LeBron James calls out Harrison Barnes' in-game trade as hypocrisy against players, and Anthony Davis agrees

[whozit]

Like what?

Okay, I'll bite. There are those that life resolves around the team and lose sight that it's entertainment.

Okay, I'll bite: what reason is there for "the name on the front to mean more than the name on the back" that isn't rooted in tribalism?

This is probably semantics. While the name on the front means more than the name on the back, irregardless of what the team does or doesn't do the next workday I'm going to work. The team is irrelevant to those responsibilities. The name on the back is also less likely to change than the name on the back. And this probably goes to your point, the success of the name on the front is more relevant (to me) than the name on the back. And finally, I have no responsibility to either the name on the front or back and I would think that would be a necessary component for tribalism.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Okay, I'll bite. There are those that life resolves around the team and lose sight that it's entertainment.

I consider that to be a distinction without a difference. To me, that's just the most extreme end of what I'm already describing.

This is probably semantics. While the name on the front means more than the name on the back, irregardless of what the team does or doesn't do the next workday I'm going to work. The team is irrelevant to those responsibilities. The name on the back is also less likely to change than the name on the back. And this probably goes to your point, the success of the name on the front is more relevant (to me) than the name on the back. And finally, I have no responsibility to either the name on the front or back and I would think that would be a necessary component for tribalism.

I don't believe that that's how tribalism works. I would say that you're creating false qualifiers by artificially introducing "responsibility" as a component in tribalism. There's no assumed responsibility in tribalism, at least not when we're talking about tribalism, in the context of sports.

 

[whozit]

I consider that to be a distinction without a difference. To me, that's just the most extreme end of what I'm already describing.

I don't believe that that's how tribalism works. I would say that you're creating false qualifiers by artificially introducing "responsibility" as a component in tribalism. There's no assumed responsibility in tribalism, at least not when we're talking about tribalism, in the context of sports.

I can give you the first part. But the second paragraph, how can you be a member of a tribe without responsibility towards said tribe? Sports or no sports. Perhaps your using tribalism and limiting it to the "context of sports" is also putting "false qualifiers" on. But then again it could just be me as explained below.

Little background, I'm a military brat whose military career was cut short before it even began when I developed a childhood disease as a teenager that "exempted" me. However as a military brat I was raised in a country with a different economic system.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

But the second paragraph, how can you be a member of a tribe without responsibility towards said tribe? Sports or no sports. Perhaps your using tribalism and limiting it to the "context of sports" is also putting "false qualifiers" on. But then again it could just be me as explained below.

I think it's just you. Because the overriding and defining characteristic of tribalism is loyalty to the tribe; that's the only "responsibility" that tribalism demands. I think that you think that tribalism requires someone to play an active role in advancing the "goals" of the tribe, which is wrong. Tribalism, for lack of a better way to put it, is basically caffeine-free, diet nationalism. That's why (usually) it's perfectly okay for the consumption of sports-as-entertainment; it isn't (usually) until sports becomes SERIOUS BUSINESS~! that the tribalism of sports becomes problematic. And (to bring this tangent back around to the thread topic), from my point of view, one of the stepping stones along the path to tribalism in sports becoming problematic is when you're okay with a team trading a player, but not okay with the player asking to be traded.

Little background, I'm a military brat whose military career was cut short before it even began when I developed a childhood disease as a teenager that "exempted" me. However as a military brat I was raised in a country with a different economic system.

I am also a military brat, whose military career was not cut short. I, too, have lived in different countries around the world, with different cultures and different economic systems. That background and perspective is exactly why I look at sports the way that I do.

 

[whozit]

I think it's just you. Because the overriding and defining characteristic of tribalism is loyalty to the tribe; that's the only "responsibility" that tribalism demands. I think that you think that tribalism requires someone to play an active role in advancing the "goals" of the tribe, which is wrong. Tribalism, for lack of a better way to put it, is basically caffeine-free, diet nationalism. That's why (usually) it's perfectly okay for the consumption of sports-as-entertainment; it isn't (usually) until sports becomes SERIOUS BUSINESS~! that the tribalism of sports becomes problematic. And (to bring this tangent back around to the thread topic), from my point of view, one of the stepping stones along the path to tribalism in sports becoming problematic is when you're okay with a team trading a player, but not okay with the player asking to be traded.

I am also a military brat, whose military career was not cut short. I, too, have lived in different countries around the world, with different cultures and different economic systems. That background and perspective is exactly why I look at sports the way that I do.

That is fair enough.

 

[VF21]

I consider that to be a distinction without a difference. To me, that's just the most extreme end of what I'm already describing.

I don't believe that that's how tribalism works. I would say that you're creating false qualifiers by artificially introducing "responsibility" as a component in tribalism. There's no assumed responsibility in tribalism, at least not when we're talking about tribalism, in the context of sports.

What's your definition of tribalism, in the context of sports?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

What's your definition of tribalism, in the context of sports?

