That was my point. Who dislikes Jokic as a person?
The question was about “non-controvertial famous people”, not the perfect athlete that noone ever found a single fault in their game.
He has won an MVP 3 times (and should have won another one, but that is a different discussion) and he is in line for another one, recording an unprecedented season:
Noone said that he is “perfect”, but disliked as a person he is not.
I do not know what people say that seriously (especially outside the internet where people have no incentive to talk nonsense and ragebait for clicks), but this is so objectively wrong that it is not even worth considering, let alone discussing.
Again, though, the point was not whether Maldini was the “GOAT” or whatever, but whether as a personality anyone dislikes him and the answer is no.
Now, people like Paolo Materazzi or Vinie Jones or Roy Keane are another issue
I have more examples, you know.
Even Real Madrid’s most rabid fans do not dislike Carles Puyol.
The same goes for Kristof Warzycha. He played most of his career in Panathinaikos, noone, even the most fanatic, flare wielding, stone-throwing, hood wearing ultras from Olympiakos would say a bad thing about the man. Same thing applies for another polish star player at the time, Józef Wandzik.
Even in my country where things are so bad that fans of the opposing team are not even allowed on the stands, the examples of famous and non-controvertial players are quite a lot, actually…
And that’s my point too, if someone dislikes their game and they are saying for example (lazy ***** go kys) thats a personal hate too. I suppose I see it more often becayse I am somewhat younger than you, and new generation is worst of all, TikTok hate is diabolical
And I should say, I know he is goated and probably already top 15 AOT. Howewer thats not my hate, that others what I’m talking about
Tbh, for defending - I get why pepole say it, his peak is like 92-00, refs gave away a lot of mistakes(including ofsides, etc) + they never were so harsh on fouls like nowadays. I wasnt born yet, hovewer when I watched replays of matches that was pure bloodbath, and honestly defending then and now its two difrent skills
Tops on that, he played only to 2004-2005(last seasons it was afwul to watch, honestly no speed and he often had to foul others just to stop them), so I see where pepole getting “weak era”
I honestly never saw hate towards Vinie, more of “Pure Brexit” and ect, + his acting career later helped a lot. But I suppose I’m to young for him, and back of the day he was flamed for breathing
Same thing with Roy, howewer city fan base still hating him for Haaland sr. But I’m MU fan so I love that fella, xd
Man, honestly, I saw a lot of social media posts, even irl debates, and hate towards him is generational. Overated, short, weak player with tons of flaws, etc. Despite Puyol having top 10 personalities of AOT pepole still hate him, escpecially non-spanish Real Madrid fans. I saw a lot of vidios, for example in Kazahstan when they opened Barcelona academy and legends were there including Calres, some “geniis” screamed Hala Madrid and threw water bottle at him, and he was a teen a that time.
So I should say, if you are really famous - you have pepole that honestly wish you were dead. Hate towards player is completly random, and for someone really bad it could be small
Robinho is constatly admired for his dribling, poor stats in Man City and Real, + conviction of gang rape, howewer hate towards him is minimal
My point is, if you are somehow good and famous in team sports, you WILL be hated badly by at least a few people, no matter how good of a player or a person you are
Yes, I see now that it is probably a generational difference in how people define the words “dislike”, “hate” and especially whether that dislike is personal or professional and what controvertial and non-controvertial even is.
Obviously just by existing, even if you are not famous, there will be people that like you or dislike you. Pleasing everyone is impossible and, frankly, none of your business, since the reasons of dislike, more often than not, are beyond your control and strictly in the eyes/minds of the beholder. Some people are just loathsome and there’s nothing you can do. But those are not the standard whether you or someone else is liked or disliked.
By defining when someone is non-controvertial or “not disliked” as a personality, the idea is that most sane people have no valid reason to dislike that person and their character.
In that regard, loathsome/deranged people are not really considered when you want to assess such a thing, because a deranged person, by definition, doesn’t have a logical reason for their behaviour. Such people could be seen even tearing up a teddy bear. Noone would say that “people hate teddy bears” because some deranged weirdos tore up a teddy bear online.
Similarly, in sports, we will not take into account the few and totally insane people, like the person that stabbed another fan, just because they wore a different team’s scarf. Why? Because those people are deranged and some of them on a clinical or even penal level.
