Middle class abandoning football
Makes me wonder about how college football changes also. Any thoughts?
Death of NFL inevitable as middle class abandons the game
"You really think the NFL is worried about young athletes? If so, they'd have changed the rules years ago, abandoning face masks, enlarging the ball to make it difficult to throw, switching to one platoon football."
I didn't know about one platoon football before (or the phrase). Some research pulled up this article about Fritz Crisler: The Man Who Changed Football
Sports Illustrated article starts: "When the NCAA Rules Committee voted a return to two-platoon football last month, one of the least surprised men in the country—and one of the most pleased—was Fritz Crisler, athletic director of the University of Michigan. Crisler is a life member of the Rules Committee."
September 8th, 2017 at 2:43 PM ^
Football will "die" just like soccer will be the most popular sport in the US.
People have been saying that since the 70s.
Just more untrue nonsense from the media.
September 8th, 2017 at 2:57 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 3:54 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 3:55 PM ^
It's the dogwhistle "don't believe the fake media" angle. As usual.
September 8th, 2017 at 6:16 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 6:52 PM ^
Just as a physical dogwhistle can be identified by features other than the sound it makes, so too can "fake media" accusations be characterized as "dogwhistle" without actually being triggered, for lack of a better term, by the phrase.
If I blow an instrument that a trusted source has identified as a dogwhistle, don't hear anything myself, and see dogs come running or otherwise react as a dog would when a dogwhistle was blown, I would argue that a reasonable conclusion would be that the instrument is in fact a dogwhistle. Similarly, if someone makes a fake media claim that looks like other fake media claims, and I see others respond as others are known to when someone makes such claims, I would argue that it is a reasonable conclusion that describing the accusation as a dogwhistle accusation is a fair characterization.
Also, I can identify a "fake media" claim without thinking any less of the person making the claim. I have assumed nothing about them and simply made my own assesment about the nature of their claim. At what point is any of that personal? Answer, nothing.
September 8th, 2017 at 7:45 PM ^
I also have a sneaking suspicion that the poster isn't really Madonna.
September 8th, 2017 at 8:30 PM ^
No need to go and make it personal now...
September 8th, 2017 at 9:42 PM ^
September 9th, 2017 at 10:14 AM ^
With suitable equipment, I can objectively test a claim made using inductive reasoning as to whether an object does in fact emit a frequency outside of human hearing. There's rarely anything comparably objective in ideological debates except on certain discrete facts. I'm no Rortian relatvist/constructivist, but subjectvity pervades our worldviews.
So you agree with me? Or do you disagree because you don't think that someone can look at the structure of an argument or the manner in which it is delivered and make an objective statement (subject to scrupulous debate no doubt) about the intent of the speaker without taking any position or making any comment on the substance of the statement itself? Perhaps it is my training and experience in looking at the structures of arguments that makes it easy to divorce the substance of an argument from the way in which it is made. Sometimes the distinction is irrelevant, other times, as here, it is.
The notion that you are not making a pejorative assessment of someone when you label their opinion an unsupported "fake news" claim is laughable. It's a direct personal assessment that person in question is ignorant, gullible, and/or dishonest. Another problematic element of the "dog whistle" accusation specifically, is that it literally relies on a dehumanizing analogy. Likening humans in out groups to other animals has an ugly history and the hypocrisy of its use speaks for itself.
In this section, you mistakenly attribute WD's disdain to the poster who called him out for making a dogwhistle argument. If you look again, you will see that the criticism is not of WD, but of the manner of his argument. There is no need to go into more. You can dehor the name modern parlance has bestowed upon the criticism, but it's no different than asserting that WD's argument is ad hominem, is hyperbolic, makes false equivalencies, is more trustworthy based upon his own prodigous MGOPoint total, or any other of a host of structural problems. One could certainly argue that there are better terms than 'dogwhistle', but the point gets across and your argument that everyone who uses the term per se intends to dehumanize, while not laughable is beyond reasonable.
September 9th, 2017 at 4:25 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 3:10 PM ^
As a former media member, thank you for this! This is absurdity at the finest level as if every writer, reporter, producer, etc. meets somewhere once a week in a volcano to discuss how to push our agenda (whatever that agenda may be).
