site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23592 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 8, 2026

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Performative Fandom. In particularly the NYKNICKS floor seat celebrities. Most are like Taylor Swift - she’s a celebrity and clearly not a fan but she will get her floor seats because celebs go to big games especially when the big games are in NY or LA. It’s Timothee Chamalet who since I barely know this stuff so many here may not too is like a big Hollywood Act. At first I thought he was loud annoying Hollywood guy whose there because he did videos like this Courtside. Which to me looks like he’s performing for the camera. Turns out he’s an actual fan and won some contest for free tickets as a teenager tickets

Some reason this has been living in my head for a few days as a feeling that’s not how real fans celebrate. Perhaps theatre kids it’s so natural to perform that it’s how they celebrate. Where it’s more an internal joy. Something just doesn’t feel natural to me here.

The other thing is it’s the blackification of celebration. Where you need to do things loud and visually to show how much it means to you. Yes I am now the old man who yells at clouds.

The other interesting sports related thing is the bifurcation of the ticket market for sporting events. With the rise of television, growing wealth inequality, and the ease of air travel very big events have seen their ticket prices skyrockets. The interesting opposing side is a lack of pricing power in similar but slightly lower tier events. True events have ticket prices going to infinity (World Cup/NBA finals) far above the rate of inflation (wealth has grown much faster). Supply being inelastic means prices go up a lot. But we can build a lot of supply of second tier events. World Cup has added teams to the tournament so there are both more total games but realistically only the same amount of seats for the top teams playing and championship games. This has led to much higher prices on big WC games and empty stadiums for other games. The one example that really stood out to me was College Football Playoffs. Championship game tickets were a 3k minimum ticket price watching team 1 and 2 play each other. The semifinal game say watching teams 2 and 3 play you could scalp tickets for $30. People are going because they want to be at the game that will be an event not for the quality of football. Which ties into television because watching the game is just better on tv now.

The games that are in the public conscious as the “Event” have high prices. The Knicks final being in NYC pulls in global wealth. The NC College Football game pulls in all the money in our Northern Indiana province which is a fairly wealthy province. These are far more than just games - also networking opportunities and serve a coordinating function of getting an entire group of people to all be at the same place at the same time. For a Knicks level event if you buy tickets at 15k get-in price even the nosebleed seats will be hedge fund manager sitting next to some rich kid from third world country or minor celebrity. For IU NC College Football it’s some dude who owns a 20m a year car parts company sitting next to a HVAC roll-up guy. I think if I were in an Econ PHD you could write an interesting paper on the modern ticket pricing market and what it means for a game to be labeled the “Event” for a population group.

I guess you could also draw a parallel with the SF escorts charge $4k an hour to ticket pricing. People supposedly have less sex now, but when they are it costs more. It’s just more enjoyable to jerk off to a porn star than put in the work or pay to have sex with a 6.

I'm not a big sports guy, but I have seen several in the past make comments that Chalamet, specifically, seems like more than a superficial fan of sports. IIRC he's shown up on a few serious sports commentary shows in the past, and not just basketball either, but at least college football as well.

I don't feel qualified to vouch for the merits here, but Chalamet might be a bad example for "theater kids don't like sportsball."

Chalamet should get a retroactive Oscar for Call Me By Your Name, because to this day people still believe that that gay softboi persona is how he really must be. He really can't shake it.

He's always been a white goober who loves sports and he arguably cost himself an Oscar talking like MJ without realizing people won't tolerate that shit from actors.

Apparently a bunch of art hoes felt "betrayed" by Chalamet's decision to start a relationship with a vapid airheaded bimbo* like Kylie Jenner.

What this "betrayal" amounts to is that said art hoes constructed a parasocial delusion of what Chalamet was "really" like based on the roles he'd played, then felt disappointed when the real thing didn't love up to the fantasy they'd constructed in their heads.

Newsflash: actors not same people as characters they portray. Like most heterosexual men, even soulful actors who can convincingly portray gay characters want to date hot rich girls with big tits, not annoying they/them quirk chunguses with green hair.

I just realised that the Gen X/Millennial equivalent was feminist writers feeling disappointed by Johnny Depp marrying archetypal grippy-socks-grippy-box BPD art hoe Amber Heard, twenty years his junior. Re-reading this piece is a cringe-inducing insight into Millennial feminism and this author's warped, pathetic worldview, no matter how much she might claim that its overwroughtness is intentional and tongue-in-cheek:

Never meet your heroes, they’ll only disappoint you. All I know is this: Johnny, I have loved you for so long. Decades. But it’s like I don’t even know who you are anymore. [It's not "like" you don't know who he is. You don't know who he is, and you never did. You've never even met him. You "knew" his screen persona.]

The first time I saw you, as Detective Tom Hanson, you were wearing glasses, as part of your “undercover” uniform. I thought to myself, That nerd has good cheekbones... Also, when Hoffs gave you a makeover and then you guys went to go play video games and buy records, my heart skipped a beat: You were down with brown?** That curly-haired black chick you’re hanging out with could be me. [Jesus Christ.] Honestly? The fact that we’re both Geminis was part of it. [Jesus Christ.]

[Edward Scissorhands] made it clear that not only were you a True Talent, but you were attracted to the odd, the off, the slightly damaged, the possibly broken inside. Yes. Exactly. Me too. [The film "made clear" none of these things. Johnny Depp is an ACTOR portraying a FICTIONAL CHARACTER who has BLADES FOR HANDS.]

Why would you, the anti-establishment, anti-celebrity celebrity slash wannabe-rebel, be making these choices, the kind of choices that make you seem like every other mediocre-talent middle-aged constant mid-life crisis man in Hollywood? [Because he was experiencing a midlife crisis upon entering middle age.] Your effortlessly managed, meticulously curated persona as mysterious eccentric creative hot thoughtful intriguing super cool guy? You’re shattering it. Decades-long crushes are being soured, longtime fans are confuzzled***, and I don’t even know what to say to people anymore. [Finally you're groping towards the truth. "Effortlessly managed" and "meticulously curated" is exactly what Depp's persona was. By definition, no one needs to "manage" or "curate" their "true selves".]

