Jump to content

Hazing tradition banned by the MLB


Boges

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That would be a pity....such ceremonies and traditions are great for crew morale.   Service records are updated with shellback, golden shellback, or bluenose certificates.   I fondly remember having to remove a cherry from the navel of a machinist mate's huge belly covered in chocolate syrup...with only my tongue (sitting on a block of ice wearing a jock strap).  Still have the Polaroid picture !

 

Well that sounds sick to a sensible person. 

Taking joy in punishing someone isn't an admirable trait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Not really.  A bunch of people playing a sport together can be just that, it doesn't automatically make them a team. Dressing up is being something you aren't. Ban costume parties and cross dressers, they are demeaning themselves. Alcohol poisoning is a possibility for anyone when it gets carried away and I don't think it should be part of an initiation.

Should the line crossing ceremony where polliwogs are initiated on their first shipborne equator crossing also be banned? How PC do you want to get? People sure are getting thin skinned.

Yep, you're thin skinned if you don't want to be demeaned and humiliated buy your peers. 

I'm with Impact here. It's the people who are for Hazing that hate the idea of team building. They just want to dominate other people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Boges said:

Not if you're compelled to participate. 

But hazing isn't the issue.  Hazing isn't banned under the new rules.  From your article:

The policy, obtained by The Associated Press, prohibits teams from "requiring, coercing or encouraging" players to engage in activities that include "dressing up as women or wearing costumes that may be offensive to individuals based on their race, sex, nationality, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristic."

MLB vice president Paul Mifsud said Monday that the new rules resulted partly "in light of social media, which in our view sort of unfortunately publicized a lot of the dressing up of the players ... those kind of things which in our view were insensitive and potentially offensive to a number of groups."

"There's lots of pictures of baseball players dressed up as Disney princesses," he said.

"Although it hasn't happened, you could sort of see how like someone might even dress up in blackface and say, 'Oh no, we were just dressing up,'" Mifsud said. "We've also understood that a number of players have complained about it."

Not all outfits are banned; superheroes such as Batman and Spider-Man are OK. Other past costumes that would be allowed include San Francisco ace Madison Bumgarner as a giant ketchup bottle, Miami slugger Giancarlo Stanton on the U.S. Olympic men's water polo team and Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig as Gumby.

Someone might dress up in blackface??!?!  Seriously??  Uhm, ya that would be a huge problem, but men dressing up as women?  OH NO MY GENDER IDENTITY IS UNDER ATTACK!!?!?!  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Well that sounds sick to a sensible person. 

Taking joy in punishing someone isn't an admirable trait. 

 

But that's the thing....it was totally voluntary, supervised by the command, and well understood to be the tradition.   Those who did not participate invited far more scorn and disdain than those who were "shamed" by initiation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But that's the thing....it was totally voluntary, supervised by the command, and well understood to be the tradition.   Those who did not participate invited far more scorn and disdain than those who were "shamed" by initiation. 

Which is the problem. Even if it's voluntary, it kind of isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Gee...that would mean an end to lots of things, from kid's party games to fund raising with dunking cages.   So immoral ! 

When you think about it, it is. Hey I don't like that person, so I'm going to pay money to humiliate them. Then again the target is purposely de-basing themselves to raise money, so it's somewhat altruistic. Nothing altruistic about Hazing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boges said:

When you think about it, it is. Hey I don't like that person, so I'm going to pay money to humiliate them. Then again the target is purposely de-basing themselves to raise money, so it's somewhat altruistic. Nothing altruistic about Hazing. 

 

So humiliation is OK as long as it's altruistic ?   Other objectives don't count ?  Even when it is voluntary ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boges said:

No, but if you've ranking reasons it's less awful, altruism is better than some fake notion of team building and comradery. 

 

Some people and organizations rank team building much higher.   Not for me to judge. 

The sanitation and extermination of all social risk and preference for "safe spaces" is not working so well either.

It's gotten so bad, the Three Stooges wouldn't even be allowed to throw pies at each other any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Some people and organizations rank team building much higher.   Not for me to judge. 

The sanitation and extermination of all social risk and preference for "safe spaces" is not working so well either.

It's gotten so bad, the Three Stooges wouldn't even be allowed to throw pies at each other any more.

This isn't even about safe spaces. I'm opposed to Safe Spaces, people shouldn't be sheltered from opinions or realities that make them uncomfortable.

I am, however, also opposed to immoral people pressuring newcomers to humiliate themselves because it's "Good for the Group". If it's a tough enough job, that should be enough of a shared experience that creates brotherhood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boges said:

This isn't even about safe spaces. I'm opposed to Safe Spaces, people shouldn't be sheltered from opinions or realities that make them uncomfortable.

I am, however, also opposed to immoral people pressuring newcomers to humiliate themselves because it's "Good for the Group". If it's a tough enough job, that should be enough of a shared experience that creates brotherhood. 

 

I think it is the same idea as safe spaces to shut down voluntary hazing ceremonies and traditions because some people are offended or have their own agenda.   In some organizations, the job's expectations and experiences are celebrated as part of hazing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 In some organizations, the job's expectations and experiences are celebrated as part of hazing.  

And that's immoral, it's a form of bullying peers. Doesn't really do anything to make newcomers feel accepted, it does the opposite actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Boges said:

Yep, you're thin skinned if you don't want to be demeaned and humiliated buy your peers. 

I'm with Impact here. It's the people who are for Hazing that hate the idea of team building. They just want to dominate other people. 

Ya, thin skinned. No one disputes that initiations can get out of hand and even nasty but that isn't what we are talking about. If you are so full of yourself that you can't handle a short period of good natured harassment by your peers which might cause you some discomfort and which all of them have gone through themselves, maybe you just aren't that committed and should be elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

And that's immoral, it's a form of bullying peers. Doesn't really do anything to make newcomers feel accepted, it does the opposite actually. 

It's part of being accepted. Going through it makes you one of them. Before that you are just another individual with the same skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Which is idiotic and mean-spirited. 

No it isn't. Teamwork is about putting the team before yourself. If you can't bring yourself to go through such a trivial (if embarrassing) traditional ritual, why should they think they can count on you when things get really tough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wilber said:

No it isn't. Teamwork is about putting the team before yourself. If you can't bring yourself to go through such a trivial (if embarrassing) traditional ritual, why should they think they can count on you when things get really tough?

But it's not about putting the team before yourself. It's about established members of said club exerting their dominance on newcomers.

Who wants to be part of a team that values degrading new members over the skill and possible ability of said new member? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boges said:

But it's not about putting the team before yourself. It's about established members of said club exerting their dominance on newcomers.

Who wants to be part of a team that values degrading new members over the skill and possible ability of said new member? 

You just don't get it. It has nothing to do with dominance, it is part of acceptance. Once done, you are and equal part of that team and different from everyone who isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You just don't get it. It has nothing to do with dominance, it is part of acceptance. Once done, you are and equal part of that team and different from everyone who isn't.

This flies in the face of the voluntary aspect of it then doesn't it? 

If you're fine with it, great. For example the drinking game mentioned earlier sounds fun. But if you don't want to physically debase yourself for the amusement of others, you shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Do this flies in the face of the voluntary aspect of it then doesn't it? 

If you're fine with it, great. For example the drinking game mentioned earlier sounds fun. But if you don't want to physically debase yourself for the amusement of others, you shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome. 

It's not done to make you feel unwelcome. Quite the opposite. I like a social drink but I'm not a big fan of having to drink being part of it. I watched a guy chug a pewter tankard of straight rye at a going away party once. Someone bought it and he was drunk enough to do it. Fortunately, he threw most of it back up five minutes later but it could have killed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...