this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
581 points (99.7% liked)
Brand New Sentence
345 readers
368 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other and follow the lemmy.today instance rules.
- Post title must be the sentence or relevant portion of the sentence if it's very long.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Arya Stark is not a real person. You brought up the creatives involved but sports have many people involved too so that's neutral. That there were millions involved in the fandom of Game of Thrones does not make it historically equivalent to the millions involved in World War 2.
Your response was that you agreed so it didn't need further addressing. " Maybe! Kinda."
Claiming that people could take the wrong interpretation of history is neutral because people could take the wrong interpretation of fiction. So we are left with reading history is "maybe kinda" better than reading fiction.
By your own metric, "Maybe! Kinda."
"Maybe" means could be yes, could be no, and the "kinda" modified the "maybe" to be even more doubtful. Not sure how you figure that's a metric or an indication of who benefits. Honestly I was just trying to couch my response in a way that made it clear I wasn't just being contrarian or a troll. By the end of that paragraph, you'll see I say it's a wash. Just like you said about the "creatives" argument, which I agree it is a wash. The people creating sports and the people creating TV shows are all people doing what they love and creating a product. Both products are performances. To bring it back to DnD, one performance being more dexterity and strength based doesn't diminish the other being charisma and wisdom based. Different skills, different performances, same amount of social value.
Though here's one more somewhat petty argument: afaik, no TV show or movie has ever caused a riot or a subculture based in violence and otherism. I honestly believe tribalism is cancerous to modern society, and sports aren't helping.
Come on dude. I asked if studying history is better than watching GoT and you said "kind of". Maybe kinda means "tentatively yes" Your statement means studying history is maybe better than watching GoT.
DnD is improv around a Dungeon Master's pre written story. The first Iron Man movie famously had no script- it was all improvised. That doesn't make studying IronMan equivalent to studying WW2. There's a difference between an actor performing a role where they pretend to have obstacles to overcome and a person overcoming real obstacles in their life. Yes you can judge the performance in the abstract for both but one is a role the actor took on for the performance but the other is their real life.
There is a difference between Shia Labeof pretending to be tennis player John McEnroe for a few months for one movie and the actual John McEnroe who spent decades of his life since childhood only playing tennis.
Ah, so we've crossed the line from subjective interpretation into objective misinterpretation, interesting 🙄🙄🙄
Do you consider "maybe kinda" consent? What if the person clarifies and says they really meant no, they just didn't want to make you feel bad or make it seem like they were leading you on, would you tell them that they're statement actually means yes and then molest them? I don't really think you would, but the point is, when someone tells you what they're words mean to them and you say they're wrong, you're no longer arguing in good faith. At best, you're a troll.
Actors live real lives too. They face obstacles in their lives. I'm not talking about the fictional events their characters go through, I'm talking about the lifetime of hard work and dedication that any good artist puts into their craft, just like an good athlete trains and practices. Of course there's a difference between an athlete and an actor, that's why John McEnroe didn't play himself in the movie. Because Shia has also spent decades of his life since childhood practicing what he does. The accomplishment isn't fictionally winning Wimbledon or whatever happens in that movie, it's making the movie. Successfully inhabiting another person, compellingly conveying emotion, delivering convincing dialogue, etc. They don't give Oscars to the actor whose character did the most impressive things in their particular movie, that'd be idiotic. Not to mention a huge waste of time, whoever played Superman that year would just always win.
Still haven't found out better for whom or in what way, but now that you're just straight-up trolling, I don't care. Farewell!
You tried to weasel out of your own words! I've been friendly the entire time so don't start insults.
An actor portraying suffering isn't the same as a person who actually suffered. You can't equate the meta of performance of reality to reality itself. For example an actor that plays a Palestinian who's family was killed isn't the actual Palestinian and your attempt to equate them is ridiculous.
I've never done that once. I equated an artist's struggle to make good art with an athlete's struggle to play good sport, which are equivalent experiences of equal value to society. You're either choosing not to read my comments or you're choosing to misunderstand them, either case, you're a troll.
You attempted to weasel out of "maybe kinda" to claim that you were just being polite by agreeing. Your further paragraph talking about someone misinterpreting history was refuted.
The performance of an actor was scripted. The performance of an athelete is real. Their reaction to a win or defeat wasn't planned and then have the director ask for multiple takes to get the fictional emotion to what the director imagines will resonate with an audience to drive ticket sales.
Your arguments have become ridiculous which is why you have turned to insults.
My argument has never changed, so if you're not a troll, the only remaining logical conclusion I can draw is that you simply can't understand it.
I glossed over you not addressing this question, but since you keep pressing it, I can no longer keep giving you the benefit of the doubt. Care to answer?