I love it when you come and make an appearance, mingle with the plebes and the riff-raff, but to be honest, it was even more appealing when you holed up in France, avoiding tabloid drama and paparazzi lenses. It’s kind of like in Scissorhands, when Edward’s living in a gothic castle on a hill, but Kim knows he’s still there — and that he still loves her — because it snows. [JESUS CHRIST.]

Probably the feminist Ryan Gosling meme contains a hefty dose of this fantasy too. Sorry ladies: the Goose can have any girl he wants, and he, too, wants to date a hot Latina. See also the absurd attempts to portray Harry Styles as "queer", which he obviously isn't under even the most expansive definitions of that famously ill-defined term.

Nerdy, socially awkward male screenwriters get a lot of stick for indulging their Manic Pixie Dream Girl fantasy, but in their defense, at least they're usually content to invent fictional characters to fulfil this fantasy for them, rather than conscripting real-life women into doing so and berating them when they can't perform a job they never agreed to carry out. If there's an instance of a professional male journalist getting paid to describe the anguish he felt upon learning that his favourite shy nerdy Twitch e-girl was in fact a fake gamer girl getting railed by Chad Thundercock™ every night, I'm not aware of it.

*Their words, not mine.
**The author's inference that Depp himself was "down with brown" because he portrayed a character who dated a black woman is, obviously, nonsense: as far as I can tell, Depp has never been romantically involved with a non-white woman.
***Oh no, we wouldn't want people getting confuzzled, would we? That would be totes not amazeballs, fo' shizzle.

I genuinely got the ick reading the quoted post. That’s creepy. I get that people are attracted to celebrities, but we’re on the same spectrum of parasocial insanity as stalkers here.

I just realised that the Gen X/Millennial equivalent was feminist writers feeling disappointed by Johnny Depp marrying archetypal grippy-socks-grippy-box BPD art hoe Amber Heard, twenty years his junior. Re-reading this piece is a cringe-inducing insight into Millennial feminism and this author's warped, pathetic worldview, no matter how much she might claim that its overwroughtness is intentional and tongue-in-cheek

Whenever I am reminded of this kind of millennial feminism, I start to give serious weight to some of Dread Jim's proposed solutions.

I'm not familiar with Dread Jim. What solutions are these?

I'd like to add that there used to be many more male bloggers like him, roughly between 2006-2015 or so.

@RoyGBivensAction covered most of it. As for the solution? To end the tragedy of the commons, you must privatize the commons. To end the wars of the sexes, make women property again.

Dread Jim is the name Scott once used for Jim. I would probably tag in @erwgv3g34 for a more detailed description of Jim's views, but this comment of his has some links and this comment has a summary about the guy.

I just realised that the Gen X/Millennial equivalent was feminist writers feeling disappointed by Johnny Depp marrying archetypal grippy-socks-grippy-box BPD art hoe Amber Heard, twenty years his junior.

It's no wonder this trash was written in 2014. It was the time when the Culture War was being escalated rapidly by the woke. It was obvious that things were going to turn bad.

archetypal grippy-socks-grippy-box BPD art hoe

I had to look this up in the dictionary. Welp.

Nerdy, socially awkward male writers get a lot of stick for indulging their Manic Pixie Dream Girl fantasy, but in their defense, at least they're usually content to invent fictional characters to fulfil this fantasy for them rather than conscripting real-life women into doing so and berating them when they can't perform a job they never agreed to carry out.

You know, this never actually occurred to me before.

Eh, the male equivalent is the treatment of idols and people like that. Less an Anglo thing but actresses (and actors) have often been expected to comport their sex life in such a way as to not shatter the fantasies of their fans.

I doubt this phenomenon exists outside Japan and South Korea to any significant degree.

They're in the goldilocks zone of allowing women enough leeway for them to this sort of sexualized but high status work but also not so feminist that ridiculous male expectations aren't anathematized maybe?

As far as Japan is concerned, I’m aware that the social concept of the idealized Japanese woman is established so well that there is even a separate phrase for it. According to this concept, the ideal woman is basically dignified and modest and yet at the same time alluring and determined, polite and delicate, graceful and elegant. Naturally female JPop idols are generally expected to adhere to this so I guess your overall point does stand. In other words, in this case we are indeed talking about ‘conscripting real-life women into doing so’. In general, it seems these societies are still conservative enough to retain the concept of idealized femininity whereas in the West this has been thrown with resentment on the trash heap of history decades ago.

Absolutely, or (as I pointed out in the OP), men who follow e-girls on Twitch who cancel their subscriptions when they discover their waifu has a boyfriend.

The difference being that any man who behaves this way is rightfully considered a laughingstock, whereas straight women who do the equivalent can earn money by doing so.

Apparently a bunch of art hoes felt "betrayed" by Chalamet's decision to start a relationship with a vapid airheaded bimbo* like Kylie Jenner.

I remember a decade ago when Benedict Cumberbatch, that darling of late 2000s / early 2010s Tumblr fandom, got married, older versions of the same woman were equally if not more despondent. And he got married to a very appropriate and posh intellectual English theater director type in her thirties. So it seems to me it’s really more about the man being off the market than who he’s with.

I bet a lot of them were just disappointed that, whatever the creators of Sherlock would have their audience believe (or not wink wink), Cumberbatch is not, in fact, a homosexual, and nor is Martin Freeman.

There's also footage out there of Chalamet playing basketball, e.g. here (with bonus Adam Sandler appearance). While he's by no means a menace on the court, his skills and movement are definitely consistent with someone who's played a decent amount of basketball growing up, despite his twink build. In terms of player comparisons he reminds me of Austin Reaves, Josh Giddey, and Ricky Rubio—must be their scrappy, high motor playstyles, with their gym rat and lunch pail guy vibes.

I have this strange theory that he probably prepares for these types of things beforehand because how could someone have such knowledge about niche wrestling for example? However that's probably being unfair to him; maybe he is quite a savant beyond just his acting abilities.

I'm going to double reverse uno you here. NBA "hardcore" fandom is itself performative fandom, the guys getting upset over Celebrity Row at MSG and Taylor Swift are pretending to some kind of fandom that doesn't fundamentally exist in the NBA.

Identity Disclaimer: I am a lifelong Sixers fan, which probably predisposes me to think that basketball is stupid.

