Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, 90sBills said:


You seem very emotionally invested in a couple of strangers. That can’t be a good thing. 

You seem awful interested and invested on my thoughts? How is it not hypocrisy? Logic is gooning over these two and has the gall to say someone not liking their coverage is bizarre?

 

Sorry I don't mouth pump celeb BS....call me weird.

  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 1
  • Dislike 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, boyst said:

You seem awful interested and invested on my thoughts? How is it not hypocrisy? Logic is gooning over these two and has the gall to say someone not liking their coverage is bizarre?

 

Sorry I don't mouth pump celeb BS....call me weird.


Me as a random forum poster made an observation of another random poster’s (you) multiple posts disparaging the character of two celebrity strangers is not being invested in you. If I can continue to post about you and make assumptions about your character (like the way you’re doing about those two complete strangers) then you’d have a point. 
 

The fact that you can’t discern between the two scenarios is revealing. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, transient said:

I don't blame her... or Kelce... but I do blame the NFL. No true NFL fan gives a flying **** about her reaction to a meaningful play during a KC game, but every play to Kelce the broadcast has been instructed to pander to her minions to sell an extra bedazzled KC jersey. It's pretty glaringly obvious, and it's annoying AF. 

I agree. She would at least seem to be a nice person and as a father of three girls I am happy to see a young woman suceed. 

 

What bothers me is my belief that the Chiefs have received and will continue to receive favorable calls from refs. The whole scenario with Taylor Swift is probably making them untold millions. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it isn't happening but it looks that way to me. 

 

I do however think that the implication that anyone who shares the above view is somehow hating on Taylor is absurd. 

  • Disagree 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, transient said:

I don't blame her... or Kelce... but I do blame the NFL. No true NFL fan gives a flying **** about her reaction to a meaningful play during a KC game, but every play to Kelce the broadcast has been instructed to pander to her minions to sell an extra bedazzled KC jersey. It's pretty glaringly obvious, and it's annoying AF. 


The NFL is a business. Their goal is to make as much money and attract as many eyeballs as humanly possible.

So, to that end: Yep, they've exploited Taylor's presence for all its worth. And quite effectively!

It is estimated that female viewership rose 20% due to Swift's presence, that $1 billion in publicity value was generated, and that NFL merchandise sales are up across the board. Those are some massive gains!

I would venture to guess that many (but of course not all) who are against the NFL's exploitation of Swift's presence would also consider themselves staunch lovers and defenders of free market capitalism. As such, it must certainly be understandable to them why the NFL does what it does when it comes to Taylor Swift.

If we're gonna discuss the NFL's various profit-motivated decisions, I think the advent of Thursday night football, extra regular season games, and extra playoff games are all far more insidious and worthy of scorn than their showing of a pop star in her press box for 20-30 seconds per Chiefs game.

  • Agree 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Logic said:


The NFL is a business. Their goal is to make as much money and attract as many eyeballs as humanly possible.

So, to that end: Yep, they've exploited Taylor's presence for all its worth. And quite effectively!

It is estimated that female viewership rose 20% due to Swift's presence, that $1 billion in publicity value was generated, and that NFL merchandise sales are up across the board. Those are some massive gains!

I would venture to guess that many (but of course not all) who are against the NFL's exploitation of Swift's presence would also consider themselves staunch lovers and defenders of free market capitalism. As such, it must certainly be understandable to them why the NFL does what it does when it comes to Taylor Swift.

If we're gonna discuss the NFL's various profit-motivated decisions, I think the advent of Thursday night football, extra regular season games, and extra playoff games are all far more insidious and worthy of scorn than their showing of a pop star in her press box for 20-30 seconds per Chiefs game.

OK, fine. Do you NOT think that the Chiefs are getting favorable calls  because of the Swift/Kelce scenario? This is the ONLY facet of the subject that bothers me. How about you? Are you of the opinion that the Chiefs have not received any favorable calls from the refs due to this scenario?

