The Game and It's Fans

So, I'm perusing Google+ this morning and I see this video posted by Scott Reibolt about an over-zealous fan of the Baltimore Ravens. It is Baltimore, isn't it? I'm going on memory here and that sounds right.

I'm also assuming this is from a recent game. I really don't know since I don't watch football, or any sport for that matter. Why, you might ask? Well, because it never made sense to me. I don't understand why people spend their entire days huddled around a TV hoping someone they don't know does something they can't do. I mean, if Player-A makes a touch-down, how does that affect the world? it doesn't -- it affects Player-A's bank account. How does it affect anything, really? It doesn't, except Player-A might get a new contract or get a better deal if he goes to a new team. But does it change anything important? Is there suddenly world peace? Are terrorists going to drop their plans? Is illegal immigration going to go away? Is the magical-economy fairy going to fix the economy if Team-A wins the bowl game?

No. None of those scenarios will likely come to pass.

Now, how does that affect you personally? Will your job get better? Maybe, if you suckle at the teat of the sports industry, but in all likelihood, it won't get better. Will your kids suddenly respect you? Nope, probably not. Maybe your car/house will magically get fixed.  Doubtful.

So, why do people watch other people do things that don't benefit them at all? Is it a chance to live vicariously through the actions of others while safely ensconced in a LazyBoy chair or on the couch? Is it a chance to live, or accomplish something? 

It's none of the above, actually.

My father was never much of a father and I remember when growing up, the only time he ever had for my brother and I was during football games when we were expected to watch the game and not really bother him. Did this directly affect my opinion of professional sports? I don't think so. I wasn't interested in them then and I grew up never really understanding why people chose to sit around all day watching a other people play a game.

I remember coming home one time and my dad invited me to watch a game over at his house. I went, if for nothing more than to spend a couple of house with my dad. I was bored silly. I think it was somewhere through the first quarter when I asked him why he watched football so ardently. He replied, "it's something to do."

Okay, great. But aren't there other things to do? You could go out on the boat, go to the beach, go fishing, mow the lawn, etc. His reply was simply that all those things could also get done around the game. So, in essence he had no answer -- if watching football is something to do, and yet there are other more constructive things to get done, then the first answer is without merit.

But he didn't have a better answer. I don't know if he even understood why I was asking. He did, in turn, ask me why I don't watch sports and I told him: I have better things to do with my time than watch someone else do something that doesn't directly affect me. But I do watch TV, don't I? 

Of course I do. But I'm usually doing something else at the same time. It might be something as benign as surfing the internet, or it might be something as productive as playing with my dog or cleaning the house, but usually, when I'm watching TV, it's the end of the day and everything that needed to get done got done. 

Nine time out of 10, though, the TV is back ground noise for me. I'd probably be just as happy with talk radio or a book on tape as I am with the TV. Am I going to lose it when Ross and Rachel don't get together? Not as all. Am I going to lose sleep when the guys from *Law and Order* don't get their guy? Nope. Am I going to freak out and call all my friends idiots because Leroy Jethro Gibbs got shot again? Probably not.

Anywho, the point of this post was (1) to rant a bit, and (2) to say this:

I posted a comment on the above video:

A perfect example of why I don't get sports fans. They get all upset over watching someone else do something while they sit on the couch, drink beer and get fatter.

How does a game change anything for you? Did it end war? Change a treaty? Stop police brutality? Influence foreign policy? Give you your job? Take your job?

If your life is so unfullfilling that you have to live vicariously through others' achievements, it's time to re-evaluate your life.

And the responses were indicative of how I view sports fans: 

From cfcb327

@Nooncaster you have no idea because youve never played a sport u fuckin idiot. go play some xbox you fuckin queer

From grantmac1515

@Nooncaster shut the fuck up, fagget

From keithr120 (who starts off reasonably enough)

@Nooncaster It's called entertainment. When you invest time in watching and caring about a team for years, you become emotionally invested in their success and also failures. Sorry we aren't busy changing the world 24/7 like you are, dick.

