Most brainless liberals are not liberals in the classic sense of the term. Many conservatives are also brainless.
UW women's soccer team loses to U14 boys team.
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Men that constantly compare themselves to girls is sort of zesty IMO. What self-respecting man is threatened by females athletically. My goodness, let the girls compete against each other without a bunch of limp wrist men talking about "Yeah, I can beat 'em".
It's actually the women who are always making the comparison. It's the UW women who chose to match up with barely pubescent boys. As they do so, we are free to respond to it.
He knows this. Its been explained so a two year old could understand. He just can't handle the topic being discussed, so he he tries to get others to stop talking about it.
That's how it always goes. Lefties harp on an issue. When you respond to their harping they come back with "why are you always talking about it????"
Considering the example in question is a lefty calling people who talk about a subject in a way he doesnt like: zesty, not a self respecting man who is threatened by women and is limp wristed? I dont think I'll limit name calling to one side.
Last edited:
It is interesting how topics suddenly become "not worth talking about" once facts start coming out.
I don't think anything in this thread has been made to be unclear. Crystal clear, rather.
That is simply politics. Once that is involved, otherwise even amenable people will dig in and refuse to discuss rationally. That doesnt even count those that are already unhinged before the political content.
Something happened in 2008 that caused half the country to go insane. I wonder what it was.
Going back to the original intent of the thread, though, I just think it's hilarious that barely pubescent boys are able to beat some of the best women athletes.
In normal times, I would have not thought anything of it. But we live in such a time that we are told Angel Reese is a very, very good basketball player.
I think the women and the gyno men who constantly feel the need to proclaim how great women athletes are and how they are as good as men and deserve to be paid and funded the same as men when the product is obviously inferior to anyone with eyes and a brain are the ones who are "zesty", whatever that means. Women, and their gyno male mouthpieces, are the source of the constant comparison to men. Everyone else, outside of the echo chamber of women's sports disciples, recognize that females are inferior athletically to males and don't really give women's sports much thought. The women are the ones bringing the attention and comparison on themselves by constantly harping on how equal they are and arranging games against males they think they have a chance of beating. So far, they haven't been able to drop down far enough in the male organized sports to be able to win, and they are butthurt about it when people point out their inferiority.
Maybe the UW team or WNST can schedule a game against a boys middle school team and beat them? Then, the women and their "male" cheerleaders could strut around and boast about beating a male team. Maybe they should shut up about inequality and comparison to male athletes and play their sports.
Something happened in 2008 that caused half the country to go insane. I wonder what it was.
2008? I think it predates that. Its been a continual uptick of nonsense, imo. I remember thinking how we would never top the vitriol shown to W, then saying that about Obama, then saying that about Trump, then Biden, now Trump again.
I literally said back then, they've demonized this guy so much, how are they going to top it? And they did.
Now, think about how far we have to go to top the vitriol for Trump.
There are very, very good female basketball players out there. Angel Reese is not one of them lol
A few delusional women do that. Men that constantly respond make it an issue. It's platforms like "Outkick" that do think pieces on it. Also, you have been continuously on some issue about women's sports for at least two years. You seem to obsess over it. You have the right to your opinion. It's the constant harping on it that makes a reasonable person say "what agenda is this guy trying to push". ...and you can explain it in 100 different ways. It's still displaying feminine energy. I said what I said and I would say it to your face if you were going back and forth with a woman in front of me.
Lmao
Now you have "feminine energy" because you post about it. Someone is really insecure and projecting.
Different people have different strengths. Women are not weak. They have different types of strengths than do men. And that's okay.
I do enjoy watching talented women competing against each other. And that's just me. I do think that logic would dictate than men trump in most athletic endeavours. And thus, it would not be enjoyable to watch the best professional women compete against high school boys in basketball.
I think a reasonable decent analogy would be a varsity team from a class A school competing against a AAAAA school. No fun for everybody. But A vs A, and AAAAA vs AAAAA can be engaging.
But if the free market / viewing public decides that they enjoy watching women's professional sports and there is sufficient demand, TV contacts will appear, and salaries will go up.
I think what "women, and their gyno male mouthpieces" should focus on is marketing a league and let the free market decide whether or not it will thrive.
The last thing women's sports fans and participants want is to let the free market decide. The WNBA is a charity league funded by the NBA. If the WNBA had to rely on the free market, it would have folded decades ago. The same can be said for women's soccer. Women's golf is barely profitable but it is growing. Women's tennis is actually profitable and viable, it is entertaining to watch and the play is at a high level.
If it weren't for the woke virus that has infected sports media, there would be practically no coverage of any women's sports outside of tennis. The market has almost no demand at all for women's sports.
College basketball does have a following. Pro basketball - regardless of gender - does not interest me.
Sure, the MNBA supporting the WNBA can be seen as charity, but it also gives the MNBA good publicity.
Inferior or superior is somewhat irrelevant. It's what draws eyeballs moreso than the talent level. And I state this knowing that talent level does play a role, but not an exclusive one.
Common sense does not exist in the brains of most non-classical liberals and in many conservatives as well.
That is true. With the women's sports is as much about social media following. That may actually be more important than athletic talent for most of them.
There is no such thing as the MNBA. There is the NBA and the WNBA. Actually, MNBA is the name of a bank.
I don't like pro basketball either, and, to be honest, my interest in men's college basketball is minimal. My interest in women's basketball, regardless of level, is nonexistent.
There is USC women's basketball, and USC men's basketball. Thus, logic would dictate the WNBA and the MNBA.
Nobody is forced to like anything, and nobody should be castigated for the choices they make.
Last edited:
Thanks. Your using social media is an excellent example of what I was trying to convey. Where is the money, and follow it.
Yep. Women sports are not gaining any popularity for athletic reasons. We are in full agreement there. You make an excellent, undeniable point.
Similarly, American football is more popular than baseball for non-athletic reasons. Top baseball players are in excellent physical shape.
It doesn't make baseball bad and football good. It doesn't make women's sports bad, and men's sports good. It's all about the marketing and consumer appeal.
I can't think of any bad professional male athletes who are nevertheless considered one of the faces of their sport due solely to the social media following.
Angel Reese is objectively not very good at what she does, but she was on the cover of the WNBA video game b/c she has a strong social media presence. There are no male equivalencies for that.
Not a strong analogy here.
There's a long list of game-related reasons why baseball has waned in popularity compared to football. If it was purely a marketing problem, MLB would have figured that out a long time ago.
MLB never recovered from the strike in 1995. Baseball players were heroes before that. After the public saw grown men who get paid millions a year to play a game go on strike, the magic was gone.
NFL has gone on strike too, but never had a season cancelled.
Free agency hurt too. When you have players like Mays, Aaron, and Musial play their entire career for one team (okay, Mays and Aaron ended their careers in the cities where they got their MLB start) it builds attachment in the average fan. Now having stated that, free agency is good in principle, not necessarily for the $$$.
In any other profession, could you imagine being bonded for life by a contract? What if you taught school in Richland County, had issues with your school principal, but could not go to work in another school district (or another school in your district!) without the principal "selling" your contract or "trading" you to another school? This, of course, was before the massive rise in salaries.