Reusse and "Fatism"

Donate To GopherHole
N

Nomellini

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
938
Reaction score
273
Points
63
Recently, Reusse stated that "fatism" is a deeper prejudice in American society than ageism, sexism or racism, suggesting that it was an important factor in the fall of Coach Claeys, one that pre-dated "the scandal". This seems to be one of those "elephant in the room" topics. It is so volatile that people tend to leave it alone, perhaps in the interest of civility. I wonder if a reasonable discussion could take place on this forum.
I live in San Diego. "Body culture" is a big deal here. This emphasis can be a good and healthy thing but I have often seen it taken too far. Twenty years of dating out here taught me that there is a grain of truth in Jackson Browne's line "it's who you look like, not who you are." I finally found a Wisconsin lady out here and have been happily married for 27 years. Mercifully, she cares not at all about sports.
When I come back to Minnesota, it doesn't take long to realize that I am in a very different place. One of the things about Minnesota that I most appreciate is the general understanding in relationships that substance trumps style. My friends and relatives see food differently from me and don't care so much about their figures. I say good for them, but I do sometimes fear for their health.This brings us to the Coach Claeys situation.
Of course, there are anti-discriminatory laws in place but they can be circumvented. If an organization feels its most public representative does not project an attractive appearance, it can find other paths to dismissal.
But what do you think? Did the appearance of Coach Claeys impact his effectiveness as coach, recruiter and "face of the program"? If so, to what degree? Do you agree with Reusse's take on the depth and prevalence of this bias?
 


Reusse is still an idiot 24-7.
 

Good post.

It's a tough question. I always think it's incredibly hard to gauge people's personal internal prejudices. I do not think, for a second, that Claeys weight impaired his ability to coach. However, I think it played into some of the attitudes towards him as a coach. There are people on this board who would come out and say that they didn't appreciate the football coach having Claeys type of body. That was always bizarre to me, but people said it.

To answer your question, I don't know, but I am sure it played a role subconsciously.
 

His weight didn't affect his coaching ability but I'm not afraid to admit that his weight was one of the reasons I didn't like him as the face of the program. It's not a good look when someone who is that out of shape is leading an athletic program I'm sorry but it's true.
 


We should have hired Souhan. He is very fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I appreciate those who call Reusse "Fat Pat" or "Fatrick." They are signaling that they have so little ability to make an argument and need to resort to ad hominems. Makes it easy to identify those who have little of interest to say.

On the other hand, those who criticize Reusse for the merits of his opinions or just think he is too cynical are making points worth consideration.
 

MrC said:
I appreciate those who call Reusse "fat Pat" or "Fatrick." They are signaling that they have so little ability to make an argument and need to resort to ad hominems. Makes it easy to identify those who have little of interest to say.

On the other hand, those who criticize Reusse for the merit of his opinions or just think he is too cynical are making points worth consideration.
Click to expand...

What if we criticize the merit of his opinions and call him names?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Guarantee it was a factor in the decision. Same reason he hired someone that is complete opposite of Claeys. This is not anything that you could compare them to each other.....from coaching style, body types and coaching ability.
 



I think it might have been a factor for some--hard to gauge how much though. I think the fact he was pretty unemotional on the sidelines, wasn't particularly articulate, and didn't seem to have much energy factors into it a lot more. Maybe not fair to either, but on the sidelines and in interviews he sometimes reminded me of Tubby in his last couple of years.

The good ol' Kansas boy who didn't even have an agent makes me admire and like him, but it also makes me think we have a better chance to break through with Fleck.
 

Spoofin said:
What if we criticize the merit of his opinions and call him names?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The latter makes the former so suspect that the best course of action is to ignore it in favor of arguments from those who avoid logical fallacies.
 


Let's be honest. In the big ten Meyer, Harbaugh, Dantonio, Franklin, are Ferentz, are not fat.
 




Look at Limegrover when he came to mn.
Look at him when he left mn.
You can cry fatism, but it's almost always something that can be addressed, unlike- race, gender, etc
 

MrC said:
The latter makes the former so suspect that the best course of action is to ignore it in favor of arguments from those who avoid logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Calling someone fat isn't a logical fallacy, especially if that person is a big fat big like Reusse.
 

booger said:
Guarantee it was a factor in the decision. Same reason he hired someone that is complete opposite of Claeys. This is not anything that you could compare them to each other.....from coaching style, body types and coaching ability.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? There are tons of successful MAC coaches who never were able to 9 games playing in the Big 10.
 

beatles said:
His weight didn't affect his coaching ability but I'm not afraid to admit that his weight was one of the reasons I didn't like him as the face of the program. It's not a good look when someone who is that out of shape is leading an athletic program I'm sorry but it's true.
Click to expand...

Honest question, why? Like what is the reason for you that it matters?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Calling someone fat isn't a logical fallacy, especially if that person is a big fat big like Reusse.
Click to expand...

I am surprised a lawyer does not understand what an ad hominem is.

Hope this from Wikipedia helps:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Also, I am not sure what is so bad about being a "big fat big." (Maybe you can help me understand if there is a logical fallacy regarding pointing out an obvious typo. Is that also ad hominem?)