From gear0510 (who, while is the only one with a valid answer: it's entertainment)

@Nooncaster Get off your high horse. People enjoy watching the game and it makes them happy/sad. Who are you to judge what other's want to do for fun?

From KawiKab327

@Nooncaster and you really think preaching about this will end a war, change a treaty, stop police brutality, influence foreign policy, give you your job or take your job? 

what if this guy makes more money than you do, bangs a hotter wife than you do (assuming you are male, as there are no females on the internet) and still is dedicated to the baltimore ravens? 

i'm a sports fan and i love rooting for my team.

From peezy419

@Nooncaster shut up hippie lol

From TrainEatySleepy (the most reasonable of the bunch)

@Nooncaster Nope, it's irrational, but we become emotionally invested, and when a win is that close and a fuck up/bad call etc happens........there is disappointment.

It was so close, so I understand the guy's outrage. It doesn't mean we don't realize there are more important things

One has to wonder why there is so much hate? Did someone piss in their Wheaties, as the saying goes? Oh, nope, maybe their team lost and they don't have anyone else to be angry with. Is that just another reason to ignore sports? My blood pressure doesn't skyrocket until some idiot of a GOPer says something stupid or some moron of a Democrat tries to take away my rights. I've never felt I needed to set a car on fire, start a riot or just plain ol' start a bar fight because of game or a television show. Maybe I have better things to "get emotionally involved with."

Oh, and yes, I have played sports. Still would if it were for a few herniated discs I have. You know, from an accident I had while outside playing sports. I'm cool like that.

UPDATE

A few new comments came in while I was typing this out:

From Cito6t9
@Nooncaster o you probably never played sports my friend. You cheer hard when your on the team or not. when you grow up watching a teams every play, every move they find a place in your heart. just like your passionate about political issues it seems, some of us love sports it's important in to us no reason to hate buddy.

From Kirstengator

@Nooncaster lol seriously? get off your high horse

UPDATE 2

A few more comments came in in the past few hours:

From TheDustyChincilla
@Nooncaster clearly a nerd who got picked on in high school by the football team. people are passionate about their teams because they have pride for their city or favorite players, and when a player who is payed millions to ONLY kick field goals, and he misses, he is a fuckup and anyone would be mad at such a bad mistake. what are you passionate about? video games? role playing? dont bash other peoples passions because your life is sad

From JaayyB (ah yet, another reasonable person, sandwiched between two not reasonable persons)
@Nooncaster I think if it makes people happy, improves communication between our species and brings people together as a community, what's the problem?

From Analyseforu

@Nooncaster douche bag says what? 

Read More

SOPA and Protect-IP

This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed. ███ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ .███ ███

Read More

This is Not Trolling

This is an internet based argument. Notice Michael Schroeder makes a claim -- I do not disagree with him so much as I claim the officers actually handle themselves in an appropriate manner. Back and forth exchanges before I finally throw in some facts (from Wikipedia) to support my opinion. It's been a while, at least a while as the internet gauges, and no response back from Michael. I wonder if he hates facts that dispute his opinion.

See it here.

Michael Schroeder  -  Jan 10, 2012  -  Public

This is how we should all react when see a Citizens' rights being violated. This is in fact not only an OPTION, it is an OBLIGATION for freedom loving Americans.

Keep Doing Your Job Without Question Officers…..

  -  Comment  -  Hang out  -  Share

7 comments

Jason ON  -  In all fairness, the man did physically attack the officer. We don't know why the first man was being arrested, but the second man comes in and attacks the officer. The officers then subdue and try to get the offender off of their comrade. Violently? Yes. Overbearing use of force? I don't think so. Once the guy let's go of the first cop they put him in cuffs (or bind his hands) and then use pepper-spray to keep others back but considering what just happened the cop is now worried about his safety and justifiably so.

What they do not do is repeatedly physically assault the man after he's been handcuffed. They do not randomly or purposefully over pepper-spray any one individual or the crowds of spectators. They do not pull firearms and make a tense situation worse.

