OTMT8: The "Ocho" - If It's Almost a Topic, We've Got It Here!

[oldschool]

It's not just his silence, it's his refusal to speak up when a chance was presented that really bugs me. Kids look up to him, he had an chance to make a difference in this matter but he shirked his responsibilities.

But some people just don't want to be a spokesperson for certan polarizing causes. Jodi Foster, for instance, is often criticized for not coming out as a lesbian, especially after rumors were rampant that she would do so on stage at the Academy Awards the year that she was nominated (and then won) Best Actress for "Silence of the Lambs".

It is unquestionable that support from such a woman in 1990 would have helped gay rights tremendously but she chose not to get involved. Her choice. Should she be villified the way you are Tebow?

[One More Day]

Tim Tebow is a terrible NFL quarterback

[Patrick Hultquist]

After Michael Jordan's father was murdered, he was asked to make a PSA regarding gun control. He didn't. Why? Because Michael Jordan wasn't one to diminish his popularity by doing something polarizing, and in so doing, jeopardize his earning potential. It's noteworthy to know that the only time Jordan did anything remotely polarizing during his career was during his "retirement" in 1996, when he endorsed Bill Bradley's primary campaign for the Presidency.

Tebow is already polarizing. He doesn't need to do more to put other people squarely against him, so he probably won't.

[Kevinroc]

George Carlin sums up people like Tebow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXV0VKX2m6Q

[Mister Mets]

Here's my argument for Tim Tebow as a football player.

Sports isn't just about winning; it's entertainment.

Come-from-behind wins are more entertaining than typical games.

So a player who is especially skilled at that is particularly useful.

[One More Day]

Yeah, I understand that. Seeing kids getting viciously bullied is something people should stand against, regardless of how they feel about sexual orientation. But I don't see anything more sinister than general cowardice in it. And that's something that applies to lots of people.

It means he's not as good as some people like to say he is. But few are.

Texans @ Ravens! Who are you rooting for Regulus B.??

[Regulus B.]

But some people just don't want to be a spokesperson for certan polarizing causes. Jodi Foster, for instance, is often criticized for not coming out as a lesbian, especially after rumors were rampant that she would do so on stage at the Academy Awards the year that she was nominated (and then won) Best Actress for "Silence of the Lambs".

It is unquestionable that support from such a woman in 1990 would have helped gay rights tremendously but she chose not to get involved. Her choice. Should she be villified the way you are Tebow?

Freddie Mercury didn't do as much as he could have about raising awareness or starting a public conversation when he was dying of AIDS.

Going public about polarizing issues is tough. More power to the ones who do, but it's easy to keep quiet and it's hard for me to judge those who do, even if I think it's a bad decision.

[Regulus B.]

Texans @ Ravens! Who are you rooting for Regulus B.??

Who do you think I'm rooting for?

[oldschool]

After Michael Jordan's father was murdered, he was asked to make a PSA regarding gun control. He didn't. Why? Because Michael Jordan wasn't one to diminish his popularity by doing something polarizing, and in so doing, jeopardize his earning potential. It's noteworthy to know that the only time Jordan did anything remotely polarizing during his career was during his "retirement" in 1996, when he endorsed Bill Bradley's primary campaign for the Presidency.

Tebow is already polarizing. He doesn't need to do more to put other people squarely against him, so he probably won't.

Precisely. This is another example of the Jody Foster deciding not to the voice of lesbian America as I noted above. It doesn't make her a bad person in my eyes at all.

[Schmed]

But some people just don't want to be a spokesperson for certan polarizing causes. Jodi Foster, for instance, is often criticized for not coming out as a lesbian, especially after rumors were rampant that she would do so on stage at the Academy Awards the year that she was nominated (and then won) Best Actress for "Silence of the Lambs".

It is unquestionable that support from such a woman in 1990 would have helped gay rights tremendously but she chose not to get involved. Her choice. Should she be villified the way you are Tebow?

The difference, IMO, is that he thinks being gay is bad, evil against god etc etc. Jodie just wanted to protect her self from people like Tebow. Should she of came out? Probably, but it's not the same thing, not even close.