Now that we have dealt with the few insane people which will always exist in any time and place, let’s return to the basics of discerning between professional dislike with personal dislike.
Professional dislike is when someone doesn’t like the results of your job or your performance during work-time. For example, I do not enjoy modern pop music. I dislike it and I avoid listening what I consider a low effort mass produced slop. However, I have nothing against all those singers and musicians personally. Just because I do not like their music, that doesn’t mean that I dislike Taylor Swift, for example. Or Jay Z or Beyonce. I have never heard any of their songs, but I have no personal opinion about them, as people/persons/characters.
Similarly, someone saying “(lazy ***** go kys)” about Jokic would: a) Never say that in person (especially within earshot of Jokic’s brothers ), so we shouldn’t really take into consideration the “keyboard warriors” from the safety of their couch
and b) Do not really express a personal problem with the famous athlete’s character. They just do not enjoy their performance at their job or think that they could have been even better if they worked more or whatever.
Now on to what is and what is not controvertial.
Jokic is a good example of a non-controvertial famous person.
Charles Barkley is a good/benign example of a controvertial famous person.
Jokic doesn’t have any controvertial opinions, is not a controvertial person, there is no “personal drama” concerning him or his wife or his children. The dude literally goes to work, goes back home, season ends, returns to Serbia and races his horses, plays some chill basketball with friends and parties a bit like a normal 30 year old in the Balkans. Nothing that this fellow does or says creates an issue or dislike because he is just a normal dude.
Barkley on the other hand, will open up his mouth and say anything and everything that comes to his mind. Sometimes it will be funny, most of the times he will be correct and other times he will be wrong or offensive (it is no secret, unlike Victoria’s Secret in San Antonio, according to Barkley ). Some people like his personal opinions and his behaviour, some people not. Therefore some people like his personality and some people do not. Barkley often goes out of his way to create controversy if it is something he believes in, like that ad he did back in the day:
Everyone told him not to do it, but he insisted and caused quite a stir back then. His point in the ad was correct then and it is even more correct today, but people hated him personally for it and it had nothing to do with his performance in the basketball courts.
By the way, here is Barkley on this very topic on internet nay-sayers:
Quite controvertial
To conclude:
It is not the generation, but the medium. The same people, if called upon to repeat the words they typed in person, would probably have a panic attack just for being outside with other people and having to interact with them.
The internet generates a distance which breeds impunity.
It is not that people in my generation where/are any better.
It is just that trash-talking 20-30 years ago had to be done in person and thus it could - and would - earn you a beating if you went too far.
Predictably, that taught people to mind their damn business and think before they opened their mouths.
So, that’s just professional dislike, probably because he is beating their team or their favorite player, which is not the point.
The man got to defend against an amazing array of legendary players of many decades, from Maradona and Platini to Messi and Christiano Ronaldo and every super-star in the eras between.
Let’s not be ridiculous.
Yeah, he got older, like every other human. But he didn’t lose his mind, manner or disposition, so people might dislike what was left of his game, but not the man himself, as a character.
The players I mentioned earlier were also like that. Did anyone really expect Warzycha to score 20 goals at his final season. In fact he scored no goals at all, but you can bet good money that the fans gave him a standing ovation in the few times he played in that season.
I remember characteristically that some other teams used to honor him with some small plaque/gifts before the game and the fans of the opposing teams would applaud during the ceremony. When asked about it later by a reporter he said: “Well, that was all nice and touching, but when the opponents are starting to give you awards, you really know that it is time to go home, retire and call it a day”. So, who disliked Warzycha as a person? Noone that was even marginally sane.
Vinnie Jones was what was called at the time an “enforcer”.
It was his job to be hated personally.
People like Roy Keane, Materazzi, Paolo Montero, Genarro Gattuzo, Steve McMahon, Stephan Effenberg, Paolo Garcia and others, took it upon themselves - willingly - to be disliked, because that was their character and the game allowed for it back then. Vinnie Jones tackled a kid team mascot once, not because he had to during the game, but because that’s who he was, as a person.
