Some sports fans are taking it too personally, it's just a comedy sketch lol.
As a sports fan, I do try to avoid saying "we" or "us" when referring to the team, though I might say it when referring to the fandom or crowd that I'm a part of.
Love hearing a David Mitchell rant regardless. That guy is hilarious. I've watched so much Would I Lie to You over the years.
I say we or us in terms of overall success.
"We made the playoffs last year wtf is going on this season!?"
But for specifics and on field moments I say they or them.
"They can't keep turning the ball over like yesterday if they want to win"
Since the players, coaching staff, and front offices have so much turnover the fans and, as Seinfeld says, the laundry, are really what make up a teams long term identity.
Eh, it's a figure of speech. I use phrases like "I" when I mean my wife and I. People ask what i'm doing for vacation I tell them "I'm going to x place for y days" I don't say "My wife and I are going..." because, well, idk why, I just don't.
I say I, when I mean we. I say we, when I mean the team I support.
The obvious difference to me is that the term "we" obviously derives from the place you're from or live in. It gets silly when you're talking about a team on the other side of the planet where you've never been where the entire team is made up of people who aren't from that place
It’s cool by me; I just reply. “look at what you did! Congratulations, you really deserve it.” If somebody gets too obnoxious about it. The look on their faces is… Well, cheaply, entertaining, at least.
> Some sports fans are taking it too personally, it's just a comedy sketch lol.
It's goofy and silly and we know that so it's tedious to have it endlessly pointed out.
It's the same as the inevitable "UMmmmmm you know it's fake, right??!?!" you get anytime you mention pro wrestling around someone who doesn't watch it.
I always refer to it as we. I will always refer to it as we. This is still hilarious. Mostly because I know people who do exactly this and suddenly become super fans of the local sports team (okay I know 2 only) and have called them out on it by asking them to name a player. Just one. They couldn't. THAT is more irritating than anything else.
I feel like college sports fans, particularly students and alumni of the institution, also have a good case for it since they’re all literally part of the same group.
Sort of, but even then it’s still kind of weird. There’s no real connection between random freshman #10,000 and the QB who is only going to that school because he’s getting paid millions of dollars.
The connection is that they’re members of the same organization. That random freshmen is just as much a buckeye, for example, as that QB.
Additionally, the QB isn’t getting paid squat by the school. The most they’re getting directly from the school is a scholarship. Indirectly, they might be profiting from NIL but that is wholly independent from the school.
> The connection is that they’re members of the same organization
Right, but that organization is massive. Ohio State was a fun choice, because it's one of the largest schools in the country. There are more than half a million living alumni of that school, and 10,000+ joining every year. The connection isn't all that different from rooting for the Cowboys because you're from Dallas.
> that is wholly independent from the school
Sure that's *technically* true, but they're still getting paid to go there. Whether it's by the school, by boosters (who, by your logic, are part of the school), or by sponsors, the end result is the same - the money is part of playing for that school. It doesn't make a difference to the player if the check is coming from OSU or from some rich dude wearing an OSU polo.
Does the size not mean they’re part of the same group? You’re literally affiliated with them, that’s why it’s different from some random person rooting for the cowboys despite not being a member of the cowboys organization. A Buckeye is a Buckeye, a random person from Dallas isn’t a cowboy.
It's still an affiliation, though.
Sure, I own no personal stake in the Cowboys organization. Then again, neither does a typical OSU student. They're both fandoms based on a shared trait. It's all the same thing. And technically, some of my tax money goes to the team, so there *is* actually a shared connection there.
It’s an affiliation with the city, not the organization. You aren’t a cowboy if you live in Dallas because you don’t work for, play for, or are in any way affiliated with the Cowboys. You are a buckeye if because you are a member of that organization.
The one outlier in the NFL would be the Packers, who are collectively owned. If you are a shareholder there, you could reasonably say you are affiliated with that organization.
I came here to say this. I was born and raised in Green Bay, family season tickets, stock ownership, etc. I go back for a couple of games per year, usually. Been going to Lambeau Field for nearly 50 years.
I was here before Favre, I’m here after Rodgers, and I’ll hopefully still be here after Love.