[Mister Mets]

One more point on Tebow. I thought this piece by Chuck Klosterman on Grantland regarding why people are interested in Tebow was some good sports writing.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...hate-tim-tebow

The toughest quarterback in the NFL is Ben Roethlisberger. He's not the best, but he's the toughest. He stands in the pocket longer, absorbs more punishment, exhibits a higher threshold for pain, and plays his best in the clutch. Roethlisberger is also, by all credible accounts, either a jerk or a "former jerk." At best, he has a highly checkered past and an unsympathetic persona. He's the least popular player in the league who hasn't slept on a prison cot.

It's difficult to separate those qualities. "Toughness" and "meanness" are always intertwined, often coalescing into "grit." When I think about my own life, the toughest people I've known have (often) been bad, bad citizens. Would you rather fight two super-nice guys simultaneously, or one solitary, diabolical reprobate? It's not a difficult question. So when I see Roethlisberger unfazed by a busted nose or a broken foot, it makes sense to me. He seems like the kind of semi-terrible person who is flat-out harder than those around him.

But try to imagine Tebow as a jerk. Let's say his performance on the field was unchanged, but his off-the-field personality was totally different. Let's say he was alleged to have sexually assaulted a few coeds and electrocuted a few dogs and fired an unlicensed handgun in a nightclub. If all this were true, he would not be polarizing; he would just be unpopular, particularly with the people who currently adore him. Sales of his jerseys would fall through the floor. But what would happen after he guts out an ugly 17-13 win against the Jets? What would be the perception? The perception would be that his victory was due to his toughness. That's how the media would explain it. It wouldn't necessarily be true, but it would immediately make sense to people: We are comfortable with the idea that extra-bad people possess something intangible that helps them win football games. There is a long history of this, especially in places like Oakland. But it's less comfortable to think that extra-good people possess such qualities, because that suggests they're being helped by virtuous forces outside of corporeal reality. And that's too much to handle/accept/consider, unless (of course) you already accept that premise unconditionally in every day of your life.

Right now, whenever Broncos vice president of football operations John Elway gets asked about Tebow, he effectively says, "We have no choice but to play him. He wins games." It's not really a compliment. It's almost a criticism. But if Tebow did all this with a prison record, Elway would say the same thing in reverse order: "He wins games. We have no choice but to play him." Which is similar, but not the same.

[Schmed]

At the end of the day people make mistakes and that's okay, but living a mistake 24/7 , for me, is not what makes a good person. But, once again, some of us are going to have to agree to disagree (happens around here a lot doesn't it! ). I have to move on from this stuff now and get the house ready for a football gathering.


GO PACK GO!!!

[oldschool]

At the end of the day people make mistakes and that's okay, but living a mistake 24/7 , for me, is not what makes a good person. But, once again, some of us are going to have to agree to disagree (happens around here a lot doesn't it! ). I have to move on from this stuff now and get the house ready for a football gathering.


GO PACK GO!!!

Enjoy the game, Schmeddy! Gonna do same here in NY---Pack will likely prevail but I can only hope this game is as close and thrilling as SF/NO was yesterday!

Peace.

[Mister Mets]

No, no, no. Fuck Tebow and his bullshit. His pro-life ad was way beyond too far. He needs to keep that type of shit to himself, or at least to the right platform. This is football not a door to door Jehovah's Witness event. When he blames god for a loss the same way he thanks god for a win, when he respects human rights and doesn't partake in pro-life ads during the Superbowl, when he realizes that a supreme being could give a shit less about football, then I will respect him.


Once again, this is football, not a podium for his religious beliefs.

I get that it would be funny if athletes blamed God for their failures, though that seems to suggest a misunderstanding of the idea of Christian humility, which suggests that God helps you with successes, rather than with failures.

Though the counterargument to that is that if God helps one guy in a competitive sport, someone else is being screwed over.

[Schmed]

Enjoy the game, Schmeddy! Gonna do same here in NY---Pack will likely prevail but I can only hope this game is as close and thrilling as SF/NO was yesterday!

Peace.

Oh shoot! Are you a Giants fan or Jets? I never even thought of that!

Should be a good game for certain!