In all, I think these officers acted in a proper manner for their situation.

Expand this comment »

Jan 10, 2012  -  Edit   

Michael Schroeder  -  I'm point out the citizen who attacked the cop. The backstory on this is that they grabbed a random black man who chose not to obey when told to come with them, when they would not provide him with a legal reason to do so.

As I said, we as citizens are obligated to act in the manner of that brave soul who stood up to the fascist.

Jan 10, 2012   

Jason ON  -  I don't know what this means:

I'm point out the citizen who attacked the cop.

Where did you get this backstory? Did the police have reason to suspect the original man was involved with something illegal? Was he suspected of drugs? Was he a CI? Did the police get a report of a similarly dressed man in the area having committed a crime?

The police are allowed to stop you for questioning and they really don't need a reason to although it does help if they have one. We don't know why the guy was thrown to the ground and had the two police officers on him.

Collapse this comment

Jan 10, 2012  -  Edit   

Michael Schroeder  -  As for where I got the backstory - I used something called deductive logic. First, I watched the video and saw that they were Baltimore police (based on their insignia and their car) . I then looked at the posting date of the source linked at copblock.org. Then I googled "baltimore police attacked during arrest" and read several different articles, some mainstream some exstream, about the incident, then made a judgement on my own.

But I have to tell you, +Jason ON, you're a sheep and it's people like you that give police an overinflated sense of their place in the world and the obligations of their office.

The police are most certainly not allowed to stop you for questioning, there is a concept in the United States called due process of law.

Secondly, any time the police intend to interact with a citizen for any reason they must provide a valid reason. If their reason is unconstitutional or not valid in some other way, or even if you choose not to do so, unless you are already told you are being put under arrest, then you have no obligation to adhere to their orders or stay in their presence.

"Resisting arrest" is the only charge the original victim here will be facing, be cause there was no other crime committed prior - So the reason they're arresting him is that he was resisting an unlawful arrest, which is well within a citizens' Constitutional rights.

Collapse this comment

Jan 10, 2012   

Jason ON  -  You're wrong. The police need a valid reason under the law to arrest you or detail you and each have different criteria they need to meet. However, just to stop you they don't. The courts have upheld that time and time again. Think of it like a traffic stop: the police should, but don't necessarily, need an excuse to pull you over. They flip on the lights and you pull over. Then and only then do they need to justify it, but not until they've asked for your license, registration and insurance.

Secondly yes you do under the caveat of a 'reasonable amount of time.' Look at my above example: the police can stop and detain you legally for a reasonable amount of time in order to ticket you, check your credentials, etc. all without arresting you.

It's called Constitutional Law, go take a class.

Again, you "used" dedusctive reasoning but you failed to show your sources. If you've already looked and read them finding a couple to share shouldn't be too hard. So I'll withhold my opinion until you've done so.

And no, I am not a sheep. I'm more anti-cop than a lot of people, but in this scenario, from what I've seen, they did nothing wrong.

Expand this comment »

Yesterday 9:08 AM  -  Edit   

Michael Schroeder  -  +Jason ON - You can't withhold your opinion, as you say you will, when you have already offered it.
You should research for yourself the incident, which is very easily found based on the criteria presented already. I say you should research it yourself because in researching it you will find much data and many situations that will be all the more valuable to your experience because you discovered them while researching for yourself.
You won't appreciate, clearly, incidences that are handfed to you.

As for Constitutional Law, I'll give you a very brief class.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a citizen from illegal search and seizure. This is not the "seizure" that we think of, as in seizing goods, but also of seizure of person.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld that a citizen does not need to listen to or address police officers unless they are under arrest or being seized. They have also upheld that police have a right to conduct a pat down or frisking, if and only if, several specific conditions are met. In this incident, none of those seemed to have been met, based on the released statements of the police department and witnesses.
Also, the Supreme Court has upheld a citizens right to avoid a "citizen encounter" - that is an interaction with police officers who have not used a show of force or indicated in a way that a reasonable person would believe they are compelled to obey. If it is not a citizen encounter, it is an arrest or seizure.