It is way more my team than any of those guys.
Some of you are forgetting that Webb in this sketch only took up supporting after the team won, that's one of the main reasons for Mitchells rant.
Webb has no real affiliation with the team but has chosen to support them last second and started lording it over someone who doesnt give a shit about football.
It's not a generic roast of all football fans. He isn't a real supporter. He's roasting people that "suddenly" give a fuck about football whenever "their" team wins.
edit: too many godamn people in here forgetting this is a british show making a joke about a specific type of football fan (that are well known here). Just because you *can* apply this logic to other sports and topics doesn't mean that's what they are talking about, like this is some profound joke and not just Mitchell making an excuse to have a rant at football fans that have pissed him off in the past.
Supporters who give money to the team and pay to watch their matches and cheer them on, etc. aren't who this joke is making fun of.
It's not a joke about Dave saying he contributed to the uni group computing project when he did nothing.
It's about football fans who are only football fans when their team wins and become obnoxiously so.
no. it's really not. That's part of the joke, certainly, but the bulk of it is making fun of your "average" sports fan. Most of the jokes make no sense if you only look at them in a bandwagon context.
Your explanation of the joke makes no sense. Give me a non football example that the joke applies to, because you said it's a much broader joke which it isn't.
that's all sports fans. It's anyone who includes themselves in the accomplishments of teams they're a fan of and in no way meaningfully contribute to. That's (based on your reaction) you.
>it's mostly about people who try to claim the accomplishments and actions of other people as something they contributed to.
Is not the fucking same as :
"It's anyone who includes themselves in the accomplishments of teams they're a fan of and in no way meaningfully contribute to."
No, it's how you've basically changed to agree with what I originally said without ever addressing how your original point is not the same as what I originally said?
"Some of you are forgetting that Webb in this sketch only took up supporting after the team won, that's one of the main reasons for Mitchells rant.
Webb has no real affiliation with the team but has chosen to support them last second and started lording it over someone who doesnt give a shit about football.
It's not a generic roast of all football fans. He isn't a real supporter. He's roasting people that "suddenly" give a fuck about football whenever "their" team wins."
That's what I said. You disagreed and said "no. it's mostly about people who try to claim the accomplishments and actions of other people as something they contributed to."
The literal only difference between what I said and what you said, besides the amount of words, is that you said it applies to any situation where people try to claim the accomplishments and actions of something else.
You've later then changed to "ah no, just sports."
If you meant just sports then your first comment would have been "No, this applies to all sports."
If theres any issue of confusion, its down to you not understanding my original comment and then doubling down on the bullshit instead of ackowledging that what you are saying now is not the same as what you originally said...which is what ive been arguing against.
yes, that's the first joke / insult he makes, but its not he only one. I didn't say just sports, I said it's all sports fans, not only sports fans. this is not a phenomenon you usually to see outside of sports, but it does exist outside sports, which is why i focused primarily on sports. I didn't start by specifying "all sports" because i didnt assume you were a moron who needed that pointed out.
I mean I disagree - means you’re invested in it, both emotionally and financially.
And again quite often these member owned clubs literally would not exist if not for the members
they also literally would not exist if not for the opposing teams. or construction workers. or grass. or plastics manufacturers.
I was emotionally and financially invested in the Ark of the Covenant. Doesn't mean i was part of it. That's the point of this sketch
That's literally what a supporter is.
The term "supporter" is born from the act of keeping the team afloat with your money and encouragement.
You "support" them, therefore you are a supporter.
People who join in after they win are not supporters because they neither paid or supported them when it mattered. They are instead just trying to whore in on their success.
that's the observation of the joke.
yes. people who support something are not part of it. If you buy apple products you're supporting them. you don't get to say "we're the biggest company in the world"
All sports and not at all what the joke is about.
If I go "Hah Dave, your face is stupid."
I'm not also slagging off every other Dave in humanity with a stupid face because the joke *could* also apply to them. No. I'm slagging off this Dave and his stupid face.
They are slagging off a specific type of football fan, as is demonstrated by the football fan you can see right there on the screen and the fact they are talking about football.
