So when we talk about sports, what are we talking about? Could we,
> maybe distinguish TV sport and sport-as-spectacle from sport?
Jon wrote:
I think the relevant sense of "sports" in this discussion is the former. The original thesis in question was that sports is a tool used by the power elite to disempower the masses; obviously spectatorship would be the tool for that job, not physical activity.
Yes, yes. But don't you think it's very odd that we accept this absurd redefinition from the git-go? I mean, we agree that "sports" means nothing other than the production and consumption of a billion-dollar spectacle industry product called "sports." (Then, poof, we forget this distinction instantly.) Then, if the left comments upon the human energy/time/mindlessness absorbed in the production/consumption of this product, they are accused of being stalinists/joyless elitists who won't let the American people have their innocent baseball, basketball, etc.
Joanna