Hardcore NBA fans don't really exist. I'm the kind of American kid that grew up catching morning Sportscenter before the bus and has a half dozen podcasts from The Athletic and The Ringer on my phone today. When I think of sports fan groups in America, I can name a dozen groups and chants and traditions off the top of my head easily across every sport, except NBA basketball: the Bleacher Creatures, Roll Tide, The Black Hole, Rock Chalk (Algeria), Skol!, Chiefs Nation, the Cheeseheads, Go Birds, the Seven Line Army, the Green Monster, Citizen's Bank South.

I can't think of a single such tradition in the NBA that I've ever heard of. The equivalent famous moments in NBA fan history are themselves celebrity driven, things like Spike Lee miming the choke at Reggie Miller, or Jack Nicholson courtside in LA.

The NBA has always been a celebrity driven, star focused, front-runner sport. There's no real fan tradition because the team's are fundamentally too malleable and too protean to be the focus of tradition, and nobody cares about the regular season (despite there being numerous obvious fixes for it). This is the result of fundamental aspects of the sport: the ten foot tall hoop means it's so much easier if you're tall, and the five men on the field mean individual players are so much more important than in any other sport. Team building in the NBA is about chasing outliers who happen to be a little athletic while also being freakishly tall. There are never enough of these to go around, so the haves are so far above the have-nots that the have-nots just chase the outlier that will turn them into a have. There's no amount of team tradition, values, or coaching that will bridge the gap.

Most NBA fans have more opinions about the current star players and franchises than they do about their own team. There's not the same degree of bond between the youngster and the backup catcher on his favorite team. There's not the same possibility that your sixth round pick turns into a star, and thus the lack of obsession with those minor players.

So when Knicks fans say that Taylor Swift doing a little dance on the sideline is performative...

Some reason this has been living in my head for a few days as a feeling that’s not how real fans celebrate. Perhaps theatre kids it’s so natural to perform that it’s how they celebrate. Where it’s more an internal joy. Something just doesn’t feel natural to me here.

She's doing it FOR YOU. This is what you like, that's why you're an NBA fan and not a fan of a superior sport. That's why anybody has cared about the Knicks for most of the past thirty years. For the celebrity culture of it. Because it's the sport that most mixes into modern hip-hop oriented celebrity culture, and has since the 90s. It's easiest to produce celebrities, every all-NBA player is famous in a way that every ace pitcher or quarterback fails to be.

Both the performative fandom of the sideline celebrity, and the performative fandom of the "real" Knicks fan who has some weird bullshit about their attachment to a mediocre celebrity driven sports team, are trying to flex their status now that the Knicks lucked into the smarter strategy of bringing in a bunch of guys from Villanova to curry favor with the Bishop of Rome.

The NBA is particularly embarrassing. The players don't even try to hide their feet shuffling and routinely take five-step layups (I remember when "the Jordan layup" was a jibe for the (illegal) three-step layup). The whole culture around the NBA is bling, showboating, loud, celebrity-driven. There is no honor. Iso plays are considered the mark of a great player, instead of teamwork and making the extra pass.

That said, the NBA is still about winning. The game has adjusted massively over the last twenty years with the analytics revolution. Height matters but not to the same extent. Big men are only valuable if they can also hit a three. Mr. Process himself is not a bad three point shot, and Wemby at 7-4 shoots threes like he is Reggie Miller.

Basketball as a sport is great. Pickup games can be fun even with a range of talent. It doesn't take an entire field like soccer or football. Half-court games mean 20 players can simultaneously play on a single court.

That said, the NBA is still about winning.

Winning a Championship, and nothing else matters. Which leads to a bad regular season product, because the regular season isn't set up to really reward winning in the regular season with better odds to win the championship.

Height matters but not to the same extent. Big men are only valuable if they can also hit a three. Mr. Process himself is not a bad three point shot, and Wemby at 7-4 shoots threes like he is Reggie Miller.

I think it's just obvious that it's easier to shoot 3s when you're taller. There's no other way to make sense of Joel Embiid being a good three point shooter.

Basketball as a sport is great. Pickup games can be fun even with a range of talent. It doesn't take an entire field like soccer or football. Half-court games mean 20 players can simultaneously play on a single court.

It's probably the best sport that can be played at any number of people. 1 on 1, 2 on 2, 3 on 3 all work. Though to be honest, as a kid we came up with indoor 1v1 baseball rules. It's just a matter of creativity and determination.

IMO when rules change to allow what everyone over 30 knows as a travel then every player has to adopt to those rules. If you limited your moves to what use to legal then your just not going to be as good of player as guys playing within the full new rule set. Honestly a bit like MLB in the steroid era. They were tacitly legal so if you weren’t on steroids you weren’t going to be a good player or at a minimum worse than you would be.

The players don't even try to hide their feet shuffling and routinely take five-step layups (I remember when "the Jordan layup" was a jibe for the (illegal) three-step layup)

It's called a gather step, bruh. You uncs who grew up watching plumbers and electricians in the NBA wouldn't understand.

Once in a while in spaces like /r/nba there will be a thread mass-complaining about the state of carries and travels in the NBA, not realizing that since fans like them will provide the NBA with eyeballs and money no matter what, the NBA has little incentive to improve on that front.

She's doing it FOR YOU.

She’s a big girl...

Was winning the championship part of her plan?

Of course!

Actually gave a quality contribution on this because I think it’s a fair analysis that the NBA is different and my complaints would land stronger if I said something similar about the NFL etc.

I will correct this: “She's doing it FOR YOU. This is what you like, that's why you're an NBA fan”

I am not a NBA fan. I watched 3 games all year which were these finals despite still playing basketball a few times a week. Though for linguistic reasons a general “you” to the reader makes sense and not a specific “you” to me.

It was meant to be addressed to

Knicks fans say[ing] that Taylor Swift doing a little dance on the sideline is performative...

I apologize if that was unclear. I take no position on your personal fandom, just on the question of whether it is legitimate to complain about celebrities sitting on celebrity row.

For what it's worth, the Knicks themselves seem to have no problem with Timmy and were chanting Lisan Al Ghaib at him while spraying him with champagne after the game.

I am not a NBA fan. I watched 3 games all year which were these finals despite still playing basketball a few times a week.