So, in short, the police had no right to escalate a citizen encounter for which they did not have cause to arrest or even to pat down the suspect into a full arrest and the citizen was fully within his rights to protest and avoid this unlawful seizure of his person. The bystander who assaulted the police was doing nothing more than ensuring the Constitutional rights of his fellow citizen, upon noting that the police officers were directly in violation of such.

And I reiterate, it is the duty of a citizen to act a way that upholds the Constitutional rights of all citizens, especially when those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution are in violation of it.

Collapse this comment

Yesterday 10:57 AM   

Jason ON  -  Actually, +Michael Schroeder, it's you who made the claim who must provide proof to defend your claim. I dont have to unless I make a claim.

Just like I said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Police.E2.80.93citizen_encounters

It's called Constitutional Law.

Like I said, with the facts that were presented we don't know why the police had the first man on the ground and were trying to restrain him. You made a claim that the internet does know what transpired before the video you present but you provided no references to back up your claim and therefore your claim does not stand.

That being said, I stand by my original opinion: the police, given the situation they were in, didn't act in an unreasonable manner.

Expand this comment »

Yesterday 11:08 AM  -  Edit   

Read More

Dolphin Watching

So, this morning I took Rufus with me to the beach to watch the sunrise. Truth be told, I don't think I'm going to take him again as he was more interested in watching the kitty that was running loose than he was in watching the Sun crest the horizon.

Anywho, after the sunrise we pulled over at the Indian River Lagoon and walked for a while. Once we were under the Melbourne Causeway I noticed the water moving and soon saw a dolphin (or porpoise, I really don't know. But for the sake of this story I'm going to go with "dolphin.")

Since I am like a trained special forces soldier in my reflexes I grabbed my Android and took some video. If you have 5min take a look. If you don't... well, you're not missing much.

Please Note: I will be playing the role of the narrator and Rufus will be playing the role of dog.

Read More

Seriously, Sometimes Trolling is Fun

Here, I only meant to be a smartass on my first post, but Marie Ackerman-Young took me a little too seriously:

Dunken K Bliths  -  7:43 PM  -  Public

Lamar Smith Champion of SOPA (Censorship’s bitch)
Besieged by thousands of Angry Voters on Facebook

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/01/07/lamar-smith-champion-of-sopa-censorships-bitch-besieged-by-thousands-of-angry-voters-on-facebook/

more of my animations at +Dunken K Bliths

Animations (194 photos)

More photos from Dunken K Bliths

  -  Comment  -  Hang out  -  Share

+11

4 shares  -  Erhard Baltrusch, Jennifer Pagán, John Tintle, and Shawn Hildebrand

5 comments

Erhard Baltrusch  -  Love it! Reshared..

7:45 PM   

Jason ON  -  It dances?

7:46 PM  -  Edit    

+1

   

marie ackerman-young  -  it breaks apart...

7:53 PM   

Jason ON  -  It's not breaking apart, it's dancing until it's clothes come off.

8:05 PM  -  Edit    

+1

   

marie ackerman-young  -  :blank stare....

8:06 PM   

Add a comment...

 Note: the +1's on my comments are by the posts original author who apparently gets my sense of humor.  See the whole thing HERE and don't forget to check out Dunken K. Blith's website:  http://www.blindskunk.com/animated_gifs/ . He makes these awesome animated gifs out of photos and whatnot.

Read More

I Trolled ... and it was fun

Yes, yes. I'm not above a good time at the expense of others. Plus, I was on mobile and I don't like typing big responses on mobile. 

To see it in real life, CLICK THIS

Gregory MacBeth  -  Jan 5, 2012  -  

Mobile

  -  Public

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/05/hail-to-the-king-obamas-latest-power-grab/

King Obama circumvents Congress and says he will go around the legislative body when he can't get his " ROYAL" way. Then he says he will not accept "NO" from Congress.