I think that the mildest form of tribalism, in the context of sports, is the "name on the front..." type, and that it runs the gamut all the way to the aforementioned fan "that life resolves around the team and lose sight that it's entertainment."

 

[VF21]

I think that the mildest form of tribalism, in the context of sports, is the "name on the front..." type, and that it runs the gamut all the way to the aforementioned fan "that life resolves around the team and lose sight that it's entertainment."

So are you saying my daughter is guilty of tribalism because both of her children have middle names that start with K (because K is for Kings)?

Looking around my living room, I suspect tribalism might also include having everything from clocks to blankets, rugs to mouse pads, phone poppers to window decals, and much more with the logo/colors of the Sacramento Kings.

 

[mac]

I consider "fan of a team" and "consume sports-as-entertainment through the lens of tribalism" to be synonyms. YMMV.

For your purposes, I agree. I had misunderstood your post thinking you were not aware that you personally were not a fan of a team. Since you are, I have nothing to offer you on that point, and I'm not sure what your point is. It's like a meat eater saying "meat eaters typically prefer meat over vegetables", and you coming along and saying "as a vegan I find this hard to relate to". Well ok if all you want is for the world to know that you find it hard to relate to something that nobody ever accused you of.. I agree that you would find it hard to relate, but I dare say that the majority of "passionate" fans (for lack of a better word) tend to be fans of a team.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

For your purposes, I agree. I had misunderstood your post thinking you were not aware that you personally were not a fan of a team. Since you are, I have nothing to offer you on that point, and I'm not sure what your point is. It's like a meat eater saying "meat eaters typically prefer meat over vegetables", and you coming along and saying "as a vegan I find this hard to relate to". Well ok if all you want is for the world to know that you find it hard to relate to something that nobody ever accused you of.. I agree that you would find it hard to relate, but I dare say that the majority of "passionate" fans (for lack of a better word) tend to be fans of a team.

Here's the only thing about that, though: I couldn't relate to it, even when I did self-identify as a Kings Fan, because my reasons for rooting for the Kings never had anything to do with the Kings being in Sacramento. Like I discussed in this thread, when I was talking about the journey that led to me quitting the team, I first started to recognize the schism within myself back when the no-account Maloofs were talking about relocation, and some Kings Fans were saying how they would quit watching basketball altogether, if the Kings left Sacramento, and I was over here, like, "But why, tho?" I had to ask myself a lot of questions about how I consume sports, and I had to confront the reality that I have never actually been in it for that.

Which (trying once again to come full circle back to the thread topic) is why I relate more to Anthony Davis and LeBron James in this situation: I want the players to have more power. I want the players to have more agency over their playing situation. I don't want the owners or the league to be able to tell them that they're not allowed to talk to each other about where they'd like to play, or to prevent them from being able to publicly demand to be traded.

 

[mac]

Here's the only thing about that, though: I couldn't relate to it, even when I did self-identify as a Kings Fan, because my reasons for rooting for the Kings never had anything to do with the Kings being in Sacramento. Like I discussed in this thread, when I was talking about the journey that led to me quitting the team, I first started to recognize the schism within myself back when the no-account Maloofs were talking about relocation, and some Kings Fans were saying how they would quit watching basketball altogether, if the Kings left Sacramento, and I was over here, like, "But why, tho?" I had to ask myself a lot of questions about how I consume sports, and I had to confront the reality that I have never actually been in it for that.

Which (trying once again to come full circle back to the thread topic) is why I relate more to Anthony Davis and LeBron James in this situation: I want the players to have more power. I want the players to have more agency over their playing situation. I don't want the owners or the league to be able to tell them that they're not allowed to talk to each other about where they'd like to play, or to prevent them from being able to publicly demand to be traded.

I myself have no ties to Sacramento. You're mixing two loyalties though - that to the team and that to the city. With no offense meant to the rest of the good fans on this site, I don't care as much if the Kings left Sacramento. But I do care if my star player wants to leave the team I support, regardless where that team is based in. I mean how would you feel if as a Kings fan (Sacramento or otherwise) Chris Webber, under a long term contract, demanded a trade to the Lakers? Would you still have said "all power to you sir!"? The location of the team has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. Unless your question then is why do I feel a need to tie my support to a team given that I have no geographic/cultural linkages to said team. Which is a different discussion altogether.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... I mean how would you feel if as a Kings fan (Sacramento or otherwise) Chris Webber, under a long term contract, demanded a trade to the Lakers? Would you still have said "all power to you sir!"?

I'm actually not sure, anymore. I was twenty-three when Webber was traded to the Kings, and twenty-nine when Webber was traded from the Kings. My attitudes about sports have changed a lot since then. I'd be trying to answer that question based on my memories of what I believed in as a kid, filtered through the lens of what I believe in now. And, honestly, I don't necessarily trust the veracity of my own answer.