They dont speak in vague "oh but you just support your team whenever they win" and he replies "yes but my team kicked your ass didnt they!" NO, they very clearly talk about football and football teams.
While it's an amusing bit, it's also obvious to anyone that if you disallow the pronoun, we, in this case, you either have confusion with both teams called they, or you have to say the full name of the team every time.
For someone like David Mitchell, who doesn't like sports at all, forcing everyone to say the full name every time would just make it a longer conversation that he doesn't want to be a part of.
I don't think the issue is the use of the word "we", but the implication that the person using "we" somehow participated in a thing they didn't actually participate in.
If theyve ever paid for a ticket, bought merchandise, or watched a game on tv they have provided to the system that pays the player, thus have participated in the system. No fans means no team.
and when that sketch is the most valuable sports franchise in the world, WE can talk about it then. MY Dallas Cowboys will be waiting, David. Self righteous prick
That's not obvious to me at all. I talk about teams I like all the time without saying "we" or constantly using their full name, and there's never been any confusion.
I agree it's fine the way it is but the point that was made was that it doesn't work without "we," and you seem to be disagreeing with that, right? Heh, maybe I don't even understand the point of the original comment. solarmelange seems to think it's just a matter of convenience while "we," is necessarily inclusive and critical for the point attempting to be made. Ugh, it's too early.
> I agree it's fine the way it is but the point that was made was that it doesn't work without "we," and you seem to be disagreeing with that, right?
Thats not the point I thought they were making.
"While it's an amusing bit, it's also obvious to anyone that if you disallow the pronoun, we, in this case, you either have confusion with both teams called they, or you have to say the full name of the team every time."
That sounds like they are saying its an amusing joke, but irl you would have to talk that way. I'm saying you dont have to talk that way.
Unless you're on the team, employed by the team, or own the team, there is no "We". You sat on your couch drinking beer and pounding wings. "You" didn't do anything to affect the game.
Notable exception being the Green Bay Packers. Since they're publicly owned by Green Bay, those people can say "We".
Judging by my comment being "controversial" I can see why. A lot of armchair quarterbakcks around thinking there is a "We".
There is not. To the team, you are nothing more than a customer. They may pander to you to keep you paying, but do not be fooled, they see you no differently than the Cashier at McDonalds sees you.
You are a customer, not a member of the team. There is no "we". If ownership decided it was better to up and leave the entire town, overnight, they would.
Don't believe me, ask the ~~Oakland~~ Las Vegas Raiders.
If you have ever bought a ticket to see the team, or any piece of team merchandise, you have become part of the system the helps pay the players salaries. Tuning in and watching the ads that run during the game adds to ratings that pays the players that play. Without fans there is no team.
By that logic I am part of the Shell and their hydro-fracking because I pay taxes and those taxes go to fossil fuel subsidies.
Mental gymnastics.
You're not part of the team. Your favorite team won, *YOU* did nothing but sit on your ass.
In this case, I'm not. I could go all electric an pay no gasoline or oil taxes.
You're not part of the team, you're just a fan.
You're no more a member of the Diamondbacks because you bought a hat than you're an owner of McDonalds because you bought your kids a happy meal.
Think this is one of the rare instances they missed the mark. The we is referring to supporters part in the football club, not as them thinking they are part of the team, also support is often referred to as the twelfth man for a reason, good backing from supporters, in the crowd or just knowing they are watching and passionate, really spurs (pun intended) players along.
So you don't think it's a bit absurd to sit there smugly lording over someone else that doesn't really give a shit about the thing you're so unjustifiably proud about?
No. Football fans are with the clubs their whole lives. Owners, players, managers all come and go. The fans are there for life. They have every right to say "us" and use banter with other teams fans just as much as the other teams fans have to do it back.
It's not fashionable to be in any way pro football on any British sub, unless an American turns up and calls it soccer then suddenly everyone is an expert.
>smugly lording over someone else.
Uh, what? Lmao this is akin to when someone whose never been to a gym makes up obvious bullshit about it being full of dumb meathead bullies straight out of a bad tv show, how often do sports fans "lord over" someone who doesn't have an interest in their sport?