That is for the most part what NBA fandom is. The regular season is increasingly pointless and ignored, the playoffs make up a whole second season, and there are just too many games to pay attention to. I probably watched the end of a dozen Sixers games this season after my wife went to bed, and most of their playoff games. Compare: I watch essentially every Eagles game, I watch or listen to dozens of Yankees and Phillies games during the season.

They have a lot of revenue so someone is going to regular season games and watching on TV. It’s apparently not us. NBA became Dem coded atleast a decade ago so I am a bit old man yelling at clouds over land that was lost a while ago. I don’t think Jordan era NBA was theater kid or Dem coded. Whenever America had its divorce one side got the NFL and the other side got the NBA.

I am not sure if I would go to a NBA game if I were offered floor seats for free. Maybe for instagram clout flaunting. I’d probably sit in a luxury box if offered just to socialize and drink free for the night while watching 10 min of the game.

I am not sure if I would go to a NBA game if I were offered floor seats for free.

You should, if you get the chance. I've had floor seats from a friend for some truly awful Sixers' teams, and it was still a fantastic experience to see them that close.

The other thing is it’s the blackification of celebration. Where you need to do things loud and visually to show how much it means to you.

Ah yes, the blackification of British football celebration in 1923. Just look at this bunch of unruly celebs!

Well, you see, by that time the first Pathe movie reels showing celebration rituals in the African jungle had already reached the British mainland, so by 1920 English culture was already Blacked.

Black people and their... checks notes culture of celebrating loudly?

If you want to simplify. Yes. It’s not comfortable to white people. It’s annoying. It ruins the moment for us.

It’s no different than if you told a gay person to go have sex with people of the opposite gender. We find it disgusting.

  • -18

Tell me you don't watch sports without telling me you don't watch sports.

I remember a few decades ago, in the UK after a international test rugby final, it was fully known that driving a car through town with the wrong flags emblazoned on your car would get bricks lobbed at your windshield. I also remember that every few years Boston loses its shit and riots in celebration when the Sox perform well at baseball.

As someone who witnessed on multiple occasions how clannish football and rugby hooliganism can get, you couldn't be more wrong. White people love crowing loudly and celebrating the defeat of their enemies as much as anyone else, and team based full contact sports serves as a proxy for tribal violence.

You're not typical-minding, as someone else is accusing you of - you're making a truly strange statement about white people that doesn't pass the sniff test. UK 'football factory' style clubs loudly and violently celebrate fucking up fans of the other team as much as beating them in the actual sport.

Usually we pray after a game. Say some words to Our Mother. That’s a strange tradition you seem to have.”

rugby hooliganism

I would say rugby (at least Union - I don't know enough about League culture because the game isn't really played in southern England) hooliganism is the exception rather than the rule in the UK. I spent several years in Richmond in south-west London. Despite football (in the form of Ted Lasso) putting Richmond on the map, it is very much rugby territory - the "tailgate"-equivalent for England Rugby games happens in Richmond with fans arriving by tube, drinking for a couple of hours, and then taking the shuttle busses run by the (one professional and one semi-professional) local rugby clubs to Twickenham stadium. And being around 10,000 drunk rugby fans feels completely safe.

UK 'football factory' style clubs

I think "English" is correct here. Scotland has a tradition of football hooliganism, but it explicitly sectarian and associated with the Glasgow rivalry between (Irish Catholic) Celtic and (Scottish Protestant) Rangers, rather than the violence-for-violence's-sake of English hooliganism.

I saw regular low-level violence between Welsh and English fans. Granted I'm a few years out of date, but it spiked every Six Nations. Best sport in the world.

You could, like, go to a college football game. Or an English football game.

This is the strangest statement I've ever heard. Screaming and booing and chanting at games is white culture.

I think you're typical minding here. We celebrate sports very noisily in lots of almost entirely white countries.

Your thesis does not pass the smell test. Maybe for very reserved WASPs or similar but those are far from the only white people.

I have friends I made by randomly hugging and screaming at a rugby match and they've been my best buddies for 25 years.

Watching any European football match from Milan, to Paris, to London, will show you a lot of white people screaming and celebrating.

Who's "we", Kemosabe?

It ruins the moment for us

What are you doing in that moment? Quietly contemplating the philosophical implications of ending a 53-year losing streak?

Can't wait for Britain to win the World Cup so everyone can retreat to their houses and silently meditate on the fact that it's coming home.

English fans traditionally riot after a loss rather than a win - the American hooligan practice of burning your own city after a win is particularly strange to us. But win or lose, I hope someone in the English ultras is talking to their Canadian counterparts about plans to party in DC like it's 1812.

For whatever reason, Scottish travelling football fans are happy drunks rather than mean drunks. If Scotland win the world cup, there will be a giant fan love-in which will provide convenient distraction while the corrupt US and FIFA officials who made it happen make arrangements with Satan to open the Donald Trump Infernal Ski and Snowboard Park.

Scotland will not win the world cup, given their performance yesterday.

If they get out of the group stage, it will be for the first time in their history.

They probably will, which just shows that the 48-team format is diluting the standard of the competition.

That's why you should support them!

wtf I love Taylor Swift and Timothee Chalamet?!

To the extent celebrities make grown men seethe about getting priced out and/or their “valor” stolen when it comes to rooting for laundry or clapping for other men to put an orange ball through a net, I’m all for it.

The other thing is it’s the blackification of celebration. Where you need to do things loud and visually to show how much it means to you

Come on. Sports are a worldwide phenomenon, and Americans of all flavors are the infamous for being mild in their celebrations*. In fact, it is kind of sad that Americans have such a corporate relationship with their sport. If you can't be loud and in-tears after an emotional moment for your team, then are you even a real fan ?

*exception - Philadelphia

Do you have derogatory songs for your rival team? I can't help but think even American fans must do more than sit in the stands eating hotdogs and occasionally cheering on their side when the score hits 5,800 points to 5,750 in the second quarter 😁

A lot of the late Robert B. Parker's reminiscences (put into the mouth of Spenser) about attending Boston baseball games do sound more like a real fan with real fan experiences, though the idea that a team can just up and move to another city and now be the Milwaukee Braves rather than the Boston Braves is still odd to my ears (that was tried with Wimbledon back in 2003 and has resulted in two teams, the original that moved and the one that was created in the wake of the move). The idea of Manchester United, for example, being relocated to become Mayfair United would cause riots. I think that was one of the disjunctions between the American sports franchise experience and the British one when the Glazers took over United, they thought they were buying a franchise and a brand which they could milk for personal profit and that's not how it works over here.

