Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naturegirl1999]

@Reelya

You're not taking humans into account NG. Things are not interchangeable in that way.

By "function similarly" you actually mean "function completely differently". You can't just replace US football with League of Legends because both have teams and tournaments. Reality just doesn't work like that and you're completely disregarding actual humans in your statement.

The point is that the existing sport is the essential thing because existing people follow it. It's the social institution that matters. The similarities to online gaming are extremely superficial here, because those similarities aren't the important thing that we're trying to preserve by maintaining the sport. Cancelling sports because eSports are a "substitute" is like cancelling religion and saying to watch some fantasy movies instead since those have gods in them too. It's not going to go over well and it misses the point of why religion is a social institution, and watching a movie about a completely fictional religion isn't the same thing as having a religion. Similarly, group sports are about more than watching people play a game on TV, they're about tradition and community and identity. You can't just make up a bunch of computer games and say "you want sports, well there you go! what's your problem?" and expect that to actually work.

My post was in response to this

Depending on how you slice it, "SportsBall" (ahem) could be considered an essential social service.

Without it, you end up with reduced social capacity to diffuse in-group/out-group tension in a harmless manner, which then leads to increased negative outcomes from social isolation.

I’m saying online games also serve the functions of harmless in group/out group tension diffusion in a harmless manner, and staging off social isolation.

Not all humans require football to be part of social groups. I am a human who is not part of the football social institution, but I still socialize. I suggested online games because I, a human, thought it was a good idea. Not all humans think like you, Reelya. Not all humans think like me. Just because I think differently than you, doesn’t mean I don’t take humans into account. Forgive me for assuming that not all humans in the country are part of football social groups. On the topic of replacing religion with movies, that may also be poorly received, but movies don’t start holy wars, crusades, or the killing of those who don’t like the movie/never heard of it. Not everyone is religious, atheism is increasing, meaning more people are starting to not believe in religion anyway. Is preserving religion worth the persecutions? Is preserving football worth the head injuries and potential infection? We don’t do gladiator fights anymore, we found new methods of entertainment, so too will we find new methods of entertainment upon the canceling of football, as it is not the only sport.

Just because I think not like you, doesn’t mean I don’t take humans into account. Not all humans think the same. Not all humans wish for traditions to be kept regardless of the harm it causes.

[Eschar]

However, those who were involved in the football tradition probably won't adopt the new traditions happily, meaning the new traditions won't be able to provide the benefits weird mentioned to everyone from the old traditions.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

From what I've seen, sportsball being on makes people more likely to beat their kids and spouses, not less.

[Reelya]

There was some - discredited - research saying that wife beating went up 40% during the superbowl and was widely spread - because it appealed to cultural biases. But relying on stuff like that makes people no more objective than conservatives are when they spread the similar untruths that happen to appeal to their own cultural biases.

As for your observation that it makes those things more likely: In fact, there was a deep look at the statistics in response to the "superbowl = wife beating" meme, and they couldn't find any supporting data whatsoever. So it's not just a matter of opinion here, this is something they went over with a fine tooth comb to see whether there was any truth in that. Sporting events have been discredited as causing any blip in domestic violence statistics whatsoever. The actual big blip is Christmas.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/domestic-violence-super-bowl-sunday/

On of the cogent facts here is a lot of these claims came from citing reputable sources, but when the sources were contacted by journalists, the sources denied making any such statement. they also cited non-existent research done by groups who then stated they'd never conducted such research. This is not just about some misunderstood research papers, somewhere in this chain you have outright liars and professional fabrication of research. These people are in fact as bad as creationists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can find a few other studies suggesting the point, which presumably have not all been discredited. As they say, you can be right even if you did your research wrong.

I don't think this qualifies as appealing to cultural biases. Sports are incredibly popular and important in the public cultural mindset, and if anything people would have a bias towards ignoring evidence they they cause harm, such as the NFL's saga to deny that playing in the NFL will inevitably give you brain damage that might at some point in the future cause you to flip out and murder your family, or more likely just die of an aneurysm at 40.

While I don't like mass sports or their cultures and could be expected to be biased against them for that reason, I don't dislike them for no reason either, but because of what I've seen from people engaged in them. Anecdotal evidence may not be valid for publication, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not valid at all.

I'd make the conjecture that sports might not trigger this behavior very much if we didn't live in a world full of violent bigoted drunkards...but we do in fact live in a world full of violent bigoted drunkards, and they don't seem to be going away anytime soon, so....

[Reelya]

The first paper isn't very convincing

During  the  10-day-long  Calgary Stampede, domestic violence calls on the seventh, ninth and tenth day of  Stampede,  were  up  15  per  cent  compared  to  an  average  day. 

Which is an odd summary to pick.

EDIT breaking this down:

First, for any random 10 day period, 5 of the days would be expected to be "above average", so it's a no-brainer that you could pick the three highest days, and stated that they're X% above the average day.

Second, this is for a specific type of emergency call in a specific town. If they receive 5000 DV call on an average day vs 50, that would make a lot of difference, since for 50 calls a day, the day to day deviation will be a lot larger, so you're more likely to get days that are markedly above the average.

Third, if it's a general thing, then why not just outright state that the average number of DV calls was higher than average over the whole 10 days, rather than picking out three specific days of a specific year and making that statement. The reason that this is disingenuous is that they could pick any three days out of the ten, so they had many ways to make the same claim even if it's a statistical blip. On average, 5 days out of any 10 will be greater than average and if you narrow that to looking at the highest three days, then you can just set the bar at whatever % the lowest of those three you picked. Like rolling 4 dice and discarding the lowest roll, then claiming you've discovered something new about the "average of rolling dice".

if it's a general thing it should be true of the whole period under question, but they haven't made that statement, and they haven't look at more than one year. Is this replicable for even the whole 10 days, let alone different years?