September 8th, 2017 at 3:23 PM ^
This is why you're not in the media anymore. You missed too many of our meetings and we kicked you out.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:14 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 7:19 PM ^
^ Username checks out.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:53 PM ^
I know it was you Burger Man. You had it out for me from Day 1! Just because I wanted to do a story about the benefits of eating chicken over beef and you disagreed and then the High Priest of the Media conducted a vote and you lost.
I'll get even with you if it's the last thing I do.
September 8th, 2017 at 3:35 PM ^
See as most of the morons get their news from 2 stations who conveniently sit on opposite sides i can see his point. These same people run to social media to try and seem important.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:05 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 4:54 PM ^
Honestly, the unpaid interns do most of the heavy lifting. So many good journalism students lost this year. They gave their lives for the greater good, though.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 4:59 PM ^
The JournOList thing was devoid of context (not that I was a member of it), but I get how it can come across as malevolent in some way.
The second part of your post I do agree with. A dissolution of the line between journalism and editorializing ruined political discourse and the ability of the general public to discern what's true and what's false.
September 8th, 2017 at 5:01 PM ^
being a big shit load of nothing, that had absolutely no bearing on Obamas fitness to serve as President.
September 8th, 2017 at 5:04 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 9:06 PM ^
Of all the criticisms you could lob at journalists, saying it's about money is the least legitimate. That may be true of publishers, but it's almost never true of the underpaid, overworked people who report for them. There's the old saying you get the ___ you deserve. If you want exhaustive, considered, honest reporting, start reading or clicking on it.
September 8th, 2017 at 3:33 PM ^
Whether it's political or social...The words or descriptions may change but it's pretty much an all-or-nothing label places on entire populations.
September 8th, 2017 at 3:36 PM ^
He's got his influences/reasons for this attitude. No reason to dissect it.
September 8th, 2017 at 3:41 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 5:09 PM ^
if he said it in a reasonable manner like you did, that media sensationalizes things because they literally have to in a media environment that rewards clicks over truth (which is 100 percent the fault of consumers of media), everyone would nod their heads in agreement, like we did to your post.
But to call opinion pieces "untrue" as if there is any concrete prediction that could be verifiable (there isn't) is just lazy and stupid. Call it overblown, or disagree with the guys opinion, or say that it won' happen nearly as quickly as implied in the article, but there's nothing to even call "untrue" here because it's a guy writing a sensational piece aimed at clicks. Nothing more.
September 8th, 2017 at 5:15 PM ^
You're not wrong, but that's not what he meant. He has spouted the "fake news" line many, many times. He's... one of them.
September 8th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 4:51 PM ^
the guy makes some interesting points, sensationalizes it (because clicks), and gives some opinions. One guy's opinion.
September 8th, 2017 at 5:45 PM ^
The world's problems can be broken down into 3 things:
1) The Government
2) The Media
3) Big Pharma
September 8th, 2017 at 7:33 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 8:56 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 11:36 PM ^
Tyrone for the win. You nailed it dude
September 8th, 2017 at 11:36 PM ^
Tyrone for the win. You nailed it dude
September 8th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
Yogi Berra said it best, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future!"
September 8th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^
September 8th, 2017 at 3:52 PM ^
Good for them. And when their kids grow up, they're gonna wanna play football.
That's usually how it goes. Kids start in soccer all the time and move on to football. Harbaugh recommends it.
Football is the last bastion of hope for toughness in American men.
I'm not hate soccer guy, either. I've been to two Michigan Soccer games in the last 3 weeks.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
My 9-year old son currently plays soccer, but wants to play football. Guess what? I'm not going to let him play football, because I'm worried about his safety. And I know I'm not alone in my thinking.
As for the notion that football is "the last bastion for toughness," I know Harbaugh said it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is breathtakingly stupid.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:07 PM ^
Hope you're OK with your son not being an Adonis-like example of American masculinity and toughness.
/s
September 8th, 2017 at 4:09 PM ^
What organized sport did you play, Bando?
September 8th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
asking him that is it turns into a pissing contest. Just because he was more musically gifted doesnt make him any less of a man/give him any less of a right to have an opinion on it, just like you are able to have a comment on Michigan sports despite not having attended Michigan. I play college football, and I can see why people wouldn't want their kids playing. It's a violent sport, and it's done longterm damage on my body.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:28 PM ^
What school did you go to, WD?
September 8th, 2017 at 4:34 PM ^
SHOTS FIRED.
September 8th, 2017 at 8:17 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 8th, 2017 at 4:46 PM ^