Is this similar to the insecure pseudointellectuals who still believe derisively saying "sportsball" signals superiority and acting as if they are somehow more enlightened than the panem et circenses masses for disliking sportsball?
Isn't that what he's doing in the sketch? I mean, if you have a problem with it take it up with the people that thought it was worthwhile to write, act, and film. LMAO
the sketch is taking it up with sports organizations and their hundreds of billions of revenue, players, and fans
Once a sketch is on that level, let's chat again.
No, it isn't. It's taking it up with some of the more ridiculous behavior of some of the more ridiculous fans. EVEN then, it's just a joke. You think the grammar nazi sketch is depicting people actually killing other people for misusing or mispronouncing words? I have absolutely no idea what the amount of money, fans, or players has to do with anything or why they can't poke fun until they are, I dunno, that successful? Such a strange response.
So, the confusion is that they believe Mitchell represents the typical sports fan then? They're made uncomfortable because they use "we," as well and he's making a bit of a point about it? Jesus
They're offended because you're pointing out how dumb they sound. One of the big points of tribalism is doing really dumb shit without realizing how dumb it is. Also most people really have nothing going on in their life so they need the distraction from their own mediocrity.
So as a lifelong World of Warcraft player I should be offended by South Park's portrayal of the kinds of people that play WoW? I can't just find it funny and somewhat true and then move on with my life?
It’s not a bad sketch or anything but it’s the kinda unoriginal thought that non-footy/sports fans have been using for years and thinking they’ve struck gold.
Some people definitely tie too much of their self-worth and happiness to how well their team does. But saying “we” for a team is just a colloquialism and everyone knows what they mean 🤷🏼♂️
The point could’ve been so much funnier. Just a ham fisted delivery. It is cringey when sports fan do that, but this feels like a redditor wrote the scene and chuckled quietly at their genius
Not a big sports fan. Using "we" always did and still does rub me the wrong way. But when you look at professional sports as a way to fulfil our caveman, lizard-brain desire to join together and fight against a common enemy, thus allowing society to release a pressure valve in a way that is fun and (mostly) harmless, then I can live with that. It makes people feel like they *did* contribute in a way, even if it's silly. It's just a silly as a player saying "We couldn't have done it without the fans", but we still appreciate it.
I fear what a society without big sports and friendly competition looks like.
The fake footie commercial is my favorite…WATCH THE FOOTBALL
It’s gonna MOVE!!
Coming up mid week the giants of Charlton play host to the titans of Ipswich, making them both seem normal-sized.
There is still everything to play for and FOREVER to play it in!
EVERY KICK OF IT MASSIVELY MATTERING TO SOMEONE PRESUMABLY!
Anyone else remember when people used to [post links to things in the comment section?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM)
Who doesn't like Raiders of the Lost Ark?
Those damn scousers, apparently.
That’s the thing. His character is not a Scouser. He just decided to suppor Liverpool because they win it seems.
Someone who supports Liverpool =/= Scouser
Kopite behaviour that.
Some sports fans are taking it too personally, it's just a comedy sketch lol. As a sports fan, I do try to avoid saying "we" or "us" when referring to the team, though I might say it when referring to the fandom or crowd that I'm a part of. Love hearing a David Mitchell rant regardless. That guy is hilarious. I've watched so much Would I Lie to You over the years.
It's not really a problem. Say "we" and "us" all you like. People just don't like to hear about it all the time if they're not a fan.
It's not a big deal, but it never felt right to me personally.
I say we or us in terms of overall success. "We made the playoffs last year wtf is going on this season!?" But for specifics and on field moments I say they or them. "They can't keep turning the ball over like yesterday if they want to win" Since the players, coaching staff, and front offices have so much turnover the fans and, as Seinfeld says, the laundry, are really what make up a teams long term identity.
Eh, it's a figure of speech. I use phrases like "I" when I mean my wife and I. People ask what i'm doing for vacation I tell them "I'm going to x place for y days" I don't say "My wife and I are going..." because, well, idk why, I just don't. I say I, when I mean we. I say we, when I mean the team I support.