Posted
22 minutes ago, 90sBills said:


Me as a random forum poster made an observation of another random poster’s (you) multiple posts disparaging the character of two celebrity strangers is not being invested in you. If I can continue to post about you and make assumptions about your character (like the way you’re doing about those two complete strangers) then you’d have a point. 
 

The fact that you can’t discern between the two scenarios is revealing. 

Cool

 

You're doing the same with me as a stranger. 

  • Dislike 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

OK, fine. Do you NOT think that the Chiefs are getting favorable calls  because of the Swift/Kelce scenario? This is the ONLY facet of the subject that bothers me. How about you? Are you of the opinion that the Chiefs have not received any favorable calls from the refs due to this scenario?


I think the Chiefs get favorable calls from the refs. I also used to think that the Patriots constantly got favorable calls from the refs.

The nagging voice in the back of my head that thinks the league either tells refs specifically to give favorable calls to its most popular/successful teams, or that there is some kind of unconscious bias toward and benefit of the doubt given to those teams by the refs...it's hard for me to quiet that voice.

On the other hand, I think to myself: If the NFL is putting its thumb on the scales in favor of certain teams, why not media market or merchandise giants like the New York Giants or Jets, the Dallas Cowboys, and the LA teams?

Do I think that the favorable calls given to the Chiefs are due to the Taylor Swift thing? I lean towards no, because I feel like those calls pre-dated her involvement. Can I say with 100% certainty that it's not a thing? Nope, I can't. The NFL is a shady and unscrupulous enterprise, and given everything I just said about their primary motive being profit, can I completely dismiss the idea that they'll do whatever they can to maximize their TS TV time? Nope, I can't.

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 minute ago, boyst said:

Cool

 

You're doing the same with me as a stranger. 


Funny I don’t remember calling you vapid or making any character assumptions about you.

 

Again, you’re unable to differentiate the two scenarios. That’s cool. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Logic said:

Do I think that the favorable calls given to the Chiefs are due to the Taylor Swift thing? I lean towards no, because I feel like those calls pre-dated her involvement. Can I say with 100% certainty that it's not a thing? Nope, I can't. The NFL is a shady and unscrupulous enterprise, and given everything I just said about their primary motive being profit, can I completely dismiss the idea that they'll do whatever they can to maximize their TS TV time? Nope, I can't.

Therein lies the rub. If you're pandering to hundreds of millions of Swifties for profit, wouldn't you want to make sure the Chiefs play as many games as possible in any given season? It's not like they're real fans that will continue to watch once their team is out of it. As glaring as the calls in the AFCCG were last season, not letting Houston play defense was even worse.

 

If it wasn't for the fact that this iteration of the Bills is the most fun I've had rooting for the team in my 45+ years of being a Bills fan, the soul selling decisions by the NFL over the last 10+ years, not the least of which has been eagerly crawling into bed with every last online gambling site they could find, would have probably been enough for me to turn the page on the NFL. I most likely would have if this was still the drought era, and there's a good chance it will turn me off to the league once the current run by the Bills is done.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
Just now, transient said:

Therein lies the rub. If you're pandering to hundreds of millions of Swifties for profit, wouldn't you want to make sure the Chiefs play as many games as possible in any given season? It's not like they're real fans that will continue to watch once their team is out of it. As glaring as the calls in the AFCCG were last season, not letting Houston play defense was even worse.

 

If it wasn't for the fact that this iteration of the Bills is the most fun I've had rooting for the team in my 45+ years of being a Bills fan, the soul selling decisions by the NFL over the last 10+ years, not the least of which has been eagerly crawling into bed with every last online gambling site they could find, would have probably been enough for me to turn the page on the NFL. I most likely would have if this was still the drought era, and there's a good chance it will turn me off to the league once the current run by the Bills is done.


Thanks for this.

I particularly agree with your second paragraph.

I'm addicted to the NFL, but morally, I really wish I wasn't. The fact that the league's ever-deepening heel turn has coincided with the best Bills football of my adult lifetime has been...vexing.