I avoided this statement because you were clearly looking to abuse someone, not to discuss.
Then your repeated your use of the phrase "Kinda Sorta" as an invitation to molestation and called me a troll. You are kinda sorta pathetic.
If you don't believe that studying history is better than studying Game of Thrones in any way then that's your opinion and there's nothing to discuss.
You've consistently, diametrically incorrectly, mischaracterized my base argument. GoT, the tennis movie, the Palestine thing (where did that come from?), all the exact opposite of what I was saying. You called me a liar for trying to explain my pov when you changed the meaning of my words, so I tried to use a more drastic example to illustrate my point. I still think it's a valid extension of your reasoning that you haven't addressed, but I don't care. And Idgaf about GoT or history or whatever since both can fall under the designation of "TV shows" and the original question, from my pov, was: how is being a fan of sports stats better than being a fan of TV shows/movies/ttrpgs? Better for whom? Better in what way? And if it's not obvious by now, "cuz it's real" is not a satisfactory answer to any of those questions.
The above statement implies that you think there is no difference between studying history and watching Game of Thrones. But you consistently accuse me of misinterpreting your statements so you need to answer with yes or no.
Do you believe that studying history is better, in any way, than watching Game of Thrones?
No it doesn't, it implies I'm not playing into this false dichotomy you've setup to distract away from answering the original question. How are sports better than TV shows and movies and ttrpgs? Better for whom? Better in what way?
Is studying history better than studying Game of Thrones? Yes or no. I can't address the next step in the argument if you refuse to answer the first step.
That's not true and this isn't even the same question as before, but I'll indulge you anyway. Before it was "is studying history better than watching Game of Thrones" which, again, I already answered at length. I know you "refuted" it, but all you really did was mischaracterize my answer and then "refute" that. To answer this question however, no, studying history is definitely not "better" than studying Game of Thrones since one could study GoT for many different reasons, through many different lenses including history, politics, economics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy/morality, linguistics, critical analysis, meta-critical analysis, cinematography, creative writing and editing, screenwriting and editing, film directing, film editing, television production, acting, costume design, hair & makeup design, musical composition, sound editing, set design, computer animation, etc etc etc. And before you do what you love to do, mischaracterize my stance, no, I'm not talking about studying the "history" of Westeros or the fake religions in the GoT "universe", I'm talking about historical analyses of artistic works created by real human beings existing in the real universe.
There, now you can answer my questions, though you could have at any time, since this GoT one was entirely irrelevant. How are sports "better" than TV shows, movies, and ttrpgs? Keeping in mind that tv shows and movies can be historical documentaries, nature/science docs, news programs, talk/interview shows, talent and variety shows, live event coverage, religious programming, educational children's programming, game shows, instructional craft shows (c'mon, can you honestly say any sport on Earth is "better" than Bob Ross or This Old House?), travel shows, true crime docs, competitive and non-competitive reality shows, sporting events, sporting shows (think hunting/fishing shows), sport analysis programs, sport documentaries, clip shows, music video shows, etc, etc, and again I say etc. There are even ttrpg TV shows, which brings up another interesting dynamic: ttrpgs have codified rulesets and player vs. player gameplay, you can objectively win or lose. D&D is a sport.
So please, enlighten me. How is it "better" to be a fan of sports than a fan of movies, tv shows, and role-playing games? Better for whom? Better in what way?
Since you don't believe that studying history is "better" than studying fiction then there is nothing further to discuss.
It's not that I don't believe it, it's that, as I just showed, it an objectively false statement. It's also objectively irrelevant.
This statement has absolutely nothing to do with fiction vs nonfiction, you just know that you can't defend it so you're strawmanning your own argument. You've failed to get me to write your argument for you, now it's time to write it yourself. How is being a Raiders fan better than being a Planet Earth fan? How is being a Taylor Kelce stan better than being a Louis Theroux fanboy? How is simping for Tiger Woods better than gooning for Anthony Bourdain? Defend your thesis statement!
You don't accept reality (history) as better than fiction. There is nothing to discuss. Go troll someone else with your kinda sorta molesting.
Hey you were the one who molested my comment, I gave you the out there and you wouldn't take it.
"I refuse to answer your question because I don't understand your answer to an entirely unrelated question!" Solid, solid debate tactic, very Trumpian. Sorry a light breeze blew down your strawman, next time build him out of something stronger. Or, y'know, you could try to actually defend your own argument. But we both know that ain't happening by now, you obviously don't have an argument. All you really had to do was define "better" and you were wholly unable to do even that.
Enjoy your mind prison!
You have been disingenuous from the start. Go abuse someone else.
Even if that lie were true, there's no one to abuse, I'm not a sports fan so apparently nothing in my life is real.