Pilnmēness nogurdinātie - Zlobodņevka

From: brookings Date: 15. Janvāris 2013 - 09:20 (Link)

yeah but West Ham can't afford to lose against QPR next week

Īstenībā, kad biju Anglijā, sapratu, ka tv un avizes pārspīlē sporta (īpaši futbola) jēgu/svarīgumu.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

From: begemots Date: 15. Janvāris 2013 - 10:01 (Link)

Bet kā gan savādāk? Kad avīzes ir rakstījušas par kaut ko ne pārāk svarīgu?

Bet attiecībā uz dirty fighting — maybe West Ham can't afford to lose, but hopefully that doesn't mean they'll poison QPR's water bottles before match or shoot them with rifles in the back while they're peeing in the lav.

That said, obviosly fighting or playing against the rules happens quite frequently. Just shows that as the perceived stakes raise, the participants start to feel they need to win by any means.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

From: brookings Date: 15. Janvāris 2013 - 10:41 (Link)

vajag turēt pretiniekus pie dzīvības, citādi nebūs spēle - that's politics, laikam

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

From: begemots Date: 15. Janvāris 2013 - 12:16 (Link)

That is one aspect.

But the global context of games and rules is also there to have quantified loss, which is perceptably different from fight to death — you don't lose your life in a game, instead you lose status and frequently money. And since opponents gain status and money by winning, they don't have to kill you.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

From: brookings Date: 15. Janvāris 2013 - 13:37 (Link)

So politics is only a game so long as no one is killed? Hmm, might explain the shockwaves in the UK over the death of Dr Kelly.

Keep death out of politics! Could be a good slogan.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

From: begemots Date: 15. Janvāris 2013 - 14:44 (Link)

I think I would even say that everything competitive is a sort of game (serious or less serious) within some borders set in a particular society or between several societies.

The breach of game rules and killing the opponent(s) in order to obtain or retain something marks either real or perceived threat to survival, or exploitation of game rules (which are then further exploited to avoid punishment).

I was just trying to picture the resolution of conflicts over human history, and as far as I, being non-historian with very limited knowledge of the subject, understand, in general we have been moving away and away from the situation where there are simply small bands of, well, bandits, which obtain anything they can from settlements and each other by killing.

Probably obvious, but it seems to stem from the same behaviour as can be observed in animals living in groups, which develop some sort of pseudo-fighting or fighting-not-to-death unwritten rules about how to establish some hierarchy rather than kill members of the group.

(Reply to this) (Parent)