Resolved: Sport is Transcendent

[Miller]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Well, that depends on what your hobbies are. My tax dollars pay for museums, grants for the arts, the construction of the convention center where your model railroad convention is held, etc.

So far as I’m aware, there are no government bonds for Dungeons and Dragons games. Also, I tend to buy my books from stores that operate in the free market, and my video games and movie collection are entirely unsubsidized by the tax payers at large.

I do enjoy the occasional trip to a museum, though, so fair point to you on that score.

Always? Violence is not necessarily coexistent with sport.

I didn’t say “always.” But it’s certainly common enough to put the lie to the idea that sports are always beneficial to the community.

The exception that proves the rule. That this level of hooliganism is seen as abhorrent is precisely BECAUSE it is so outside the idea of what we see as sportsmanship and fandom.

Well, no, it’s abhorrent because it’s senseless violence over a meaningless game. But while not necessarily common, it certainly does not appear to be exceptional.

Also, in the phrase, “the exception that proves the rule,” the word “proves” means “tests,” not “confirms.” An exception that proves a rule could very well demonstrate that the rule is not true at all.

If you don’t like sport, that’s fine. But the fact does remain that, as a symbol of community or solidarity, as an aspirational model for a large segment of the population, and as an unscripted, dramatic spectacle, sport has a valid and noble place in the human experience.

I’d put that more in the “opinion” column than in the “fact” column. I’m not denying that sports have a beneficial aspect. But they’re just as capable of revealing the worst things in human nature as they are of revealing the best. Additionally, us non-sports fans feel the negative repurcussions of professional sports (social unrest, increased taxes, loss of property through eminent domain, traffic congestion on game days) as hard as sports fans, while many of the positive traits are only positive if you’re on the inside. A sports franchise may help build community and solidarity among sports fans, but it can be a source of divisivness and ostracism if you are not a fan.

[RickJay]

@Miller

The difference between what I enjoy doing and what you enjoy doing is that I don’t expect you to pay for my hobbies.

Is that a fact? Would you mind listing EVERYTHING you enjoy doing? Because I seem to be paying for a lot of other people’s hobbies.

Why am I paying for public parks, anyway? I don’t like walking in parks. Why should I pay for highways I don’t use? Why are my tax dollars going to support opera, art exhibits, public theatres and public displays of all sorts?

@Lynn Bodoni

Well, actually, we don’t get to vote a lot of times. Cities make deals with sports franchise owners without putting it to the vote.

Do you not live in a democracy? Are these people not elected to their posts? Elect people who won’t pull that shit. That sort of nonsense only goes on if the people allow it by voting bozos in.

Montreal doesn’t have a baseball team in part because the governments of Montreal and Quebec refused to give the Expos a bazillion dollars for a stadium. That happened largely because the people of Quebec felt the Expos were a bunch of thieving bums. So no stadium, and no ball team, and they seem to be okay with that (getting ripped off for the Olympics will jade you to that sort of thing.) In San Francisco, the government for years upon years resisted the Giants’ bitching and moaning for a new stadium. The Giants threatened to move to Toronto, they threatened to move to St. Petersburg, they threatened to move to Washington, and the city said “Well, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.” And in that case they called the Giants’ bluff, and the Giants spent their own money to build a shiny new ballpark. It can be done, but it’s up to the people.

I personally am NOT a supporter of using public money to build stadia because it’s generally bad fiscal policy. But I confess I’m getting sick of sports-haters whining and complaining about how they don’t want to pay for other people’s hobbies. I don’t see you complaining about public swimming pools, public parks, public fireworks displays on holidays, city parades, art grants, NPR, PBS, libraries (see below) or any one of a thousand other things.

New York City has elected not to develop Central Park. That is an absolutely enormous opportunity cost; the price of that land, if sold to developers, would be unimaginable, certainly billions upon billions of dollars at sale and then Christ knows how much in property tax revenues. New York is effectively costing its residents a huge amount of money to provide Manhattanites with a big park. So is that wrong? If I live in east Brooklyn and never get to use Central Park and don’t like parks anyway, how is my situation any different than yours vis-a-vis sports facilities?

In a democracy it’s up to the people to express their desires by electing people who will do what they want them to do. If the people are willing to elect folks who will build new stadiums then that’s how democracy works. Sure, the city loses money, but collectively gains utility. People like having sports teams around. It’s a source of joy and civic pride. I love having my city represented by a major league baseball team and if they left I would be far less favourably inclined to living here. You lose money buying books, but you gain utility from having new books to read. There’s no economic advantage to me in buying my daughter toys, but I get huge utility out of watching her play with new toys. Not everything has to make a profit.

While I enjoy the library, most people use it for research…so it gets a pass, I think.

No, it doesn’t get a pass at all. Other people are paying for your hobby. Why’s that any different?