Grumble Thread

[vinteuil]

... have had no interest in sport for the last 72 years, and I'm not goin' to start now


.

[richardfinegold]

In fact, I've been pondering over the issues of self-identifying, and even 'identity consciousness'. Why not take the view that every individual is absolutely unique in the combination of biological characteristics, abilities, tastes, inclinations; and we all belong as members to one single species? It seems to be an innate (primitive?) human need to want to 'belong' to a group or tribe which, to my mind just creates the sort of social divisions currently on display: not my race/people, not my religion, not my team, just weirdos and - women!!!

Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn’t respect your right to not be defined by the group to which you happen to have born into. Many “Jews” killed in the Holocaust had long since renounced the faith. A black skinned individual in the US being pulled over for a traffic violation iOS automatically stereotyped by the police officer. And the South Asians being brutalized in the UK aren’t being questioned about their allegiance to King and Country.
Identify Politics are unavoidable, much as we would prefer otherwise. And that will always cause people to seek out those of similar identities for safety in numbers and then potentially persecute others of different identities.
One of the particularly irritating consequences of this is the current US Political scene, where Identity is everything. If you are Black, Jewish, Muslim, or Appalachian, every single thought you have is supposed to be determined by that pigeon hole. There is no consideration that people may think for themselves and have nuance.

[french frank]

Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn’t respect your right to not be defined by the group to which you happen to have born into.

Sad indeed. And I was simply reflecting that the world would be a different place if they did.

But ... it isn't just 'other people' pigeon-holing one. It's when 'one' pigeonholes oneself, probably as a means of mutual support. The downside is that 'other people' will hold your (and the group's) self-identity against you. People! Stop stressing your 'identity' and stress your diversity/differentness.

[Serial_Apologist]

Sad indeed. And I was simply reflecting that the world would be a different place if they did.

But ... it isn't just 'other people' pigeon-holing one. It's when 'one' pigeonholes oneself, probably as a means of mutual support. The downside is that 'other people' will hold your (and the group's) self-identity against you. People! Stop stressing your 'identity' and stress your diversity/differentness.

I agree with that, up to but not including the final word! I would rather emphasise our similarities than our "differentness", the latter being too often (ab)used as part of the excuse for singling people out for negative comparative purposes. We have more in common regardless of sex, sexuality, race, religion etc etc than what differs. Certainly "identity" constitutes fixed characteristics categories initially externally imposed (the "I" singly or collectively being initially defined by others) and then assumed, not freely as some would insist, under duress, implicit or explicit. I agree he, she or they belong by sharing these characteristics, but only by virtue of those people over there, who do not, as Sartre would put it. Surely society - the "family" community so often mooted as the essential for rearing a child (up to the point where we are now expected to feel mutual all-round suspicion) - should be demanding not the artificially necessitatated exceptionality paraded on sports and other outstanding performance-based platforms but abilities serving useful social purposes?

[french frank]

On reflection, I agree about not insisting on 'differentness' (which I wasn't quite meaning to say). I meant self-identifying in terms of 'who do I belong with', 'what is my in-group' which I - and perhaps it's just me? - don't feel the need to do. I have lots of odd things in common with lots of odd people but that doesn't add up to a 'self-identity'. I'm a jumble, I suppose but that doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother anyone else.

I agree with that, up to but not including the final word! I would rather emphasise our similarities than our "differentness", the latter being too often (ab)used as part of the excuse for singling people out for negative comparative purposes. We have more in common regardless of sex, sexuality, race, religion etc etc than what differs. Certainly "identity" constitutes fixed characteristics categories initially externally imposed (the "I" singly or collectively being initially defined by others) and then assumed, not freely as some would insist, under duress, implicit or explicit. I agree he, she or they belong by sharing these characteristics, but only by virtue of those people over there, who do not, as Sartre would put it. Surely society - the "family" community so often mooted as the essential for rearing a child (up to the point where we are now expected to feel mutual all-round suspicion) - should be demanding not the artificially necessitatated exceptionality paraded on sports and other outstanding performance-based platforms but abilities serving useful social purposes?

[Serial_Apologist]

On reflection, I agree about not insisting on 'differentness' (which I wasn't quite meaning to say). I meant self-identifying in terms of 'who do I belong with', 'what is my in-group' which I - and perhaps it's just me? - don't feel the need to do. I have lots of odd things in common with lots of odd people but that doesn't add up to a 'self-identity'. I'm a jumble, I suppose but that doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother anyone else.

