The reason I'm posting is that the article attacked my viewpoint.

I don't think people who like sports are misinformed or stupid, I think they value different things than I do. There are plenty of very smart people who like sports.

> You think you know more than the common man.

And this is the PR that sports has, that it's the purview of the common man, when in fact sports fuck over the common man more often than not. You're only looking at the viewers of sports. What about the people who buy teams, sponsor athletes, etc. Are they "common men"?

And yes, I do know more than the common man on this subject, not because I'm inherently better in any way, but because I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't. Everyone out there knows more about some subject than I do--that's just how people work. If you think that knowing more about this subject is somehow a bad thing, then who is really cultivating ignorance here?

One of the striking features of classism in America is that the upper class has managed to represent their own interests as being the interests of the common man. Who cares more about the common man--someone who wants to slash funding for the common man's education to pay for stadiums, or someone who wants to pay for education?

The smug "I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't" is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know what everyone else thinks about? Have you asked them? Many people have spent a lot of their lives thinking about sports and the great lessons they've learned and memories they associate with them.

Then combine that with the fact that you actually go through the effort to excuse yourself when people talk about sports? You must be a lot of fun at parties. Do you realize that many times people listen to things you are talking about even when the subject isn't the one they would like to talk about? I do it all the time. Why? Because I'm interested in the person talking about it. Either that or I have enough social skills to know how to not be a smug jerk.

I should add quickly that I agree personally with a lot of what you are saying, but do feel the issue of how important sports should be in American culture as a lot more nuanced. That everyone has a different, and equally valid viewpoint. That everyone has different priorities about the shape of the world around them. Maybe you should consider looking at the opinions of others as valuable as opposed to dismissing them as ignorant and misplaced.

I think grade school sports programs are important for teaching kids how to stay in shape, among other things. That's a very different discussion from the discussion we're having, which is about professional sports.

> One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes.

One could easily disprove this argument, at least in my city. This argument is made, but over the last decade since we built a new stadium, property values around the stadium have gone down, and cashflow from the stadium goes to its owners who pay very little taxes.

> The smug "I've taken the time to educate myself on this subject and the average person hasn't" is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you know what everyone else thinks about? Have you asked them?

You said: "One could argue that the tax subsidies given to professional teams work in the cities favor based up increased revenues at local business and higher real estate taxes from increased property taxes." This pretty effectively proves you haven't educated yourself on this subject.

> Many people have spent a lot of their lives thinking about sports and the great lessons they've learned and memories they associate with them.

What great important lessons do people learn from professional sports? Please do tell. Remember we're not talking about playing sports, we're talking about watching professional sports.

> You must be a lot of fun at parties.

The parties I've thrown are generally pretty packed.

> Do you realize that many times people listen to things you are talking about even when the subject isn't the one they would like to talk about?

I'm socially calibrated enough to know when people are losing interest in what I'ms saying and change the subject. But if people feign interest well, I'd really rather they didn't, because there are a ton of subjects I could connect with someone on, and there's no reason for us to talk about stuff that we aren't both interested in.

> I do it all the time. Why? Because I'm interested in the person talking about it.

This is a ridiculous kind of false positivity does nobody any good. If you're interested in someone, then why settle for a feigned connection over a topic you aren't really interested in when you could create a real connection over a real shared interest?

> Either that or I have enough social skills to know how to not be a smug jerk.

"At least I'm not smug," he said smugly.

> That everyone has a different, and equally valid viewpoint.

This feel-good crap is ruining America. If all viewpoints are equally valid then why are you arguing with me? My viewpoint is valid, right? But viewpoints aren't equally valid. Some viewpoints are wrong.

> That everyone has different priorities about the shape of the world around them.

So you think if people were choosing between their kids being able to read and having a sports stadium, they'd choose the sports stadium? Because that's the choice people are making.

> Maybe you should consider looking at the opinions of others as valuable as opposed to dismissing them as ignorant and misplaced.

Not every opinion is valuable--many opinions are ignorant and misplaced, and it's extremely harmful to treat them as if they were equally valuable. Children die of diseases that should be extinct because people treat the opinions of anti-vacc-ers as valid. Global warming initiatives fail because people treat the opinions of politicians who know nothing about climate as valid. And kids are growing up without proper education because people treat the glamour of sports as a valid thing to spend money on.

I'm not going to pretend this kind of harmful ignorance is just as valid as educated opinions just to make people feel good about themselves while they're around me.

As I said before, I agree with you stance in many ways in professional sports. Yet, for some reason you felt the need to argue my hypothetical points? Strange stuff. Unlike you, I realize these things are not hard facts but opinions and best guesses bases upon available data.

Whether or not professional sports are a positive thing, depends very much upon what a persons priorities are. Many people would shut down all funding for the arts tomorrow if they had the choice. We could argue that in the same way. These discussions go nowhere because they are based on a person's individual priorities and are also why they are debated to death and never get anywhere. They are not topics with a definite answer.

The "feel-good crap" is people not telling you that the only reason you feel so strongly about this is because you have a bias likely based on some experiences from your childhood about sports. If you were rational you would think that maybe 100,000,000+ Americans are probably not idiots. But judging by the size of your ego, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought they were.

Oh and "So you think if people were choosing between their kids being able to read and having a sports stadium, they'd choose the sports stadium? Because that's the choice people are making.": You realize that sounds insane, right? Are you actually saying that in the US children cannot read because of sports stadiums?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I've explained in my top post why I believe that to be true.

You're not even attempting to refute what I've said, you're just calling me egotistical and insane. So unless you have anything on-topic to say, my point is adequately defended and I'm done here.

Elitism is another word for the post modern idea that A isn't A, that nothing is absolute and there is no truth.