I remember a video of London-based NY Giants fans singing "You can shove your fucking cheese up your arse" (to the tune of "She'll be coming round the mountain when she comes") before the London Giants-Packers game in 2022 that went viral because this was both more offensive and far more creative than the US norm. It is pretty mild by English football standards.

Do you have derogatory songs for your rival team?

If we ever do a Philly motte meetup, you can recognize me by the T-Shirt.

Ooooh, a bit close to the bone there! 😁

Do you have derogatory songs for your rival team? I can't help but think even American fans must do more than sit in the stands eating hotdogs and occasionally cheering on their side when the score hits 5,800 points to 5,750 in the second quarter

I mean, we were just having a discussion elsewhere about Mr. Brightside, which Missouri fans use againt KU...

Do you have derogatory songs for your rival team?

Do the Bears Still Suck?

(yes)

*exception - Philadelphia

When I went to Green Bay last year for a game, my friends and family who were used to Eagles games at the Vet and the Linc kept warning me not to wear my Eagles gear at Lambeau, because I might be in physical danger.

As a lifelong Packers fan, that's really funny to hear. Obviously if you show up to the stadium wearing the opposing team's colors you're going to get a lot of shit talking (as you should, that makes it fun). But as I'm sure you experienced, it's all friendly shit talking and people aren't going to start throwing hands (even if you were wearing Bears gear).

Oh it was great. It probably helped that I smuggled in a bottle to pass around, but we were all good friends by the final whistle.

But my philly friends were picturing the way that opposing fans get treated at the Linc. One year my dad gave his season tickets at the Vet to a friend who was a Cowboys fan early in the season who went in Cowboys gear, the rest of the year when we went to the games people threw stuff at US because they thought WE were Cowboys fans, even though we were cheering for the Birds.

(even if you were wearing Bears gear)

What about a Vikings Favre jersey?

Yeah I think that would be fine too. There were a few people vocally upset about Favre going to the Vikings, but most Packers fans don't give a damn about the Vikings - they aren't the rival team, though they seem to think they are. And even the fans who were upset wouldn't take it out on a Vikings fan who came to town.

If history is anything to go by, also don't go wearing a Santa Claus outfit.

I wore Kelly green and my Randall Cunningham hat, got top-ten drunkest I've ever been, and sang the whole fight song stomping on the bleachers to keep time after every score. The Lambeau fans couldn't have been nicer, there was the exact right amount of booing to make it worth it.

Americans of all flavors are the infamous for being mild in their celebrations

Really? Over here Americans have the reputation of being loud.

If you can't be loud and in-tears after an emotional moment for your team, then are you even a real fan ?

An adult should have a sense of decorum, certainly in public.

You would think that goes twice in this day and age when everything you do can be filmed and immortalized and put on TikTok for all to see.

An adult should have a sense of decorum, certainly in public.

The one time it is acceptable to have public gay sex is when you are celebrating your team's goal and/or win. Everybody knows that. 😁

*exception - Philadelphia

Thrown batteries make little noise. My dad and daughter make much more yelling at the Phillies.

The one example that really stood out to me was College Football Playoffs. Championship game tickets were a 3k minimum ticket price watching team 1 and 2 play each other. The semifinal game say watching teams 2 and 3 play you could scalp tickets for $30.

It probably didn't help that both semifinal games were rather far away for the teams in question. Indiana v. Oregon was played in Atlanta while Miami v. Ole Miss was played in Phoenix.

So what is exactly your main complaint here? Members of the upper class attending prestigious events, while not being true fans? Theater kids performing for the camera?

The other thing is it’s the blackification of celebration. Where you need to do things loud and visually to show how much it means to you. Yes I am now the old man who yells at clouds.

Half the arena for the Knicks game was suits/finance bros pretending expression of emotion was beneath them. You didn't see reels of them because it's fucking boring. Why is this even a complaint again? I remember the eccentric and extraverted kids always being in the spotlight starting from kindergarten. You wouldn't have written this post if everyone behaved like the boring suits. If anything, you're signal boosting the "black" way of celebration by posting this.

The other interesting sports related thing is the bifurcation of the ticket market for sporting events.

The K-shapifaction of economy is doing it's thing, but why are you acting that hasn't been this way since forever? I'm sure a gladiator event with top gladiator talent and with an emperor in attendance would attract a lot more heads than any other gladiator event in Ancient Rome too. Do you expect an even distribution in demand for lower tier sporting events/matchups?

The USA world cup match was also absolutely full of celebrities chanting 'USA! USA! USA!' after every goal(well, except for Paraguay's single goal). Sports brought America together that night; libtard celebrities were chanting with Marco Rubio and jeering the ref when he made pro-paraguay decisions. The rich and famous seemed less like an alien race and more like a bunch of regular guys living unusual lives.

Americans need better chants.

Embarassing.

TBF, USA! USA! USA! Is almost uniquely suited to chanting among major country names.

Engerlaaaannd, engerlaaannnnd...

They're taught to be polite in public, bless 'em. Baddiel and Skinner did a lot with the Three Lions song for the England team, it's hard to cheer for a national team beyond chanting the country's name. If somebody did a good song for the national team, the USA would have a decent chant.

Irish rugby, for instance, has the official anthem as Ireland's Call (because of the political situation and when you have players from both North and South you don't want to step on any sectarian toes) and it's about as inspiring as wallpaper paste. That's why people sing The Fields of Athenry instead because while it may be a literal dirge, it's also more blood-stirring.

Soccer is an embarrassing sport so it’s apropos.

What separates us from animals is our hands and head. In soccer, the use of the first id outlawed and the second is used as a club.

No, what separates us from animals is our flexibility.

