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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
We could argue (they are both highly tactical) but I hope we can both agree soccer is far from having the same tactical approach.
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