One of the quirks about living in Connecticut is that when it comes to paying attention to college athletics, football is almost an afterthought here. A fancy new stadium was built in 2003 for the University of Connecticut Huskies and the team had some degree of success in the later part of that decade. I was at the game in 2009 that preceded the stabbing death of cornerback Jasper Howard and followed the NFL careers of several of the players from that time period but like the once-mighty Husky men’s basketball teams they have since fallen into mediocrity, to be generous. The women’s basketball team is still relevant at 20-1 and number one in the rankings as of this writing but there just isn’t the same level of interest that one might find in other parts of the country.
I don’t watch many games but I do pay attention to the end of the year awards, my way of scouting future fantasy football sleepers and trying to sound intelligent in on-line discussions preceding the draft. There’s The Outland trophy for best interior lineman, the John Macky award for best tight end, the Biletnikoff for best wide receiver.
There is also the Doak Walker award for best running back, named after the SMU player that won the Heisman, the award that goes to the best overall college football player, in 1948. He played six seasons for the Lions in the 50s and is in the NFL Hall of Fame but if you’ve never heard of him don’t feel bad, neither had I.
I’ve heard of OJ Simpson though, and I’m guessing that you have too. At one point he was regarded simply as one of the greatest college football running backs of all time, the sort that awards get named after. This past week I found myself wondering how people would feel if that was indeed the case. If it was decided that it was time to change the name of the OJ Simpson award for the best college football running back in the country are there people that would argue about that, that would be offended and decry this as another example of liberal “cancel culture”?
As ridiculous as that idea is, I think that there would be. Even more ridiculous is that I think that which side of that argument you were on would partially be determined by who you voted for in 2016 and what comes across your Facebook feed.
Just in case you aren’t aware, Facebook doesn’t show you everything that your friends and the pages that you follow post. There are secret algorithms based on what you interact with that they use to determine what they think you actually are interested in and show you that. If you don’t want to see pictures of people’s food, don’t ever hit that “like” button. You’ll see a lot less. If you’re reading this because you saw it on the Thirsty Daddy Facebook page, “likes” will tell the computer overlords that this is something you might want to be shown again.
What this means is that eventually you will be shown more and more of the same information as people who think like you. You see it delivered accompanied by the same opinions and bias and because all of these other people seem to think and believe the same as you it reinforces the notion that you are correct.
A lot of the time what you are seeing is either misleading or just blatantly false, intended only to generate a strong reaction. Last September Fox News won a defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable viewer” should believe anything that Tucker Carlson says. The judge ruled that ” given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes.” He is still the single biggest influencer in right-wing media.
Both sides do it, I’m trying hard not to make this a partisan post because that would completely undermine the point that I am trying to make. These words were inspired by all those upset about the “canceling” of Dr. Seuss who didn’t seem to understand that it was Dr. Seuss Enterprises that made the decision to stop publication of some of his early books.
When he was still known as Theodor Geisel he was a newspaper political cartoonist known for decrying prejudices against Jews and people of color but that doesn’t change the fact that the way those people and other cultures were depicted in some of his works doesn’t match the level of sensitivity that we should be held to today. One side would argue that level of sensitivity is set at ridiculous standards. There are some times when they are probably right.
This “us against them” permeates everything. It’s how we feel about athletes kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality, mask mandates intended to slow the spread of a deadly virus, debates about who actually won the election and it’s a plastic potato toy making company deciding it was weird to call themselves “Mr. Potato Head” when half of their products were female potatoes. If you know who somebody voted for you can probably guess what side of an argument that person will take.
Should any of these examples even be arguments? I don’t think so but I also don’t think that the healthcare you receive should be dependent on the deal that your employer made with an insurance company or that two people of the same sex that love each other should be treated any different from two people of opposite sexes so maybe I’ve just been brainwashed by Hollywood, the coastal elites and the liberal media.
I don’t know how we get out of this, how common sense and critical thinking prevail. Up until 1987, there was something called the “fairness doctrine”, a rule that required broadcast stations to devote some of their airtime to presenting matters of controversial public interest in an honest and balanced way. They were forced to provide contrasting and diversified viewpoints.
It’s probably not practical to reinstate this rule but maybe it’s something that we can try and do ourselves. I cringe using the phrase “do your research” but by deliberately exposing ourselves to different viewpoints and escaping the echo chamber of social media, by actually reading articles instead of just sharing headlines, by shaping our opinions based on verifiable facts maybe we could return to the time of reasoned discourse and civility.
We need to stop trying so hard to find new things to argue about because it’s starting to get really ridiculous.
—
Previously Published on thirstydaddy.com and is republished on Medium.
***
The Good Men Project gives people the insights, tools, and skills to survive, prosper and thrive in today’s changing world. A world that is changing faster than most people can keep up with that change. A world where jobs are changing, gender roles are changing, and stereotypes are being upended. A world that is growing more diverse and inclusive. A world where working towards equality will become a core competence. We’ve built a community of millions of people from around the globe who believe in this path forward. Thanks for joining The Good Men Project.
Support us on Patreon and we will support you and your writing! Tools to improve your writing and platform-building skills, a community to get you connected, and direct access to our editors and publisher. Your support will help us build a better, more inclusive world for all.
***
Image: Public Domain