Mac v. St. John's
Ok, if you are not interested in sports, skip the following section, starting...
NOW.
I decided, after a small amount of prompting from the Depuemeister, that I would go check out the basketball game at Macalester. Now, I love basketball, in all forms at all levels, and I was quite excited to get to the game. So excited, in fact, that I arrived nearly 55 minutes before tip off. I was easily the first person in the gym that wasn't a player or coach, and even got an awkward 1-step, "what's up, man?" hand shake from Mr. Shuffle (Bozman). So, I plopped my not-obese, not-really-even-close-to-skinny ass on the disgusting plastic bleachers and watched the mac team miss dunks for about 25 minutes. I must have been super lonely looking because even Coach Parrington came up to me and we discussed how basketball is easily the best sport to warm-up for. We both made some valid points. I mean, you shoot hoops, dunk, listen to rock 'n roll/rap, BS with your buddies, and maybe stretch for about 5 minutes. And this is the same routine at all levels of basketball. Vince Carter was told not to wear an ipod during warm-ups. What other sport is like this? Crazy. Anyway, I love those awkward conversations with completely peripheral people in my life (like Coach Parrington), where the conversation is so devestatingly awkward that both people are desperately trying not to say boring archtypal nuggets, and both are trying to act interested. Really, I've come to the point where I pretty much just say, "Alright, I'm leaving now." I don't give some crappy explanation about having to be somewhere, I just say something quasi-honest and get the hell out of there. Anyway, so I watched Mac warmup, then they went to the locker room, and out comes St. John's, full of skinny white guys with names like "Ohme" and "Thaetcher"...you know, the kind of names that you'd only find in the mid-west. Seriously, has there ever been a hot young actor in Hollywood with the name Ohme? Nope. Finally, people started filtering in, and I didn't feel like a complete loser. Well, not for being alone watching St. John's warm-up anyway. I feel like a loser for other reasons. Cool AJ and his crew rolled up wearing orange t-shirts with "Irv and Vanessa: Dropping MAC sports since 2002" written on them. Which is a good message to get across, and one I agree with, but wouldn't this little mini-protest be more effective if actual current macalester students wore them. Or the girls basketball team? Vanessa came over to talk to the guys with a goofy grin on her face. She probably thought that they were including her in some sort of shared history for which they can all take part; oblivious to the fact that right in front of her are 12 guys wearing shirts which are explicitly mocking her. Irv is just an empty suit. But, there was no confrontation or anything of the sort, so my interest quickly waned. Just as the game was about to start, 2 d-bag macalester students decided to sit directly in front of me. I was heretofore lounging...arms draped on the row behind me, legs sprawled on the seat in front. And these two decide that, despite the litany of empty seats throughout the gym, the two right where my legs are are prime positions. So I make a half-hearted grunting noise, scowl and rearrange my limbs to accomodate these two, who probably don't even spread at the table. Fortunately, across the gym, Jake and James stroll in, so I wait for my oppurtunity (a shooting foul) and make my way over. As for the game, Mac kicked some ass, but I noticed a few things. Of course, I only barely played basketball in high school, so I don't really know anything about the game. And I'm fat.
- An excellent point by James: Mac is TOO disciplined. I know that this is rarely a critique of a college team, but they didn't take many chances. For the glut of athletic swingmen they have, few are true slashers.
- When Mac finally does shoot, they often don't have anyone under the glass for the boards. Sure Boz can nail the three, but he has to be careful because him and Conboy are the only true boarders they have.
- Too many attempted blocks. I saw about 15-18 attempted blocks, but no actual blocks. Blocking a 3 is very rare, and all it really does is get you out of position. Better to close out and contain. Mac's defense could easily be exploited by a more poised team. Of course they're like 4-8, so they're defense has already been exploited.
Anyway, after Mac opened up a 20 point lead to start the second half, we split, only to go home and watch TV. Oh yeah, and we played pool, but that's already been discussed here.
COME BACK, SPORTS OVER
Sorry that I make you feel bad Werth, nothing personal.
As for Matty's claims: First, Seinfeld was most definately not a meltdown. It wasn't funny, it wasn't preventable, and it was not familiar. Under no analytical treatment is the run of Seinfeld a meltdown. It seems that your biggest gripe is simply the word "meltdown", and then you proceed to quote Mirriam-Webster. Well, I'll simply say that if, through the course of linguistic evolution, words and phrases had only been used as they were rigidly and properly defined, the vareity of language and dialect as we see it today would be non-existant. The purpose of language is not simply to describe objective nouns and facts, but to colorfully illustrate and express the variety of emotions, feelings, and thoughts that are both an inspiration and an opression to the human mind. Without a clever turn of phrase, or anachronistic description, entire fields of opinion and expression would be lost. Dilute the language? On the contrary, I am adding to it. How often does the public get to enjoy the phrase meltdown? Our distinctively hyperbolic linguistic style galvanizes our status as image-breakers, outsiders. Diluting the language is achieved through mindless repetition of societal standards, like, you know, I mean.
posted by Lord Alex @ 10:09 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Mac makes playoffs as six seed, then meltsdown against Bethel in first round. Bratsky has genital herpes.