Soccer is the game where we show a level of finesse no animal can without even flexing with our opposable thumbs or superior handling. The ultimate mog.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bl7UVAbGAWA&ra=m

  1. That's not soccer, it's kickball.
  2. Elephants (like dolphins) are honorary Aryans. You picked one of the most sophisticated (and dexterous for its size, given the trunk) animals around.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=plFCDMQLGpw?si=G4kmMpgCkGsQMF_W

Warning: The "?si=" and "?pp=" portions that YouTube has started adding to any URL created with the "share" button allegedly can be used to reveal the YouTube username of the user who created that URL. For that reason, those portions of the URL should be deleted before copying and pasting.

More comments

Most American sports have a much faster cadence than soccer. Popular crowd activities from these sports don't port over easily.

That can't be right ? American sports are known to be stop and go.

Hockey is the only one with a faster cadence. And honestly, their fans have some pretty good chants. (Or at least my school did)

The debate is impossible.

Soccer fans claim the sport has more action because the ball is constantly in play. Non-soccer fans claim it is boring because there is little danger of anyone doing anything important for the vast majority of that time.

Soccer fans claim that baseball is boring because the ball is in play very little. Baseball fans feel it is exciting because every single pitch can result in a score.

Hockey and fight sports probably have the best balance of constant action with meaningful scoring at any second, but both are somewhat niche and require some degree of specialist knowledge to properly understand.

Non-soccer fans claim it is boring because there is little danger of anyone doing anything important for the vast majority of that time.

I know this isn't intrinsic to your point but it is something that bugs me about the Soccer discourse so I will rant.

Soccer players are constantly doing things that are dangerous and important to the outcome of the game, they are just less legible and it is a problem because the most popular American sports are focused on the score. Football is all about the points, big plays are exciting but ultimately considered subservient to scoring, individual points aren't as important in Basketball but it is a constantly scoring sport. Hockey is pretty similar to Soccer but I think Baseball is most instructive - it is also often a very low scoring game like Soccer. It has really intense non-scoring moments (like with Soccer) but at the end of the day outside of a few specific accomplishments Americans just focus on the score while watching and immediately tune out the non-scoring moments once the tension is released. Soccer is all about following the tempo, possessions, scoring chances, set pieces and so on. It requires much more attention and fan knowledge to notice quality play and actions that should be work "micro points" and because the numbers don't go up like we expect from our other stuff, it seems boring.

It can be not boring pricelessly because the numbers don't go up very often, but you have to pay attention to the whole scope of play. When you are used to chunked up Basketball and Football, well that's hard.

But that happens in other sports as well. In football, there is constant attempts by the offense to set up plays to catch the defense in a wrong play. The defense is constantly trying to surprise and disguise the offense to create a massive play. Most plays aren’t huge plays but many lead up to it.

The difference is that most plays could be huge plays. Most plays are kinetic. Most plays are violent. Most plays are one player out eleven doing the wrong thing (or amazing thing) from a massive breakdown or big play. And also there is a clear sub-goal—gotta get the first down. Even if you don’t score on that play, getting from 1st and 10 to second and 2 is a huge play! It sets up a mini score when you convert the first down on the next play or two.

Hockey is constantly a dance where players are trying to solve the forecheck by the offense or the trap being deployed by the defense. If one team solves, it almost immediately leads to a high quality scoring chance. Oh and beyond kinetic. And there is scoring. Less than the NFL. But more than scoring and the scoring chances are way higher.

Baseball is probably the most tactical sport. Each pitch is setting up the next pitch. Decisions about bullpen usage, when to steal, when to bunt, etc.

In short, the thing soccer fans claim as not unique about their sport. In fact, frequently it is lacking compared to other sports. It then has a bunch of other issues (not a lot of scoring or scoring chances, not a lot of kinetic action, limited violence). It is just a sub standard game that is largely popular due to poverty.

Baseball is probably the most tactical sport. Each pitch is setting up the next pitch. Decisions about bullpen usage, when to steal, when to bunt, etc.

I'd actually argue Football (American) is the most tactical sport. On the field tactics and strategy mattes, as does the coaching battle which takes place over the entire season and has elements of logistics in terms of saving Strats and the way the season and injuries weigh on the team.

It's like the pitching element of baseball but for a lot of the positions on the field.

More comments

My background is sports analytics and I can recognize how onfield play is translating into Xg in Soccer. I just feel the conversion relationship in Soccer is a lot wobblier than it is in the vast majority of sports and there's large parts of the game where nothing's realistically going to happen.

I don't particularly enjoy Baseball but I feel that something happening is usually looming closer than it is in Soccer since any at-bat can instantly convert.

Yeah that's correct. What makes a soccer game exciting before you get to the penalty box is largely illegible unless you're the sort of fan who makes the effort to learn about the tactics. Like if you don't know what a passing triangle is and how to spot it you're going to zone out until the ball comes near the goal and then you might as well be watching American football. Still, the game is the easiest to learn it's ever been now that you have substack tactics guys breaking down gifs and so on.

now that you have substack tactics guys breaking down gifs and so on.

I request links

More comments

they are just less legible and it is a problem because the most popular American sports are focused on the score.

The score is the point. Keeping score is what separates a sporting event from a dance. To quote one of my favorite philosophical quotes about Soccer from Sampaoli:

One night, I went to a bar, I was with a woman. We talked all night. We laughed, we flirted, I paid for several drinks of hers. At around 5am, a guy came in, grabbed her by the arm and took her to the bathroom. He made love to her and she left with him. That doesn't matter, because I had most of the possession on that night.

All the stuff that isn't scoring fundamentally doesn't matter to the outcome of the game. Those actions that don't lead to scoring could have mattered, the omission of them might have mattered, but ultimately they didn't matter. They might matter inasmuch as they are part of a longer process which leads to actual scoring, but if they don't lead to anything then it didn't matter.

I think Baseball is most instructive - it is also often a very low scoring game like Soccer.

This is kinda silly. The average baseball scoreline is 4.5-4.5 basically forever, the average scoreline in the Big 5 UEFA leagues is 1.4-1.4. So baseball features three times the scoring of top flight soccer.

But anyway, my point isn't that soccer is boring, I quite like it, I intend to get quite drunk at the local brewery for as many of the USMNT games as possible. I want to cheer on our boy from Herhsey and a bunch of the most accidental Americans imaginable.

It's just that I think Soccer fans who talk shit on American sports are stupid and ignorant.

