athletic inclination and you have a shot of being in the NBA. MJ could maybe make the lists just for being in two different professional sports. But his mediocre baseball career shows how much the NBA is a joke in terms of athletic prowess.
Being smart and strategizing is cool, but I don't see why that matters for athleticism.
Phelps deserves greatest athlete. His superpower was basically ADHD and a willingness to monotonously spend five hours a day swimming.
Usain Bolt should probably be second on a list of greatest athletes.
In terms of sheer physical ability they crushed their competition in sports with almost zero barriers to entry.
I find it bizarre that you consider basketball players to be unimpressive athletes because their sport requires a specific set of physical attributes (height, long limbs) while celebrating Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt, whose extreme and atypical genetically-determined physical attributes (both men look as though they were designed in a lab to excel at their respective sports) were absolutely vital to their success.
Why is LeBron James’ incredible success at basketball invalid because he couldn’t have achieved the same feat if his height had maxed out at 5’7”, but Usain Bolt is an incredible athlete even though he couldn’t have achieved what he did if his leg length had maxed out two inches shorter? At the top level of most sports, no amount of obsessive work ethic is enough to put one over the top without prodigious God-given physical traits. Sprinting is one of the most genetically-based sports - far more than basketball, where a great many of the all-time greats are on the lower end of the league’s height distribution. There is no sprinting equivalent of a Steve Nash, a player with limited physical tools who excelled due to hard work, intelligence, and savvy.
They won the lottery on athletic related traits. Basketball players won the genetic lottery on height. I don't consider height to be a key component of athleticism.
I also don't consider hard work, intelligence, or savvy to be part of athleticism. Apes are better athletes than humans in most respects.
To me the only IQ related aspect of athleticism is hand eye coordination / reaction times.
"I don't consider height to be a key component of athleticism"....why?
Would you consider plunging for distance to be a great test of athleticism? Thats a "sport" that rewards being extremely fat (plus i guess some amount of training and discipline).
Alternatively, what if they raised the basketball hoop so that you really have to be super tall to compete? That would be ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
Because my learned friend in argument rejects obvious genetic gifts in favor of celebrating less obvious ones.
More options
Context Copy link
Just use a measuring tape if you want a height competition.
This is all very confusing for me. So you think height is different from every other genetic advantage?
Yes and no. There are theoretically other genetics that might heavily gate a sport behind a non-athletic characteristic. I just don't know if any actual examples.
Gymnastics is sort of gated behind being short, so I'd sort of discount the abilities of those athletes as well. But that's just the other side of the coin with height.
I don't consider IQ to be athleticism related so if there were any sports that were heavily gated by it I'd apply the same discount to the athletes within that sport. But I don't know of any sports that are like that. Maybe chess boxing? Or maybe Esports which no one really looks to for examples of supreme athleticism. Even though most Esports players are in relatively good shape.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link