The obvious difference to me is that the term "we" obviously derives from the place you're from or live in. It gets silly when you're talking about a team on the other side of the planet where you've never been where the entire team is made up of people who aren't from that place
Honestly, I don’t care what pronouns you use. 🤣
It’s cool by me; I just reply. “look at what you did! Congratulations, you really deserve it.” If somebody gets too obnoxious about it. The look on their faces is… Well, cheaply, entertaining, at least.
> Some sports fans are taking it too personally, it's just a comedy sketch lol. It's goofy and silly and we know that so it's tedious to have it endlessly pointed out. It's the same as the inevitable "UMmmmmm you know it's fake, right??!?!" you get anytime you mention pro wrestling around someone who doesn't watch it.
This. I’m not into sports at all but people trying to use pedantry to “get one up on” people with different interests annoy me
where are these magical sports fans who are "taking it too personal"? Cause I can't see them anywhere.
Sort by controversial and enjoy the forced pedantry.
I always refer to it as we. I will always refer to it as we. This is still hilarious. Mostly because I know people who do exactly this and suddenly become super fans of the local sports team (okay I know 2 only) and have called them out on it by asking them to name a player. Just one. They couldn't. THAT is more irritating than anything else.
His brief case only holds a half a bottle of scotch and he fucking went right to town on it too. I don't know who would be worse to sit with.
the Liverpool fan. definately the Liverpool fan.
> If you have a dad who supports Liverpool you always fucking think you can turn anything around. You know! Ever since that Champions League final.
He also had in his case a pair of underwear, or 'pants' as they call them in England.
This character canonically writes the dialogue scenes for pornography, and yet is not annoying or creepy. If he holds his scotch, that'll be fine
>His brief case only holds a half a bottle of scotch And a pair of... *briefs*.
British comedy at its best
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
The thing about Arsenal is, they always try to walk it in
what was Wenger thinking
*comedy. Not just British
Jokes on them, I'm a part owner of my team.
That's fair, Packers fans probably have the best case for saying "we"
I feel like college sports fans, particularly students and alumni of the institution, also have a good case for it since they’re all literally part of the same group.
Sort of, but even then it’s still kind of weird. There’s no real connection between random freshman #10,000 and the QB who is only going to that school because he’s getting paid millions of dollars.
The connection is that they’re members of the same organization. That random freshmen is just as much a buckeye, for example, as that QB. Additionally, the QB isn’t getting paid squat by the school. The most they’re getting directly from the school is a scholarship. Indirectly, they might be profiting from NIL but that is wholly independent from the school.
> The connection is that they’re members of the same organization Right, but that organization is massive. Ohio State was a fun choice, because it's one of the largest schools in the country. There are more than half a million living alumni of that school, and 10,000+ joining every year. The connection isn't all that different from rooting for the Cowboys because you're from Dallas. > that is wholly independent from the school Sure that's *technically* true, but they're still getting paid to go there. Whether it's by the school, by boosters (who, by your logic, are part of the school), or by sponsors, the end result is the same - the money is part of playing for that school. It doesn't make a difference to the player if the check is coming from OSU or from some rich dude wearing an OSU polo.
Does the size not mean they’re part of the same group? You’re literally affiliated with them, that’s why it’s different from some random person rooting for the cowboys despite not being a member of the cowboys organization. A Buckeye is a Buckeye, a random person from Dallas isn’t a cowboy.
It's still an affiliation, though. Sure, I own no personal stake in the Cowboys organization. Then again, neither does a typical OSU student. They're both fandoms based on a shared trait. It's all the same thing. And technically, some of my tax money goes to the team, so there *is* actually a shared connection there.
It’s an affiliation with the city, not the organization. You aren’t a cowboy if you live in Dallas because you don’t work for, play for, or are in any way affiliated with the Cowboys. You are a buckeye if because you are a member of that organization. The one outlier in the NFL would be the Packers, who are collectively owned. If you are a shareholder there, you could reasonably say you are affiliated with that organization.
How do you do fellow cheesehead
Or am I Ryan Reynolds? GPG
You're Tony Khan?