Funny stuff for sure, but these where the kind of people you could meet at the pub and you’d either be afraid of them or genuingly dislike their characters and wouldn’t want to have a beer with them, because you knew that they were not acting tough in the field. Their characters were like that, genuinely.
For example:
It is just a minute, but it explains everything. The dude waited a couple of years to get revenge and ended Haaland’s father career, on purpose. That’s reason to dislike and be wary of his character on a personal level. If he couldn’t handle the ball well or make a half-field cross is not.
That was about his short-comings in the game.
What do people say about Puyol himself?
Loyal, dependable, fair, hard working, self-sacrificing, a real role model.
These are the kinds of people that every fan wishes his team would have in their roster.
I mean… You are cutting the most agressive chunk of fans, those one who actufally COULD hate someone deeply if they wanted too. I wouldn’t say they are insane, lets just say they are stupidly aggresive. Still, they exist, and still in some cases they pose a treat to others
I completely understand you, but I’m talking about cases when people have afwul personal opinion about them based on something generalised. I know RM fans who constatly to some extinct bully Barca players, especially young ones. And you can say this is insanity, to some strech it is, but people have jobs, families, they are this way because of (parents influence/personal reasons). We still have to consider them “normal”
I mean besides jokes with slavic brotha you dont think someone can talk things to athletes? Geniuene, awfull things from bottom of their hearts? Honestly, so many examples of grown pepole screaming things to them, to their cars, homes, face to face, etc
I wouldnt say he is, he just knows he profits from this “hot takes”, etc. I would say controversial is problems with booze, drugs, or his behaviour(geniune one, that can only influence in a BAD way)
I completely understand you logic, but imagine nowadays, where person gets a controversial opinion, he promotes it on the socials and sees a lot of positive response - he will have even MORE confidence to go talk this IRL. Of course everyone is diffrent, but I saw my freind piking up a fight for Conceicao, because my other freind said he was overrated. And he wanted to fight just because (I know I’m right, I had online fight on the same topic and other people said I won
Social media overall is enabler for unstable idiots, they can gain tons of benefits from there, including confidence, and in the end, “shy” ones will stay the same, but “bad” ones will be one of the worst. Everyone does things, but not everyone had the encouragment
I dont see why professional dislike cannot grow into a personal one? You just consider everyone smart and stable, but in fact, a lot of people arent
Maradonna in a lot of matches played exeptional there, Maldini did nothing(like he played, and mostly good, but I’m talking about people him critizining him because he overrated, sooo). Maldini lost a lot of matches to him, including WC semi-finals. Most importantly, he wasnt star player in the team at all, he was in the shadows of all team, most importantly Baresi
Same goes for Platini, and it should be considered that that was end of his career. When they played internationally, Maldini was benched and France won with one of Platinis goals
And now with finish of his career, Messi (played 3(?) times), two of them being not full for Messi, but first one is regarded of Messi early breakout performances
Ronaldo - scored in one of the matches, had good plays there, but lost. Howewer to the superteam, that was yet to fade
I’m just saying, he was not THAT good, escpecially with those players. His true pick as LB was 1994, as CB - 2003. Early 90s he indeed was best LB ever saw to human, later on he wasnt exeptional defender, more like one of the best capitans we saw(which is still dope)
So I get why people wont call him the GOAT, and why they personally hate everyone who wants to talk this way abt him
In conclusion I just want to show/point that pepole CAN hate person personally because of his professional performance. Your way around them - call them not sane, but honestly its just isnt the case(as I mentioned earlier)
How else would you define “murder because he wore the wrong scarf”?
They call themselves ULTRAS, exactly because they understand that what they are doing is not normal
Again an ULTRA would even dislike a tree, if it wore the wrong jersey.
Here in Greece they have even attacked cars for having the wrong area licence plates.
I am sorry, but this behaviour does not define the public opinion or “normal”.
Well, yes, but that is the premise of things like “the earth is flat”.
Say something controvertial, profit from it, keep saying it.
This is a valid way nowadays to get clicks, attention, money, but not really pertinent to the original point. A lot of those flat earthers even know that they are lying, just like with most outrage.
Kendrick Perkins once said that Khris Middleton is Batman and Giannis Antetokoumbo is Robin. Didn’t he know that he was making an insane take? Of course he did and he did it on purpose, for the clicks and attention.
