I never said it couldn't backfire.

The downside of exercises like the one outlined in my previous post is the appearance, in the midst of an already stupendously silly argument, of a sentence like this one:

As Obama expressed, socialists and bleeding hearts have warped even sports and rooting into a meritocracy based on sympathy that often has nothing to do with the teams themselves but what they represent externally to the game.

Noted: Socialists do not have bleeding hearts, nor are bleeding heart liberals socialist. Troy Nelson will forget this fact by the time I finish this sentence.

Noted: Meritocracies are not, as their name strongly suggests, based on merit; they are based on sympathy. Whichever team merits the most sympathy wins the meritocracy, but not necessarily the Super Bowl.

Noted: The sympathy on which this meritocracy is based has nothing to do with the teams themselves, nor should it have anything to do with the cities those teams represent. This was undoubtedly not what Troy Nelson believed when this happened, because September 11th happened to all Americans, Katrina only to the black ones.

Noted: The players on the New Orleans Saints are external to the game. You might be tempted to claim that, because they participate in it, they are a part of it, but that's only because you're either a socialist or bleeding heart.

Comments

[Ahistoricality]

I would say that the externalities apply to rooting choices, not to the sport qua sport.

And to argue that the urban identity of the team is extrinsic to its rooting population, to its self-presentation, is, as they say, moving the goalposts.

[tomemos]

I don't know, I prefer this sentence from the same article:

There's an old saying - "I can't hear what you're saying ‘cause your actions are speaking too loudly."

Ah, yes, that old saw! I remember grandpappy saying that to me as he shaved by the ol' water barrel.

And to end on "I'm ashamed… not!"—audacious. Thrilling. Genius. The italics really make that sentence.