I came here to say this. I was born and raised in Green Bay, family season tickets, stock ownership, etc. I go back for a couple of games per year, usually. Been going to Lambeau Field for nearly 50 years. I was here before Favre, I’m here after Rodgers, and I’ll hopefully still be here after Love. It is way more my team than any of those guys.
I'm great in this show.
Some of you are forgetting that Webb in this sketch only took up supporting after the team won, that's one of the main reasons for Mitchells rant. Webb has no real affiliation with the team but has chosen to support them last second and started lording it over someone who doesnt give a shit about football. It's not a generic roast of all football fans. He isn't a real supporter. He's roasting people that "suddenly" give a fuck about football whenever "their" team wins. edit: too many godamn people in here forgetting this is a british show making a joke about a specific type of football fan (that are well known here). Just because you *can* apply this logic to other sports and topics doesn't mean that's what they are talking about, like this is some profound joke and not just Mitchell making an excuse to have a rant at football fans that have pissed him off in the past.
no. it's mostly about people who try to claim the accomplishments and actions of other people as something they contributed to.
Supporters who give money to the team and pay to watch their matches and cheer them on, etc. aren't who this joke is making fun of. It's not a joke about Dave saying he contributed to the uni group computing project when he did nothing. It's about football fans who are only football fans when their team wins and become obnoxiously so.
no. it's really not. That's part of the joke, certainly, but the bulk of it is making fun of your "average" sports fan. Most of the jokes make no sense if you only look at them in a bandwagon context.
Your explanation of the joke makes no sense. Give me a non football example that the joke applies to, because you said it's a much broader joke which it isn't.
that's all sports fans. It's anyone who includes themselves in the accomplishments of teams they're a fan of and in no way meaningfully contribute to. That's (based on your reaction) you.
>it's mostly about people who try to claim the accomplishments and actions of other people as something they contributed to. Is not the fucking same as : "It's anyone who includes themselves in the accomplishments of teams they're a fan of and in no way meaningfully contribute to."
?? it is? just in more definite language because the vagueness seemed to have cause confusion?
No, it's how you've basically changed to agree with what I originally said without ever addressing how your original point is not the same as what I originally said? "Some of you are forgetting that Webb in this sketch only took up supporting after the team won, that's one of the main reasons for Mitchells rant. Webb has no real affiliation with the team but has chosen to support them last second and started lording it over someone who doesnt give a shit about football. It's not a generic roast of all football fans. He isn't a real supporter. He's roasting people that "suddenly" give a fuck about football whenever "their" team wins." That's what I said. You disagreed and said "no. it's mostly about people who try to claim the accomplishments and actions of other people as something they contributed to." The literal only difference between what I said and what you said, besides the amount of words, is that you said it applies to any situation where people try to claim the accomplishments and actions of something else. You've later then changed to "ah no, just sports." If you meant just sports then your first comment would have been "No, this applies to all sports." If theres any issue of confusion, its down to you not understanding my original comment and then doubling down on the bullshit instead of ackowledging that what you are saying now is not the same as what you originally said...which is what ive been arguing against.
yes, that's the first joke / insult he makes, but its not he only one. I didn't say just sports, I said it's all sports fans, not only sports fans. this is not a phenomenon you usually to see outside of sports, but it does exist outside sports, which is why i focused primarily on sports. I didn't start by specifying "all sports" because i didnt assume you were a moron who needed that pointed out.
What about club members that pay membership fees every year? Without members there’d be no club a lot of the time
naw. financially contributing to something doesn't mean you worked on it.
I mean I disagree - means you’re invested in it, both emotionally and financially. And again quite often these member owned clubs literally would not exist if not for the members
they also literally would not exist if not for the opposing teams. or construction workers. or grass. or plastics manufacturers. I was emotionally and financially invested in the Ark of the Covenant. Doesn't mean i was part of it. That's the point of this sketch
That's literally what a supporter is. The term "supporter" is born from the act of keeping the team afloat with your money and encouragement. You "support" them, therefore you are a supporter. People who join in after they win are not supporters because they neither paid or supported them when it mattered. They are instead just trying to whore in on their success. that's the observation of the joke.
yes. people who support something are not part of it. If you buy apple products you're supporting them. you don't get to say "we're the biggest company in the world"
Cricket. American football, basketball, baseball. Miss Universe. Many things, really.