That’s not hate or dislike. That’s a business plan nowadays
Because, at the end of the day, you do not really know those people. Unless they go out of their way to be offensive - like the aforementioned enforcers - then the most things you know about athletes is their performance.
And I am just saying that I do not care. That is not my point, at all.
Well, if people actually hate others for a football take, then that’s their problem.
Honestly if someone is so mentally fragile as to really “hate” another person just because they happen to rate a retired footballer with a different rank/rating than they do, then how exactly is that any of our business?
Again, it is an issue of definitions.
“Hate” is a word that when applied to other humans, is quite strong. In the sense of “I cannot sleep at night from the level of loathing I feel for that person”. That’s “hate” and in that regard, I’ve never managed to hate anyone yet.
In the modern era where everything is dilluted, people toss around the word “hate” even when someone dislikes their comment on social media and then they go make videos about “online hatred and harassment”.
Sorry, but I do not have to follow that verbal devolution, just because it is an internet fad.
And I was clear that just because SOME people can, the opinion of the few, doesn’t define the general opinion and that is what was being discussed.
I do not care if someone somewhere is still in their basement throwing darts at Roberto Baggio’s photo because of that missed penalty. Noone should.
If you are talking about the Discord app, it does and I have found out, predictably.
If you are talking about the forum, if doesn’t appear to have such a limit or I would have found out. Generally fora do not have word limits. The god ol’ PHPBB fora certainly didn’t. I’ve tested it.
Anyway this is the “philosophical questions” thread so all this going over the top IS on topic
So as I said, to that extinct there ARE no true players without haters(on a personal level included). My point is, as I said that football build way that pepole always will hate or love some players. That’s profitable after all. You just ignoring this chunk of pepole and talking about generalised opinion. But be honest to yourself, and imagine yourself as ultra(Idk where you had that definition but real one is that’s it’s organised group of fans supporting(not necessarily in a bad way)(so you are being true football fan), and someone scores to grab your potential title, or snatch against your potential bet. Guess in how many cases you won’t promise that you will kill that bastard(and that you won’t hate him for the rest of his life)
You’re trying to put a perspective out average educated(with manners also) man who watches a football occasionally.
I talk about people who ARE fans to the biggest extinct of this word. So popular opinion amongst “real” fans should at least partly define general opinion
P.S I’m kinda ignoring your other takes here because I don’t want this convo getting out of hand with being football only, lol
Yes. To be fair I didn’t know it either and I used the word “forums”, but someone corrected me about it 20 years ago (linguistic pedantism seems to be something that seems to exist a lot in the internet ) and I never checked again.
I just thought I’d re-check to be sure, since you asked. Apparently fora is correct (since forum is a latin word), but in modern english forums is also correct, since English is not Latin. Good to know, though I got used to “fora” to be honest.
Sure!
This is the main point:
@BHydden asked if there are any “non-controvertial famous people”
This was the reply:
The rest is an argument whether we will consider the most insane parts of the populace as determinants for whether someone is controvertial/disliked/hated or not.
I say that these people do not define the general opinion. @Saint says that they do.
That’s the Tl;Dr;
I don’t need much imagination, I’ve met such people in real life. Even went to school with some of them
As for the definition, it is in the word “ultra”. It is a clear differentiation from the normal/normie/lukewarm/casual fan.
It is perfectly clear
Yeah, that dude will get pelted with anything the ultras can grab, so?
The fans might go home and swear and curse and tomorrow morning, at work, people will poke fun at them for a couple of day and they’d be furious and 99.99% of them will be fine after three days, not really hating anyone, even if the player went to the stands and gave them the fingers. Most of them understand that this is part of the fun of being a fan.
Fernando Navas did exactly that around 20+ years ago after equalising the score and hilariously the team’s lawyers claimed at the sports court that Navas was just pointing out the score at the fans.
Clearly showing the 1-1 score
I would have blurred it, but the sports court accepted that excuse by the way, so legally, this is just a man showing the score.
Ok, Olympiakos fans were upset at the time and they threw items at Navas, but who in their right minds was actually mad at him after a week or after all those years? Noone was and noone is. If anyone does remember this thing even happening, is probably smiling remembering the court-room idiotic excuse. And if someone is still mad at good ol’ Fernando, then that person has bigger problems.