That's it. A group may be one bonded by common interests, able largely to contain diverse views and disagreements, like this one, and not defined in relation to "otherness", although there may be those who join with that motivation. As long as it is is not exclusive (or perhaps exclusionary is a better word) there is nothing wrong, belonging being a common characteristic of many mammals, if not all. By identifying with the group one is consciously or unconsciously being selective - the "terms of identification" can change because the group itself will change, evolve etc. The ego dissolves into the matrix, so to speak.

(Joining a group for purposes of changing it and/or along with the environment in which it exists is a wider issue, I think, but it does serve to highlight the intrinsically provisional character of what we call "identity").

[teamsaint]

I talk to many of my 'sport-loving' relatives who tell me that they are really 'in to X, Y, Z.' Then I discover that it is almost always passive consumption - very few of them (actually, NONE of them) take part in the sport being watched/listened to. Conversely, the people that I know who attend live music events almost all play at least one instrument and are often involved in music-making of some sort.

My cynical opinion (borne of years working for corporate organisations only too desperate to do so) is that having passive viewers makes for an excellent platform for advertising and that those companies who profess interest in sport X, Y, Z really don't as long as plenty of eyes are available to see an advert for product A, B or C. Maybe we should be careful what we wish for so that we don't hear 'At the downbeat, the Tempo sponsored by Accurist will be....'

Most , or at least the majority of the people I know who pay to watch live sport also participate in some sport. I suggest that this relationship is even stronger in younger generations, even taking general participation rates at particular ages into account.

[smittims]

To be fair, live sport is one of the few things TV does better than other media, so , given the problems the BBC is facing over finance and losing audiences to internet streamiing and 'Social Media' , I can't blame them for making the most of it. What I don't like,though is the vast amount of time wasted in chit-chat, presenters sitting round a table laughing. If you listen to what they say it's usually repetitious platitudes, such as 'I was blown away. She's incredible. She's really turned the women's game around, I just knew the whole nation was on the edge of their seats, blah blah blah. '

[Belgrove]

Most , or at least the majority of the people I know who pay to watch live sport also participate in some sport. I suggest that this relationship is even stronger in younger generations, even taking general participation rates at particular ages into account.

That certainly chimes with my experience. I simply don’t recognise some of the generalisations voiced here.

[eighthobstruction]

....somewhere in the last 20 or so posts there is the possibility for a good thread topic....I was going to start one called Negativity. I do not mean that those 20 threads were negative, more that they are dancing around the "Riots"....and the psycho-sociological....I haven't time to sit down and really think it out....but I do offer to you 2 links - Football Cops C4 documentary (very informative about a certain section of society if you just allow it to flow over you) https://www.channel4.com/programmes/football-cops..... and Words and Music : James Baldwin https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021jtz

[Belgrove]

… If you listen to what they say it's usually repetitious platitudes, such as 'I was blown away. She's incredible. She's really turned the women's game around, I just knew the whole nation was on the edge of their seats, blah blah blah. '

Sounds like Katie Derham.

[LMcD]

Sounds like Katie Derham.

Why not let her loose on the Ladies' 100 metres final and get Clare Balding to present the War Requiem Prom?

[french frank]

Most , or at least the majority of the people I know who pay to watch live sport also participate in some sport.

I don't know anyone who pays to watch live sport. Perhaps a niece who's travelled the entire globe to take part in parkruns. I'll have to ask her. (Her brother travelled the globe to watch live sport)

[Nick Armstrong]

What I don't like,though is the vast amount of time wasted in chit-chat, presenters sitting round a table laughing. If you listen to what they say it's usually repetitious platitudes, such as 'I was blown away. She's incredible. She's really turned the women's game around, I just knew the whole nation was on the edge of their seats, blah blah blah. '

That very thing has been a huge deterrent to watching the current Olympics, live at least. There have been a few events I’ve wanted to see and have accordingly set the appropriate slab of BBC coverage to record, then watched what I wanted, deploying the fast forward function to avoid all of the extraneous, hyperbolic blether.

Exactly the same tactic as for Radio 3 / TV Proms, in fact. Thank heavens for technology these days, enabling one to avoid the babble. Life’s too short

[teamsaint]

That very thing has been a huge deterrent to watching the current Olympics, live at least. There have been a few events I’ve wanted to see and have accordingly set the appropriate slab of BBC coverage to record, then watched what I wanted, deploying the fast forward function to avoid all of the extraneous, hyperbolic blether.

Exactly the same tactic as for Radio 3 / TV Proms, in fact. Thank heavens for technology these days, enabling one to avoid the babble. Life’s too short

From the broadcaster perspective, the psycho and other babble presumably reduces the cost per hour of the overall package, with the rights being the most expensive element .