King Obama needs to read a traditional history book and learn how our government has worked since Washington. They must teach something different in Indonesia about the functioning of the US Republic. BUT of course they teach something different about our government operation.

This is what happens when liberals and street thugs elect a candidate that is not a natural citizen and has been educated outside the US by foreigners.

Siderwheel Dr, Rockledge, Florida

  -  Comment  -  Hang out  -  Share

16 comments

Antonio Jordan  -  Sounds like your heart hurts!!!!

Jan 5, 2012   

Gregory MacBeth  -  Not my heart, but my country. America hurts b/c it elected a Socialist who is ashamed of being American. Obama values European thought over American Exceptionalism. He makes Carter look great.

Jan 6, 2012   

Antonio Jordan  -  Did your country hurt when BUSH was president???

Jan 6, 2012   

Gregory MacBeth  -  Yes, he was another idiot but for a totally different reason. His problem was entitlement b/c of his father and good role fashion ignorance.

We need to find our generations Washington and Obama is definitely not it, but then again neither is Santorum or the other douche front runner from Massachusetts. We need Newt or Alan West. We need a real American leader to lose this funk and restore our Republic.

Jan 6, 2012   

Antonio Jordan  -  We sure do need to find our generations Washington,but it won't happen with the self serving,greedy,out of touch politicians of today.Sad to say but AMERICA is in serious decline,and things won't change until the citizen take to streets like they do in Europe,and the Middle East.Regardless of who's elected,the politics of America is what's goin to ruin this country!!!

Jan 6, 2012   

Gregory MacBeth  -  you are right that career politicians and beuracrats will be our doom if we don't show them the way back to their homes. That's why I never vote for the same Guy after two terms unless they seek a new higher office. BUT you are wrong in a MAJOR way in suggesting protest and riots like what we see overseas as being the solution. Those people have no other choice because they do not have the same freedoms that we do in America. Americans don't need to protest nor riot, we just need to vote intelligently. A good start is to stop voting for the same career beaurocrat each election. We need to impose a term limit of two. Furthermore, Congress needs to live under the same laws as the rest of its citizens. I could go on, but this not the proper forum for a legnthy discourse.

Please consider voting over protest and rioting. Americans lead the world in freedom and we need to protect those freedoms by exercising personal responsability and intelligent voting. These two items could change and revitalize America.

Jan 6, 2012   

Antonio Jordan  -  Sir,in no way did I mean rioting but I don't see anything wrong with peaceful protest.I voted in the last 3 elections,but as long as America continues to operate the way it does,I just dont see positive change.I have 2 daughters age 5 & 2,and I hate to think about whats in store for them 25 to 30 years from now!!!

Jan 6, 2012   

Jason ON  -  Glenn Beck is a moron as well as anywho who believes a word he says.

Yesterday 6:19 PM  -  Edit   

Gregory MacBeth  -  Jason, you strike me as swell fellow given that broad generalization. The detailed evidence that you provide to back up your claim is astonishing and really bring to light your incredible intelligence. WOW! To have a friend like you must be a real ego boost. Thanks for jumping in here and sharing your intelligence.

Yesterday 8:48 PM   

Jason ON  -  No problem. :)

Yesterday 9:06 PM  -  Edit   

Gregory MacBeth  -  What a douche!

Yesterday 9:11 PM   

Jason ON  -  So we agree? Glenn Beck is a douche.

Yesterday 9:33 PM  -  Edit   

Gregory MacBeth  -  No Glenn Beck and I agree you're a douche. Maybe even an enema.

Yesterday 10:20 PM   

Jason ON  -  You checked with him, then? Or are you making stupid stuff up like he does, now?

Yesterday 10:40 PM  -  Edit   

Gregory MacBeth  -  Your not worth my time.

Yesterday 11:03 PM   

Jason ON  -  Oh, come on! I'm worth a lot of people's time. Even yours. I'm practically Jesus like that.

 The End. :D

Read More