[dragdeler]

-

[Starver]

I'm currently in a relative's house. We're watching TV (Pointless, just finishing, and I have no idea what Pointless answers might exist in "People starring in Classic Literature adaptation serieses on the TV", so I'm typing instead) and when we turned over from the channel where the programme about the canal-boating had just finished we caught the end of the (Association) football match, apparently in Wembley, that was supposed to finish at the turn of the hour.

"They're just talking about football." "This is supposed to be finished." "Why are they just talking about football?" <talking ends, prepared musical montage starts> "It's well past eight o'oclock..." <montage turns into end credits> "The next programme should have started by now!" <end credits continue... continue... continue> "Ah good..." <BBC announcer voices over that there's a football podcast on BBC Sounds> <...and another one, slightly different but still about football>. "..." <-seething

Luckily no-one here is prone to violence. Either through disliking football or disliking the manner in whch other people are disliking football.


(I'm not too keen on football, either, though do at least understand that a football match programme will have people talking about football, and probably overtime if the match had any extra time to it. And some viewers will appreciate it. Well, almost everyone who chooses to watch)


Pointless has now finished. Now watching The Repair Shop. Amazing, it's got a number of people reparing things. But no complaints from any of us here, because we quite like people repairing things!  Doesn't matter that we've seen it before.


On sports, properly, that I am interested in: Next weekend I'm officiating at my second event of the season.  The first was before Lockdown and I should have been heavily involved in... eight or so..? during the period which were just outright cancelled and haven't been even tentatively rescheduled.  The autumn section of the programme looks to be as agreed at the end of last year (a couple of cancellations, but I was not going to be involved in either) though there'll be probably still be the Social Distancing changes involved.  As already tested by one or two events already (re)staged post-Lockdown, locally, that weren't ever in my original list.

[scriver]

I don't think this qualifies as appealing to cultural biases.

I was originally going to respond to this with "he said twenty minutes after unironically saying 'sportsball'"

but then you ended the post with

hile I don't like mass sports or their cultures and could be expected to be biased against them for that reason, I don't dislike them for no reason either, but because of what I've seen from people engaged in them

and

but we do in fact live in a world full of violent bigoted drunkards

and there's just too much lack of self-reflection there to choose just one

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now scriver, there's no way 20 minutes actually passed between those posts, that's just the forum clock being weird again.

[Reelya]

Ooh, they won't like that second paper you linked, MetalSlimeHunt. That one is actually contradicting the gender model of family violence. Here's the full thing:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51582717_Family_Violence_and_Football_The_Effect_of_Unexpected_Emotional_Cues_on_Violent_Behavior

And here's a critique of the gender-based Duluth model. Note that what's proposed in the paper you cited is one of the things noted in the below paper as being something the genderists are against:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222822395_The_Duluth_Model_A_data-impervious_paradigm_and_a_failed_strategy

It's actually taboo to state that domestic violence is related to anger because that's seen as sidelining the patriarchal control theory.

The first paper, the one you cited notes that police reports of violence in general are higher in a time-window after an upset loss:

The strong impact of random external factors on the rate of family violence provides compelling evidence that at least some portion of family violence arises through a  breakdown of control, rather than as instrumental behavior driven by purely rational choice

Ooh, you shouldn't be quoting that paper, it's a renegade paper. "instrumental behavior" is code for patriarchal control mechanism. For example if you held that a man hit a woman in order to reassert his control that would definitely be an "instrumental behavior", because it had purpose behind it. To say that it isn't and is instead caused by an emotional breakdown of rationality is actually highly taboo. If you read the (second) paper I linked, the authors write a fair bit about how mainstream feminist writers on this subject are heavily against the notion that family violence is due to poor impulse control, because that's harder to shoehorn into the ideological model they're working with.

economists have developed models with a similar risk of breakdown in rationality to explain ... drug use by addicts ... and other failures of self-control ... In this paper we specify and test a simple behavioral model in which violence arises when interactions between the members of conflict-prone families escalate to the point of physical danger.

Ooh, "conflict-prone families" there, and "breakdown of rationality" and "failures of self control". They're getting dangerously off-message in this whole paper. No wonder we haven't heard about this one

Also note that the size of the effect is about the same as the effect of having warm weather, and about 1/4 the size of the effect of a major holiday.

an 8 percent impact is comparable to the  effect of a hot day (over 80 degrees Fahrenheit), and is about one-fourth the magnitude of the spike in violence on a major holiday like Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July

A hot day? 27 degrees celsius? And that's the same size as the effect of this football-induced violence? Major stuff here. So ... a major football loss has the same effect on family conflict as turning the thermostat up by about 4 degrees, or the aircon breaking down on a not especially hot day.

[Naturegirl1999]

Do we know why heat affects violence levels? Why football affects violence levels? I don’t follow football, so I don’t know why it would cause increases in violent responses. Even if football didn’t cause violent responses, the sport itself still causes injury risk, with head tackles and such. Not to mention the COVID pandemic currently happening, which football would be an excellent way to get vectors together for virus transport.

[misko27]

Bolsonaro is complaining that he is feeling unwell because of a "mold" in his lungs that he caught in the hospital.

[Naturegirl1999]

Who knows, maybe he has a fungus and a virus, it’s a possibility

[Reelya]

I don't think Bolsonaro actually went to hospital, he was just self-isolated. Remember he self-medicated with HCQ so who knows.

At this point I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bolsonaro has a sudden turn for the worse and goes into ICU with serious complications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/01/face-will-probably-get-coronavirus-jair-bolsonaro-tells-brazilians/

He says he has "mouldy lungs" due to sitting around for three weeks. That's not really a thing, is it?