It's the same bullshit when soccer fans complain about commercial breaks in American sports, while buying soccer jerseys that are walking advertisements.

American football is well adapted to modern attention spans.

I think the key feature of this is the structure of first downs make for a very effective dopamine drip, every third play (2-3 minutes in real time) your team is either going to convert a first down, or fail to convert a first down, unless the game is already out of hand, you its a moment to either be happy or frustrated, there's some emotional payoff to the moment.

I have no doubt that various midfield actions in soccer and hockey (getting possession in the zone?) are similarly as important in terms of changing a team's win percentage, but those moments a less legible to the untrained eye (maybe that's what being able to appreciate a sport actually is?), for someone not all that familiar with the sport, it's easy to miss that a unit of win probability has been gained, or to not actually be able to distinguish whether what has just happened actually amounts to gaining a unit of win probability (as someone who doesn't watch that much soccer, my naive reaction to it is to think they should take more shots on goal, I think I've read enough about it know that's wrong though, what teams actually want to do is to work the possession more so that the shots they do take are higher probability).

Somewhat separately, American football is well suited to modern cell phone usage, there are games I put down the phone and actually pay attention, there are lots of game where I don't though (Sunday Night game between teams I don't have any special interest in). Football is the easiest game to follow while playing on your phone, the action happens in 5 minutes spurts, every play is replayed several times if you missed something, its easy to quickly check down and distance, if the team is in the red zone. In contrast, watching the US game Friday night, only two of the goals was I actually looking at the TV when they happened, replays are pretty quick because once the action starts up again you can't stop to show a replay. Great midfield actions that are like football first downs never get shown again because the action keeps going. So if you didn't appreciate it in real time, the TV isn't going to explain to you why you should appreciate it. The only non-scoring plays that get replayed are things that cause penalties or corners or free kicks.

No particular value judgement either way, I just think it's less adaptive to modern attention spans.

More comments

It's the same bullshit when soccer fans complain about commercial breaks in American sports, while buying soccer jerseys that are walking advertisements.

Lol well I'm sure they are all shitting themselves over the hydration breaks.

As somebody who never played the game and doesn't particularly watch it I feel Rugby League is probably the best ball sport in terms of entertainment product. The rules can be explained to a caveman in 2 minutes, the physicality is self-evident and it has a good momentum->scoring transfer ratio, lack of which is a large part of why I've never really vibed with Soccer.

I think he's referring to the occasional 20-to-30-second intervals where American sports happen.

Yes, as opposed to the 20-to-30 minute intervals between any excitement happening in soccer.

Real Football is more like fighting than other sports.

For most of the game, you are whittling down your opponent. The inevitable hook (goal) is the result of minutes of build up before.

Or people could watch a real sport like Hockey where scoring can happen at any point, frequently happens after wearing down your opponent, and there are actual fights!

Here are English chants for comparison (league, not wc though):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=i81Khk7G2Hc

Lol, "It's only four-nil, it's only four-nil, how shit must you be, it's only four-nil" (while losing). I guess you've gotta chant something in that situation.

The "it's called soccer" one is good, actually, though they should put more energy into it. The other two are terrible.

I think it's always important to keep in mind that the type of thinking that most posters here have is pretty rare in the gen pop.

Normie sports fan are a high percentage of the population (and I bet most of them know about Chalemet's Knicks habit, including a lot of women because of his lady) and theater kids are probably an order of magnitude more common than us.

This means the motivations behind attendance of high ticket price games involves quite the variety.

Same for the celebration - extraversion is uncommon here but very much a thing.

So is FOMO - my partner is smart and has a high level of educational and professional attainment, she also barely cares about sport at all - she still wanted to go to a local World Cup party last night "because everyone is doing it."

Some examples of people I know personally at the NBA finals or know about from anecdote and the news:

-Celebrities who go to most if not all home games.

-A guy who can't afford it but is taking his Dad who has been waiting for A Long Time and is on his last legs.

-A guy who can't afford it but is taking his kids because this is the thing that brings them together. '

-A NYC finance guy who got caught cheating and doesn't like basketball all that much but is taking his wife who doesn't like basketball at all because it's expensive and fuck him.

-A nerdy wealthy guy who bought a 30k gaming PC and a condo and has no idea what else to spend his money on and is trying out vices.

-Celebrities who have more money than they need and are just looking to spend (and some of them are theater kids looking to be in the moment).

-John Smith a boring upper middle class guy who is buying seats for 10k and just not doing an expensive vacation this year.

Yes some of the meaning comes exclusivity and costs, but it comes from other places too.

Also - interest in this NBA finals and World Cup are stupidly high, the former because MSG is a storied place in a high wealth town and hella small, the latter because like 6 billion people are passionate about football.

Yep. I paid 500$ for a group stage game. Nothing to do with status. World cup games in your city are a once in life time opportunity. You pay so you can remember the game.

The NY knicks winning a championship is a less than once in a lifetime opportunity. There are middle class fans who would sell their life savings for it. $20k for courtside seats is frankly under priced. It's pocket change for billionaires.

You must not be familiar with the Knicks if you think this isn’t a once in a Lifetime event…

He said less than once in a lifetime, aka even rarer. He's definitely familiar with the Knicks.

Totally misread that — problem posting when you wake up

The one example that really stood out to me was College Football Playoffs. Championship game tickets were a 3k minimum ticket price watching team 1 and 2 play each other. The semifinal game say watching teams 2 and 3 play you could scalp tickets for $30. People are going because they want to be at the game that will be an event not for the quality of football.

Wasn't part of that one that one of the universities involved was Indiana, which a) was historically awful, making this a novel event, and b) has a massive alumni network many of whom are business alums and on the richer end of the scale?

Yes. They have money. Though as far as rich universities go they are in the top 30-50 and not the richest. And the CFP playoff schedule being in random cities means fan bases won’t have the time to go to every game. But still the game before the finals for UI was $40. Versus $3000. And the game was at like 12 on Jan 1 so locals didn’t care to get up. But I still think it says something about how being the “coordinating” event really makes prices skyrocket.