;)
 

It matters, because athletics is about fitness. Fitness is about nutrition, particularly in this day & age. It's also about discipline. If the head coach appears (whether true in fact, or not) not to have personal discipline, then how can he/she be expected to instill that in the ranks?

Bud Grant's obvious fitness & appearance on the Vikes' sideline all those years was a source of pride for me as a young fan, and no doubt for at least some of his players. It simply matters. Anyone who denies it is missing the boat.
 

MrC said:
I am surprised a lawyer does not understand what an ad hominem is.

Hope this from Wikipedia helps:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Also, I am not sure what is so bad about being a "big fat big." (Maybe you can help me understand if there is a logical fallacy regarding pointing out an obvious typo. Is that also ad hominem?)

;)
Click to expand...

"You're fat" isn't an ad hominem.

"You can't coach because you're fat" is an ad hominem.
 

Carlson 79 said:
It matters, because athletics is about fitness. Fitness is about nutrition, particularly in this day & age. It's also about discipline. If the head coach appears (whether true in fact, or not) not to have personal discipline, then how can he/she be expected to instill that in the ranks?

Bud Grant's obvious fitness & appearance on the Vikes' sideline all those years was a source of pride for me as a young fan, and no doubt for at least some of his players. It simply matters. Anyone who denies it is missing the boat.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that explains why his son, Mike Grant, has been such a failure as a coach due to being a rather large man. Oh, yeah, Mike Grant has been a very successful coach.

You are demonstrating Reusse's point better than he did.
 

MrC said:
I am surprised a lawyer does not understand what an ad hominem is.

Hope this from Wikipedia helps:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Also, I am not sure what is so bad about being a "big fat big." (Maybe you can help me understand if there is a logical fallacy regarding pointing out an obvious typo. Is that also ad hominem?)

;)
Click to expand...

I made a typo. You got me.

But it only becomes a logical fallacy if we are saying Reusse's opinion doesn't count because he's a big fat pig (or big). It's not a logical fallcy to simply say that Reusse is a big fat pig.

No one should listen to Reusse because he's a big fat pig. ---- Logical fallacy
All of this big fat pig's columns are so negative. --- There is not a logical fallacy.

We aren't saying Reusse's obesity is why he should be ignored. We are simply saying, he's a big fat pig AND his opinions should be ignored.
 

Carlson 79 said:
It matters, because athletics is about fitness. Fitness is about nutrition, particularly in this day & age. It's also about discipline. If the head coach appears (whether true in fact, or not) not to have personal discipline, then how can he/she be expected to instill that in the ranks?

Bud Grant's obvious fitness & appearance on the Vikes' sideline all those years was a source of pride for me as a young fan, and no doubt for at least some of his players. It simply matters. Anyone who denies it is missing the boat.
Click to expand...

Was it really? You had pride in Bud Grant's physique?
 

Nomellini said:
When I come back to Minnesota, it doesn't take long to realize that I am in a very different place. One of the things about Minnesota that I most appreciate is the general understanding in relationships that substance trumps style. My friends and relatives see food differently from me and don't care so much about their figures. I say good for them, but I do sometimes fear for their health.
Click to expand...

Well, considering most "healthiest cities, healthiest states, fittest cities," etc. lists rank the Twin Cities or Minnesota quite highly (often above San Diego or California) - perhaps you need to meet more Minnesotans beyond your relatives because it might be leading you to some false assumptions.


http://www.shape.com/fitness/top-10-fittest-cities-america
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I made a typo. You got me.

But it only becomes a logical fallacy if we are saying Reusse's opinion doesn't count because he's a big fat pig (or big). It's not a logical fallcy to simply say that Reusse is a big fat pig.

No one should listen to Reusse because he's a big fat pig. ---- Logical fallacy
All of this big fat pig's columns are so negative. --- There is not a logical fallacy.

We aren't saying Reusse's obesity is why he should be ignored. We are simply saying, he's a big fat pig AND his opinions should be ignored.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. Name calling is of course a way of undermining the person. In that sense it has much the same effect of an ad hominem. But it is a subtle issue, as this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on "Verbal Abuse" demonstrates:

"Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument,[citation needed] name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem."

I think it is reasonable to ignore the opinions of those who engage in either ad hominems or name calling, as neither are remotely constructive.

Of course, I must immediately wonder if my position is in itself an ad hominem. Damn, intellectual integrity is hard.
 

BarnBoy said:
"You're fat" isn't an ad hominem.

"You can't coach because you're fat" is an ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I posted otherwise, "you're fat" is name calling, a type of verbal abuse than in some cases qualifies as an ad hominem, but regardless is never to be respected.
 

MrC said:
Yes, as posted otherwise, "you're fat" is name calling, a type of verbal abuse than in some cases qualifies as an ad hominem, but regardless is never to be respected.
Click to expand...

In this case it surely doesn't.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
In this case it surely doesn't.
Click to expand...

Doesn't qualify as ad honimem or doesn't qualify as verbal abuse in the form of name calling?

A distinction with little difference, as previously posted.
 

MrC said:
Yes, as I posted otherwise, "you're fat" is name calling, a type of verbal abuse than in some cases qualifies as an ad hominem, but regardless is never to be respected.
Click to expand...

We are slicing hairs. By itself it doesn't. Depending on the context of the surrounding conversation, maybe. (e.g. if used as a rebuttal to an argument)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom