Outlaw Heroes
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,400
- Reaction score
- 6,609
I'm getting a little tired of seeing the word "agenda" chucked around indiscriminately. Seems to me that a word that imports such negative connotations should be used more cautiously. So I think we should make clear precisely what does and does not constitute an agenda.
IMO, preferring one player over another needn't, in and of itself, constitute an "agenda". Seems to me that that's just part and parcel of what it is to be a fan. There are others on this board who might prefer Staubach to Aikman among our all-time great QBs, Emitt to TD among our all-time great RBs, Pearson to Irvin, etc. That's not an agenda. That's just having a favorite. It's a matter of taste, about which, I think most of us could agree, there is room for reasonable disagreement.
The preference for Romo over Henson, or vice-versa, is similar in my view. Neither has done anything to clearly distinguish himself from the other at this stage in their respective careers. One can argue about who "will be" better, but in the end those arguments will of necessity be conjectural in nature (just as an argument over whether TD's pure speed was more valuable than Emmitt's great vision would be) and when push comes to shove, we'll be talking once more about preference.
Nothing wrong with that. Preference is built into the very concept of fandom, inasmuch as being a fan of Team X is simply preferring that team to all others, for any number of reasons, many of which are pre-rational or even irrational.
There are some on these boards, however, whose support of one or the other of the young bucks has nothing to do with preference. Two in particular (they shall go nameless, since it requires no great imaginative leap to determine who they are) come to mind, though others are not blameless.
The one endorses one of the young QBs over the other as part of a general pattern of making predictions whose sole purpose is self-aggrandizement. When some of these predictions come true (most don't) the poster is quick to crow to anyone that will listen "HA! I told so!! If you had listened to me, you would have seen this coming all along". This has nothing to do with being a fan. It has everything to do with stroking one's own ego. Indeed, unlike true preference, which can accomodate respect (even like) for the object that is not preferred (for to prefer Aikman to Staubach is not to dislike or disrespect Staubach; one can quite consistently think very highly of him), when one's ego is at stake victory can only come at the expense at the object that is not preferred. Success means not only that one's preferred QB must do well; it means that the other QB must fail. Indeed, that's the prediction in the first place: not that "QB X will do great", but that "QB Y will be a bust."
It's not hard to see how this is hostile to the best interests of the team. Hoping fervently for the failure of a team's prospects couldn't be more contrary to the team's best interests. And that, it seems to me, is the defining feature of having an "agenda": one's position is not driven by anything relating to, or even consistent with, team support. Instead, it's driven by personal interests (in self-aggrandizement or whatever).
Which brings us to the second poster. His agenda is far less complicated. He just loves to stir the pot (not to use a more descriptive term for what he's stirring). On other boards he would be called a "troll", inasmuch his "pot stirring" is primarily directed at inciting anger. While this poster's motives are less complicated, he is no less agenda-driven. Again, his position has nothing to do with preference of one player over another. He just gets off on getting people riled up. Which is why, like the first guy, his position is less about QB X doing well than it is about QB Y failing. After all, nobody would get riled up about a statement to the effect that "QB X is great." But plenty of people -- all those who prefer QB Y -- will get worked up when he comments (without foundation, of course, since it's his intent to get a reaction rather than persuade) "QB Y is a bust". And if it turns out that he's right, and QB Y fails, he'll have a field day knowing that it's really chapping the *** of those that resisted his outrageous claims all along.
That, once more, is the very definition of agenda, as is evidenced by the fact that it subverts the team's interest in seeing QB Y do well to his own interest in getting under other people's skin.
So let's be clear, going forward, about exactly who is and who is not pushing an agenda. I'm a big Henson supporter. But I'm not pushing an agenda. Want proof? You won't find me slaggin Romo, since I'd be almost as happy if he were to turn into our next great Cowboys QB.
IMO, preferring one player over another needn't, in and of itself, constitute an "agenda". Seems to me that that's just part and parcel of what it is to be a fan. There are others on this board who might prefer Staubach to Aikman among our all-time great QBs, Emitt to TD among our all-time great RBs, Pearson to Irvin, etc. That's not an agenda. That's just having a favorite. It's a matter of taste, about which, I think most of us could agree, there is room for reasonable disagreement.
The preference for Romo over Henson, or vice-versa, is similar in my view. Neither has done anything to clearly distinguish himself from the other at this stage in their respective careers. One can argue about who "will be" better, but in the end those arguments will of necessity be conjectural in nature (just as an argument over whether TD's pure speed was more valuable than Emmitt's great vision would be) and when push comes to shove, we'll be talking once more about preference.
Nothing wrong with that. Preference is built into the very concept of fandom, inasmuch as being a fan of Team X is simply preferring that team to all others, for any number of reasons, many of which are pre-rational or even irrational.
There are some on these boards, however, whose support of one or the other of the young bucks has nothing to do with preference. Two in particular (they shall go nameless, since it requires no great imaginative leap to determine who they are) come to mind, though others are not blameless.
The one endorses one of the young QBs over the other as part of a general pattern of making predictions whose sole purpose is self-aggrandizement. When some of these predictions come true (most don't) the poster is quick to crow to anyone that will listen "HA! I told so!! If you had listened to me, you would have seen this coming all along". This has nothing to do with being a fan. It has everything to do with stroking one's own ego. Indeed, unlike true preference, which can accomodate respect (even like) for the object that is not preferred (for to prefer Aikman to Staubach is not to dislike or disrespect Staubach; one can quite consistently think very highly of him), when one's ego is at stake victory can only come at the expense at the object that is not preferred. Success means not only that one's preferred QB must do well; it means that the other QB must fail. Indeed, that's the prediction in the first place: not that "QB X will do great", but that "QB Y will be a bust."
It's not hard to see how this is hostile to the best interests of the team. Hoping fervently for the failure of a team's prospects couldn't be more contrary to the team's best interests. And that, it seems to me, is the defining feature of having an "agenda": one's position is not driven by anything relating to, or even consistent with, team support. Instead, it's driven by personal interests (in self-aggrandizement or whatever).
Which brings us to the second poster. His agenda is far less complicated. He just loves to stir the pot (not to use a more descriptive term for what he's stirring). On other boards he would be called a "troll", inasmuch his "pot stirring" is primarily directed at inciting anger. While this poster's motives are less complicated, he is no less agenda-driven. Again, his position has nothing to do with preference of one player over another. He just gets off on getting people riled up. Which is why, like the first guy, his position is less about QB X doing well than it is about QB Y failing. After all, nobody would get riled up about a statement to the effect that "QB X is great." But plenty of people -- all those who prefer QB Y -- will get worked up when he comments (without foundation, of course, since it's his intent to get a reaction rather than persuade) "QB Y is a bust". And if it turns out that he's right, and QB Y fails, he'll have a field day knowing that it's really chapping the *** of those that resisted his outrageous claims all along.
That, once more, is the very definition of agenda, as is evidenced by the fact that it subverts the team's interest in seeing QB Y do well to his own interest in getting under other people's skin.
So let's be clear, going forward, about exactly who is and who is not pushing an agenda. I'm a big Henson supporter. But I'm not pushing an agenda. Want proof? You won't find me slaggin Romo, since I'd be almost as happy if he were to turn into our next great Cowboys QB.
It is nice to see a little reality and reason written once in a while.
