Hacker News Reader

Comment by whoopdedo | Hacker News Reader

The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. When you remove the violence you get peaceful competition. It satisfies the tribal urge to fight things different than you, but also encourages healthy behaviors. Respect for your opponent. Accepting loss. Recognizing your weaknesses and working to improve them.

View on HN

I'm with you in the abstract, but where I live there's toxic culture around sports that made it unpalatable for me as a kid. Back then what turned me off was belligerent parents on the sidelines yelling at the children, but the symptoms actually go way beyond that one little thing. (Conflating excellence with dominance is another example.)

>toxic culture around sports

I was rather fond of practicing team sports as a kid, but I found the culture off putting for the same reasons

Some people just can't behave, adults weren't even much better than your regular kid

> adults weren't even much better than your regular kid

If life has taught me anything, it's that the notion of adults being emotional mature is a joke.

I've seen numerous grown people suddenly turn into a character from Mean Girls instantly after a petty slight.

I have noticed team sports tend to be vastly more toxic than solo sports.

Climbing for example has a wildly different atmosphere. Just listen to the crowd in this or read the YouTube comments, people are supportive when several women have disappointing results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfhGW6Bwyks

People will complain about the route setting or camerawork not the athletes, that’s a shocking amount of empathy IMO.

Funny enough full cobtact sports are somewhat similar. Sure, you actively fight and beat each other in the ring or on tha mats, but outside ofbit things are surprisingly civil. Of ciurse over aggressive exceptions proof that rule.

One of my favorite sports memories was going to my son's first big cross-country running meet. There were hundreds of kids lined up for the race and parents lined the course to cheer them on. The crowds clapped loudly for the leaders, it died down for the long stretch of mid-pack runners, and then grew to a roar for the kids working their hardest at the back of the pack. Everyone there seemed to understand how hard it is to get started in endurance sports, but also how transformative they can be to a kid's confidence, especially if they have not felt welcome or successful in team sports.

This is a valid observation, however I wonder if the best frame is to consider if that toxic culture is preferable to a warmongering society.

It may be that some level of toxic behavior is inescapable when humans release their tribal competition instinct. And if team sports is construed as a war-replacement, perhaps it is a better (though not perfect) mechanism to absorb that toxicity.

Maybe there are better-still options to absorb tribal toxicity, bit I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

The future might robot competitions: compete with zero-ego robot beings, the robot is always kind.

BattleBots

Indeed, many sports serve as a way of developing and competing on "war skills": throwing, running, strength, coordinated maneuvers as a group, etc. All of which are useful in fighting, and a way of establishing a male hierarchy without fighting.

I've always thought of Wall Street and what goes on there to be our substitute for war.

Big Law too

True for both, and these are actually unhealthy outlets because it means everyone essentially lives under sanctions and oppression while norms fray altogether.

There may have been some genetic selection here. Societies without those who want to defend the tribe with violence, ultimately succumb to the violence of other societies that perpetuate that violence. Prisoner's dilemma means universal instinct of pacifism is a difficult steady-state to hold.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist." -George Orwell

https://reason.com/2014/06/18/why-selectively-quoting-orwell...

Nope, usually you get the cult of war and cult of sports together as a bundle.

Do people regularly mass murder each other over sports? Because that's the stakes we're talking about here in context.

Brawling and screaming over a sport is much preferred to bombing and poisoning.

No (though it does happen, see Constantinople's chariot teams). But expansionist and militaristic societies are often obsessed with sport, for example imperial Britain, Germany at the 1936 Olympics, and arguably the modern US.

Not to mention Ancient Greece. Sport as a substitute for war is a joke.

Both sports and war leverage the same dynamics, just as individual athleticism improves one's chances in a fight. Neither are ends in themselves.

Sports are better, but I think encouraging competition and tribal urges are a waste of time in general. Better to encourage collaboration and self expression.

You need some amount of brotherly conflict and competition in order to have healthy collaboration. Otherwise, you just get the pretense of agreement and a slow slouch into frustration and resentment.

Disagree that sports are a form of brotherly conflict. Maybe within the same team but definitely not considering the win/loss dynamic between teams. You can approach disagreements with the idea that both people are working together to make the best product and are are disagreeing with the same goal in kind; a different type of argument than the one opposing teams are engaged in.

Sorry I wrote this on my phone at the gym and should have proofread better.

> The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence.

Absolutely not. Sports is competition through violence, as well. Watch a game of American football, or ice hockey, or basketball for that matter and be able to say otherwise with a straight face.

The answer is cooperative, not competitive, activities.

For people wired for competition, that's no answer.

Aldous Huxley’s perspective was that competition is driven by the desire to dominate. We can play games - like wrestling or war - that cause us to dominate other people. Or, we can play games - like rock climbing - that cause us to dominate ourselves.

Calling football or hockey "violence" dilutes the meaning of the word. May as well call a high five violence.

I've seen plenty of people rejoice at the injuries of another team's players

I assume the OP is completely unaware of "head hunting" in professional sports. An awful practice still subtly used today.

Story Time:

I play beer league/pick-up hockey as an adult, and we once had a suspected thief that was stealing from others in the locker rooms during pick-up games. It was believed said thief would get dressed with everyone, and would then "accidentally forget something" before his shift was up, and he would then return to the locker rooms when the rooms were unattended and proceed to shift through people's belongings.

After some time and some mob mentality, people managed to figure out who the thief was. I heard numerous instances of all the various plots and methods other players were working on to ensure this guy would never be able to play again due to an unfortunate accident (i.e. premeditated and intentional permanent or long-term injuries).

Thankfully, the police got ahold of the thief before any of the psychopaths managed to ruin the life of the thief and their own lives. I am also thankful that I was a goalie, so that I was never encouraged to participate in such barbarianism. I value the safety of another person more than a wallet full of replaceable items.

Still, there have been instances where police have been called due to unruly players and/or unruly parents of children players, refs being assaulted by players/parents, etc..

I've never seen that although I'm sure it happens. What I have seen a lot is the entire crowd cheering when a visiting player is able to walk off after being knocked down with a possible injury.

Comparing American football and hockey and other brutal sports to a high five is what dilutes the meaning of the word. These are sports where men aggressively assault each other. They are institutionalized violence.

I think intentions should be considered when describing something as violence in a sport.

I assume you are unfamiliar with "head hunting?" If so, it's where a team or player intentionally tries to injury the better player(s) on the opposing team in order to secure a competitive advantage.

Here are some examples of what I would consider "violence" in hockey, some of which, could be argued to be head hunting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHPktgmbdbA

Then how do you satisfy the real need for an outlet for aggression? I personally did this with motorcycle racing, which is competitive but mostly non violent. Cooperative activities are great and I really enjoy them, but don’t scratch the same itch.

There's no 'answer', violent competition is always going to exist because at some point the aggregate costs are lower than other forms of competition. A world completely dominated by war is bad, but so is a world completely dominated by productivity, which just creates and infantilized society.

> Absolutely not. Sports is competition through violence, as well. Watch a game of American football, or ice hockey

And golf, the worst one of them all!

Also horse riding, Javalin throwing, etc. Mixed bag

Team sports are the best cooperative activities around, AFAIK.

Primarily within your team.

But also, by both teams playing within the rules, cooperating with the other team in creating a meaningful game.

I know team sports isn't for everyone, but it's a great thing for those suited to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com