First off, I do not claim that language is getting diluted. I claim that the impact of the usage is diluted by misuse. see?Additionally, I feel that it is perfectly acceptable to modify the English language through the use of metaphor in description. However, I'd argue here that you are not "adding to" the English language, so much as simplifying it. You seek to describe an entire category of situations that have a negative outcome by a single term. This is a technique used in the nigh-utopian society in 1984 to destroy creativity. Such actions can only be described as double-plus ungood. Your "mindless repetition" of the term "meltdown" does, in fact, dilute its meaning by extending its application to situations which, although amusing, do not warrant the term in question's use.
I don't deny that metaphor is a strong tool in conveyance of thought and feeling, but it's equally important that the phrase be used appropriately. My quotation of Merriam-Webster was used to point out the severity of the origin of the term, and your overstating of the extremity of Jake's failed attempts to run errands.
The frequency with which the general public gets to hear the term "meltdown" is inconsequential. It is not an obscure term.
"Our distinctively hyperbolic linguistic style galvanizes our status as image-breakers, outsiders" is a verbose overanalytical Macalester way of saying "Our inside jokes scare people."
I think the Merriam-Webster's second definition, "a rapid or disastrous decline or collapse," leaves the door open for Wreckian and Werthian incidents to qualify as meltdowns.
I certainly agree that "mindless repetition" of a phrase or word can, in fact, lead to an undesired Orwellian system (let's ignore the fact that for that to occur, it'll take more than a barely literate group of goofballs in the midwest). However, I fully disagree that our use of meltdown can be classified as "mindless". It first burdgeoned as an amusing term used to describe and deflect potentially awkward and embarassing situations. Jake(s) and Grace, the psychologists, would recognize this device as a type of coping mechanism designed to protect the user from dealing with the social pitfalls of an errant friend. Now, as the word became more ubiquitous, it was clear that a system would need to be devised to understand and describe its many complexities. Obviously the field of meltdowns is heterogenous, and attempting to completely unify them would be "double-plus ungood". Therefore, by delineating the term into its component parts, we force the user to think critically about the magnitude and severity of the event, even while using a single word. If this process of analysis is widespread, then rather than simplifying the langauage, we have intensified social, as well as individual, thinking. Scholars suffer from the inescapibility of the so-called "Ivory Tower of Academia" and are often so self-absorbed they fail to affect even the smallest of change. That said, my meltdown analysis works within the system to confront diminishing vocabulary. By addressing the meltdown qua meltdown, the user enters in to a state of linguistic reflection, which, in itself, will do far more to enhance language.
I'd argue the opposite. By using a catch-all term, "linguistic reflection" surrounding the usage is reduced. The widespread application of "meltdown" to describe a horrendously large range of situations alleviates creativity. Usage becomes rote. Rather than apply a number of terms, you choose to use only the most extreme, which (I reiterate) dilutes impact. And while a system is in place to describe the "complexities", the system is not used in explanation whenever the term "meltdown" is used. This, rather, frees the user from "thinking critically," as the system exists only in the background.
Now, I have yet to the address the issue which is also central to this topic. I wanted to meet you head linguistically, but I see we have reached an impasse. We see the same data, and interpret differently. I doubt if much can be done to change that. Therefore, I will enter a second facet of the meltdown usage, which may be more locally important, though certainly not globally. Use of the phrase has evolved primarily within a clearly defined subcircle of Macalester college. Analysis of its usage requires knowledge of the social trends at Macalester as well as the nature of dyadic interactions therein. We may disagree on the linguistic importance of the phrase, but I doubt if you could argue that usage signifies a familiarity between a group. Social interaction is strengthened by a common, humorous, anachronism, in which members of the group revel in their specific shared history. Plainly, it is an inside joke that also provides a context for rigorous analysis as well as dynamic behavior.
This is getting so fucking out of hand.
Poooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop.
Pooooooop. Poooooooooooooooooooop. Poooooooooooooop.
Pooooooooooooooooooooooop.
Pooooooooooooooooop. Pooooooooooooooooooop.
Poop. Poop. Poop. Poop. Poop. Pooooooooooooooooop.
Poooooooooooooooop.
I read every one of the typed "poop" above, and elongated the word to what i thought corresponded with the number of oo's in each word.
Post a Comment
<< Home