And as I said to Bill from NYC, I truly can't rule out the possibility of league chicanery with regard to the Chiefs to ensure maximum Swift involvement. And that's gross.
 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Logic said:


Thanks for this.

I particularly agree with your second paragraph.

I'm addicted to the NFL, but morally, I really wish I wasn't. The fact that the league's ever-deepening heel turn has coincided with the best Bills football of my adult lifetime has been...vexing.

And as I said to Bill from NYC, I truly can't rule out the possibility of league chicanery with regard to the Chiefs to ensure maximum Swift involvement. And that's gross.
 

I think this is the full circle moment. Even if it's only for 20-30s per game, this is what watching her cheering on KC during a broadcast evokes in me every time I see it. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, transient said:

I think this is the full circle moment. Even if it's only for 20-30s per game, this is what watching her cheering on KC during a broadcast evokes in me every time I see it. 


Fair enough.

I suppose that my point remains that the anger/frustration/vitriol largely seems to get mis-directed toward Swift, when it should be directed toward the league and/or the networks. 

She's not doing anything wrong. The networks and league potentially are. That's who people should be upset at, if anyone.

Posted
28 minutes ago, 90sBills said:


Funny I don’t remember calling you vapid or making any character assumptions about you.

 

Again, you’re unable to differentiate the two scenarios. That’s cool. 

You're commenting on my perception of two people neither of us know and how I don't give a ***** about them just want to let them live and not have them a part of my football past time.

 

I'm pretty sure if you work hard enough though taaylor will notice you and let you glaze Kelce.

Posted
1 hour ago, boyst said:

You're commenting on my perception of two people neither of us know and how I don't give a ***** about them just want to let them live and not have them a part of my football past time.

 

I'm pretty sure if you work hard enough though taaylor will notice you and let you glaze Kelce.


Commenting is not the same as making assumptions on someone’s character. Fyi, we’re on a comments board.

 

Unlike you, I have not made any assumptions to your character, or anyone else’s, nor have I insulted you in any way. Something that seems to come easily for you as evidenced by your personal insult of me in your last statement. 

Posted
4 hours ago, boyst said:

Celebrity worship in our country is insane. These two are among the most vapid self indulged drecks of society.

Agree, I don’t know them personally, so I try not to judge. My issue is that people actually emulate these characters. Whether it consciously occurs or not is irrelevant, people literally model their personalities on celebs these days. I don’t love the idea of a world where Swift and Kelce are the ultimate male and female role models. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, 90sBills said:


Commenting is not the same as making assumptions on someone’s character. Fyi, we’re on a comments board.

 

Unlike you, I have not made any assumptions to your character, or anyone else’s, nor have I insulted you in any way. Something that seems to come easily for you as evidenced by your personal insult of me in your last statement. 

That's not an insult, seriously. That'd be like the best thing ever for a swiftie. It's highest honors.

 

You're assuming me and many others don't like swift. I don't dislike her or like her, I don't know her. But what I do know about her I dislike. She's a liar, a hypocrite, and a weirdo. I don't like Kelce because he and his brother are Chad's. They're douchey chads. Jason can't keep his temper and has a drinking problem (he's said near as much). Travis is a douche supreme who pushes his coach and is a poor sport.

 

For those simple reasons I think the Kelces are butter soft jokes.

  • Eyeroll 2
  • Agree 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, boyst said:

That's not an insult, seriously. That'd be like the best thing ever for a swiftie. It's highest honors.

 

You're assuming me and many others don't like swift. I don't dislike her or like her, I don't know her. But what I do know about her I dislike. She's a liar, a hypocrite, and a weirdo. I don't like Kelce because he and his brother are Chad's. They're douchey chads. Jason can't keep his temper and has a drinking problem (he's said near as much). Travis is a douche supreme who pushes his coach and is a poor sport.

 

For those simple reasons I think the Kelces are butter soft jokes.

Exactly, and I keep hearing what great guys the Kelce’s are in the media and public opinion. I can’t stand the concept of these guys defining an acceptable version of manhood in the 21st century. Their behavior would have made them nothing more than a joke in previous eras. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...