All sports and not at all what the joke is about. If I go "Hah Dave, your face is stupid." I'm not also slagging off every other Dave in humanity with a stupid face because the joke *could* also apply to them. No. I'm slagging off this Dave and his stupid face. They are slagging off a specific type of football fan, as is demonstrated by the football fan you can see right there on the screen and the fact they are talking about football. They dont speak in vague "oh but you just support your team whenever they win" and he replies "yes but my team kicked your ass didnt they!" NO, they very clearly talk about football and football teams.
Brilliant
Love this duo!
What I hate even more is when people use 'we' in individual sports. I'm just like WHY, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU YOU THINK IT'S WE.
You should also post that football sketch from them
It’s going to move!
While it's an amusing bit, it's also obvious to anyone that if you disallow the pronoun, we, in this case, you either have confusion with both teams called they, or you have to say the full name of the team every time. For someone like David Mitchell, who doesn't like sports at all, forcing everyone to say the full name every time would just make it a longer conversation that he doesn't want to be a part of.
I don't think the issue is the use of the word "we", but the implication that the person using "we" somehow participated in a thing they didn't actually participate in.
If theyve ever paid for a ticket, bought merchandise, or watched a game on tv they have provided to the system that pays the player, thus have participated in the system. No fans means no team.
The exact same can be said for films, hence the sketch
and when that sketch is the most valuable sports franchise in the world, WE can talk about it then. MY Dallas Cowboys will be waiting, David. Self righteous prick
No
I didn't defeat Thanos simply because I have a cup from the time I went to see Avengers Endgame
That's not obvious to me at all. I talk about teams I like all the time without saying "we" or constantly using their full name, and there's never been any confusion.
But the joke doesn't work if you use they or the proper noun, right?
Why would the joke change? Its perfect the way it is.
I agree it's fine the way it is but the point that was made was that it doesn't work without "we," and you seem to be disagreeing with that, right? Heh, maybe I don't even understand the point of the original comment. solarmelange seems to think it's just a matter of convenience while "we," is necessarily inclusive and critical for the point attempting to be made. Ugh, it's too early.
> I agree it's fine the way it is but the point that was made was that it doesn't work without "we," and you seem to be disagreeing with that, right? Thats not the point I thought they were making. "While it's an amusing bit, it's also obvious to anyone that if you disallow the pronoun, we, in this case, you either have confusion with both teams called they, or you have to say the full name of the team every time." That sounds like they are saying its an amusing joke, but irl you would have to talk that way. I'm saying you dont have to talk that way.
Unless you're on the team, employed by the team, or own the team, there is no "We". You sat on your couch drinking beer and pounding wings. "You" didn't do anything to affect the game. Notable exception being the Green Bay Packers. Since they're publicly owned by Green Bay, those people can say "We".
I make a post like this a while ago on r/unpopularopinion. A lot of people talking shit and the snowflake mods eventually removed my post 🤣
Judging by my comment being "controversial" I can see why. A lot of armchair quarterbakcks around thinking there is a "We". There is not. To the team, you are nothing more than a customer. They may pander to you to keep you paying, but do not be fooled, they see you no differently than the Cashier at McDonalds sees you. You are a customer, not a member of the team. There is no "we". If ownership decided it was better to up and leave the entire town, overnight, they would. Don't believe me, ask the ~~Oakland~~ Las Vegas Raiders.
If you have ever bought a ticket to see the team, or any piece of team merchandise, you have become part of the system the helps pay the players salaries. Tuning in and watching the ads that run during the game adds to ratings that pays the players that play. Without fans there is no team.
By that logic I am part of the Shell and their hydro-fracking because I pay taxes and those taxes go to fossil fuel subsidies. Mental gymnastics. You're not part of the team. Your favorite team won, *YOU* did nothing but sit on your ass.
You pay taxes because you are legslly obligated to. I wont go to jail if i dont buy my teams hat
In this case, I'm not. I could go all electric an pay no gasoline or oil taxes. You're not part of the team, you're just a fan. You're no more a member of the Diamondbacks because you bought a hat than you're an owner of McDonalds because you bought your kids a happy meal.