Also add in the fact that you don't know where the game is going to be until shortly before, and the semifinal games were on weeknights for some reason. I went to Charlotte both times Pitt was in the ACC Championship, and unless you have some flexibility with work, it's hard to make plans at the last minute, and God help you if you have kids. I was able to drive down Friday afternoon both times, but some people left after work Friday, and some drove down Saturday, which is doable when the game starts at 8. I wouldn't even attempt a Monday game, which requires taking two days off work, or a game that wasn't within reasonable driving distance. The National Championship is different because enough rich people will buy tickets well in advance because they don't care who's playing. In the unlikely event Pitt has a title shot in the future, I'll go to the ACC Championship but that's it.

You are right. I am thinking of the quarterfinals on New Years Day. Those were $40 get in price. Still solid games. And yes their schedule makes it hard. I am somewhat trying to avoid there were X,Y,Z logistical issue which does effect CFP. And trying to highlight that 2nd tier events depend on logistics. 1st tier events “whatever that takes to be one” play by completely different rules. People deal with scheduling hassles because they know it’s 1st tier. Going to San Antonio tonight was a hassle but seems like their are plenty of fans going from NYC (who may of had their tickets canceled).

To quote your handle, I think people should just opt out of sportsball culture. The reason celebrities are at the game is because the billionaire franchise owners want you to think it is important. If they can trick you into paying attention to it, they’ll make money selling you $20 hot dogs and your son $200 sneakers. They conspire with the gambling companies to steal even more from you. If it were legal and profitable, they would skin you alive to turn you into a sportsball and make your children fight to the death over it like in Mesoamerica. The telos of this phenomenon is recruiters scouring the earth to find remnant populations of prehistoric man in Dagestan or the Congo or wherever and dressing them up in the flag of civilized nations. What’s the point? A single backyard game of touch football with a random assortment of neighborhood figures is better for the country than all of the franchises combined. Even the steelman argument that there’s joy in seeing expertise — just go get hibachi, it’s cheaper.

remnant populations of prehistoric man in Dagestan

I have to admit, I was impressed and I know nothing about wrestling.

A single backyard game of touch football with a random assortment of neighborhood figures is better for the country than all of the franchises combined.

I look forward to your writeup of a local neighborhood game.

I'd be happy to do writeups of underwater hockey practices, which simply doesn't have enough players to get beyond rec league performance. Not sure if you genuinely interested, or just making a point.

Perhaps the reason local sports are uncommon outside of city rec leagues (which I hear are weirdly competitive) is that we normalized professional consumer sports as the default male “sport” pastime. (Ignoring golf and video games). If we were united in hating them, then it would cease to be weird for unathletic adult men to gather for a casual game for the pure fun of exercise and socialization. Give me your tired, your poor, your fat masses yearning to play free…

I don't think it's weird or unusual. Unathletic adult men gathering for sports is like 95% of my social life. But as upper middle class white folks, we have to invent new sports in order to be any good at them, because if we go down to the Y to play pickup basketball we're getting mogged by the inner city. Hence my lifetime devotion to crossfit, rowing, rock climbing, Brazilian jiu jitsu, and other dumb and obscure pastimes.

I got an unsolicited neighborhood magazine recently, which is painfully on the nose for well off Gen Xers. There was an article about a couple who looked to be in their 50s, and it was all about their yoga studio, how they do hot yoga, warm yoga, dog yoga, and have a French handstand consultant, and here's a picture of the husband doing a handstand. There's a picture of their little dog. Somewhere in the middle it mentions that he was an engineer for 30 years and their two sons, one of whom is helping them run their yoga studio. They sound like normal wholesome people who are trying to pretend like they are alternative in some way.

None of it is wrong or bad, but I don't like it; it seems like it should be a parody somehow, but I can't quite put my finger on why I feel that way.

But as upper middle class white folks, we have to invent new sports in order to be any good at them, because if we go down to the Y to play pickup basketball we're getting mogged by the inner city

Hence the popularity (perhaps not as much now) of triathlon. No lower class randos have the time and money to train in 3 sports plus access to a pool plus dropping $5k on a bicycle.

Hence the ever more extreme distances of Yuppie office worker distance running. The same awe that used to attach to the Marathoner is now reserved for the Ultramarathoner. Soon it will be for the Barkley marathons, I suppose.

Fortunately, the Kenyans have not yet discovered trail racing, so it can still belong to people like Jim Walmsley and Courtney Dewalter.

Yeah but if somebody put a million dollar prizepool on Trail Racing I'd imagine the winners (after a couple years to convert and gear up) would come from a functionally identical population to the current Marathon winners.

Having fallen just short of the professional level in a major ball sport I feel like a certain amount of the rise of alternate sports is how success/progression-orientated a ton of youth sport participation is now. A lot of people age out of playing their ball sport of choice as a function of being rejected to continue progressing up the ranks after actually trying quite hard, so continuing to play at a social level can feel like ruminating over one's own failures and/or leave you in a weird uncanny valley of 'I remember when I was 50% better at this since I trained 8 times a week so why am I playing beer league and kinda-sucking'.

I like BJJ since being reasonably active and staying moderately in the gym makes me a top echelon athletic specimen in that sport versus if I were still trying to play Rugby or Gridiron those are relatively table stakes.

A lot of people age out of playing their ball sport of choice as a function of being rejected to continue progressing up the ranks

Absolutely, this is a good insight. I stopped playing baseball and basketball when I missed the high school teams. Continuing to play at 16 while not being on the high school team would have been unbearably lame to me, but taking up boxing had no similar feeling of being obviously worse than the guys in my school who were on the basketball team.

The American ball sports also suffer particularly from the physical differentiation in positions, the implications change when the talent pool gets bigger. In 4th grade I was a center, in 7th I was a power forward, by high school I was the right size to play small forward, if I had been good enough to make it to college ball I would be too short to be an undersized point guard.

Honestly the Dagestan combat sports thing is more to do with it being like the only region in the world where grappling gets the A-tier athletes immediately as their primary sport than to do with them being some incredibly insane unique genetic outliers of ability. The best athletes in their population go into combat sports since everything else is pretty marginal there, then get to train with other great athletes (which helps to refine technique and stop bad habits forming) in a geographic concentration.

Everywhere else Wrestling is only getting those who couldn't make it in ball sports and a lot of people will never even actually try the sport at all.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats