Episode 149 — Basketball Vs. Hockey Fans

[admin 330]

Fellow Earwolf podcaster, Sirius XMU DJ, and all around professional Jake Fogelnest joins Andrew to discuss whether basketball fans are more violent than hockey fans. Be sure to call us at (323) 389-RACE to ask if anything is racist.

[wakefresh 689]

Soccer fans are the most violent fans in all of sports.

[klemjohansen 748]

I have a theory that the more boring a sport is to watch, the more violent their fans are. So, it makes sense that soccer fans would be awful. But it also implies that golf fans would be even more violent. But I think the theory still holds up since golf fans are generally hell of racist and golf is the only sport that holds its events at venues known for excluding people of non-WASP races and creeds. Take that, golf!

[imhatch 271]

Soccer fans are the most violent fans in all of sports.

and even if we're just taking stock of american sports fans hockey is way way below baseball fans on the list

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

I've always wondered why gun rights people never say shit about their constitutionally protected right to bear nuclear arms...

[bluedarkness12 13]

and even if we're just taking stock of american sports fans hockey is way way below baseball fans on the list

I would put Hockey fans above baseball fans. Baseball fans are terrible usually in the post season. NHL fans have a huge tendecy of doing racist stuff throughout the season (the Wayne Simmonds incident last autum) and amplifies worst in the post season (Boston Bruin fans in last year playoffs for example). Its pretty disgusting how much players have to out up with in that sport.

[imhatch 271]

i was speaking strictly of violence, or at least the media response to violence, thinking of the brawl after the giants/dodgers game that left a man in a coma and basically anything that has ever happened at a phillies game ever. i would definitely agree that there seems to be more cases of overt, explicit racism in hockey's fandom, though.

[Joshie 125]

I've always wondered why gun rights people never say shit about their constitutionally protected right to bear nuclear arms...

as a gun rights person, because of the externalities. it is not possible to use nuclear arms without affecting an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost (seismic effects, fallout, radiation, etc.) you can't have a weapon to protect your rights that violates someone else's unavoidably and intrinsically. it creates an imbalance that violates bentham/mill's harm principle.

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

as a gun rights person, because of the externalities. it is not possible to use nuclear arms without affecting an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost (seismic effects, fallout, radiation, etc.) you can't have a weapon to protect your rights that violates someone else's unavoidably and intrinsically. it creates an imbalance that violates bentham/mill's harm principle.

Hilarious dodge. So what about conventional explosives? I never hear the gun people talk about the right to protect their property with land mines.

[wakefresh 689]

Hilarious dodge. So what about conventional explosives? I never hear the gun people talk about the right to protect their property with land mines.

 

That's because the "externalities" argument is bullshit. These people see themselves as the last stand in the case the government becomes a "tyranny." But what will happen is that these "law abiding citizens" will change at as soon as they don't like a new law. They won't go through the legal channels to change it though; they'll just shoot you and become violent because they have guns and you don't.

 

And the twisted thing is that they will forever feel totally justified in their violence because when the government does something they don't like, then it is tyranny. But when the government does something that someone else doesn't like, then those people are whining.

[Hyde Parker 9]

There have been many hundreds of unpopular new laws enacted in the United States without inducing armed revolt among those thousands of awful, thuggish (and racist, obvs.) gun owners who see themselves as a final bulwark against tyranny.

[wakefresh 689]

There have been many hundreds of unpopular new laws enacted in the United States without inducing armed revolt among those thousands of awful, thuggish (and racist, obvs.) gun owners who see themselves as a final bulwark against tyranny.

 

 

The laws weren't universally unpopular; they just didn't sit well with an idiotic segment of voters, who happen to be armed to the teeth. People who are told daily that the government is going to enslave you by making you pay taxes, indoctrinate your children by making them learn science, and take away your freedom by making you undergo a background check before you buy a gun. No, they are going to start killing people soon.