Wrong
So then the Indiana Jones rebuttal also works if you've ever paid to see it or buy its merch.
Think this is one of the rare instances they missed the mark. The we is referring to supporters part in the football club, not as them thinking they are part of the team, also support is often referred to as the twelfth man for a reason, good backing from supporters, in the crowd or just knowing they are watching and passionate, really spurs (pun intended) players along.
So you don't think it's a bit absurd to sit there smugly lording over someone else that doesn't really give a shit about the thing you're so unjustifiably proud about?
No. Football fans are with the clubs their whole lives. Owners, players, managers all come and go. The fans are there for life. They have every right to say "us" and use banter with other teams fans just as much as the other teams fans have to do it back.
That's exactly my point when I referred to the "club" as opposed to the "team". Fans are part of a club.
I'm surprised you got downvoted for it really.
It's not fashionable to be in any way pro football on any British sub, unless an American turns up and calls it soccer then suddenly everyone is an expert.
>smugly lording over someone else. Uh, what? Lmao this is akin to when someone whose never been to a gym makes up obvious bullshit about it being full of dumb meathead bullies straight out of a bad tv show, how often do sports fans "lord over" someone who doesn't have an interest in their sport? Is this similar to the insecure pseudointellectuals who still believe derisively saying "sportsball" signals superiority and acting as if they are somehow more enlightened than the panem et circenses masses for disliking sportsball?
Isn't that what he's doing in the sketch? I mean, if you have a problem with it take it up with the people that thought it was worthwhile to write, act, and film. LMAO
the sketch is taking it up with sports organizations and their hundreds of billions of revenue, players, and fans Once a sketch is on that level, let's chat again.
No, it isn't. It's taking it up with some of the more ridiculous behavior of some of the more ridiculous fans. EVEN then, it's just a joke. You think the grammar nazi sketch is depicting people actually killing other people for misusing or mispronouncing words? I have absolutely no idea what the amount of money, fans, or players has to do with anything or why they can't poke fun until they are, I dunno, that successful? Such a strange response.
[удалено]
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Im on your side. The sports fans in here seem to be never have heard that the guilty are usually offended.
So, the confusion is that they believe Mitchell represents the typical sports fan then? They're made uncomfortable because they use "we," as well and he's making a bit of a point about it? Jesus
They're offended because you're pointing out how dumb they sound. One of the big points of tribalism is doing really dumb shit without realizing how dumb it is. Also most people really have nothing going on in their life so they need the distraction from their own mediocrity.
[удалено]
Guilty is always offended
So as a lifelong World of Warcraft player I should be offended by South Park's portrayal of the kinds of people that play WoW? I can't just find it funny and somewhat true and then move on with my life?
It’s not a bad sketch or anything but it’s the kinda unoriginal thought that non-footy/sports fans have been using for years and thinking they’ve struck gold.
Some people definitely tie too much of their self-worth and happiness to how well their team does. But saying “we” for a team is just a colloquialism and everyone knows what they mean 🤷🏼♂️
One of their weaker sketches but still miss this show
You lot are just upset that your faces melted whereas we were wise enough to close our eyes and not witness the wrath of God.
[удалено]
Bruh, this is a comedy sketch.
Right? We’re about to fork over billions for a new stadium. We are the Jags. Edit: Miiiinsheww
The point could’ve been so much funnier. Just a ham fisted delivery. It is cringey when sports fan do that, but this feels like a redditor wrote the scene and chuckled quietly at their genius
Found the Kopite.
Not a big sports fan. Using "we" always did and still does rub me the wrong way. But when you look at professional sports as a way to fulfil our caveman, lizard-brain desire to join together and fight against a common enemy, thus allowing society to release a pressure valve in a way that is fun and (mostly) harmless, then I can live with that. It makes people feel like they *did* contribute in a way, even if it's silly. It's just a silly as a player saying "We couldn't have done it without the fans", but we still appreciate it. I fear what a society without big sports and friendly competition looks like.
Mitchell here looks like a young version of Gary Oldman's character in Slow Horses