But that is how it got out of hand. It wasn’t ever only about sports, but whether you can be famous and non-controvertial. And you can be. Whether there is some wacko on the planet that doesn’t like your face or your art or your game or whatever, doesn’t mean that you, as a person or artist are considered controvertial for the general public.
Sorry, typo, meant ultras. As I know, not ultra agressive, ultra devoted to the team itself
Honestly I belive that majority of them will do so(at some point in their lifes), but situations with fights after matches, death treats to players, etc etc etc are REALLY OFTEN. Same goes with hatrid, people bully their own players for mistakes. Karius, Baggio, someone are dead because of that(Andres Escobar)
I partially agree with you, I will repeat, but not completely at all. You are in some bubble how civilized people nowadays, but truth there - they arent. Why you arent seeing that much of riots fights etc, because of people being good? NO! Because of inedequate amounts of police presence, and that didnt stops part of them
My point is - its not about you, its about how much fame you earn. At some point you just start having haters. For some sports this line is set high, for some low, thats the point. But you known among 2 mil man, if you are hated(to the deep into hart where they want to actually do something to you) by like 2 thousand people, thats a whole lot of people, not saying about other 23k who will passively suportive of this.
At some point there are to much wakos. And in some cases, when you already earned your “happy wacko”, he will actually ruin your life in some meanings even before you are THAT(or just) famous
Well, difficult question I think, how do we handle loan words? IIRC most often the grammar of the host (?) language is applied, not the grammar of the language the word was loaned from … IIRC with exceptions.
Anglo folks talk about “data” and “agenda”, usually not knowing that these are the plural forms of “datum” (Latin, IIRC “something given”) and “agendum” (Latin, IIRC “to do”). (Disclaimer: my seven years of school Latin were 48 years ago)
In German we have the loan word “baby” (but we write it with a capital B like we always do with nouns: “Baby”). The plural in German is spelled “Babys”, not “babies”.
So, we also order “two pizzas” (zwei Pizzen), not “due pizze”, and “two cappuccinos” (zwei Cappuccinos), not due cappuccini.
Exceptions in German: for “comma” (German “Komma”), which comes from old Greek, the plural “Kommata” is used, but “Kommas” is also legal. Similar with “Lemma” and “Lemmata”, “Dilemma” and “Dilemmata”.
German also loaned the word “computer”, and as you will expect, we spell it with a capital C. The German plural, however, is “Computer”, no “s” appended.
Same thing. They are ultras, so they are beyond the normal fans, in every way.
They chose that name for themselves and rightly so
Not exactly. The word in the streets back then was that a lot of money had been bet on that game and that’s as far as I’ll take this sentence.
Yeah, everyone knows that here in the Balkans we are all sitting quietly in the stands and recite poetry after our team scores.
Just because you are famous, more people know you, thus more wackos might dislike you or ruin your day, compared to us non-famous people. But, noone is arguing against that. It was not my point that there are some famous people that are “beloved by everyone” because there is no such thing as “everyone” when it comes to humans. There is always some wacko about anything you can imagine and probably for everything you can’t (e.g. when I heard how David Caradine died I was like “that is a thing? wow”).
The point was that you can be famous and non-controvertial.
Here are some non-sport and non-controvertial famous people and hopefully you will get the point:
Bob Ross.
Leslie Nielsen.
Matt LeBlanc.
Gabriel Iglesias (a.k.a. Fluffy)
and most famous people that do their job, do the mandatory media promotions and other than that keep their mouths shut about any controvertial issues and enjoy their lives.
Excluding people that need to be edgy/controvertial by trade (e.g. George Carlin or Doug Stanhope and most comedians that venture into socio-economic matters) then most famous and rich people are, in fact, non-controvertial.
The average famous actor, musician, athlete, presenter goes to work, collects their money and goes home. Traditionally famous people like that do not need clout and clicks. None of them needs to be “trending in the algorithm” in order to get money because social media ad revenue is not what they live off. Thus most of them mind their own business.
In Greek the solution was easy. A loan word remains the same at all times.
For example a tractor (τρακτέρ) remains like that in singular (το τρακτέρ) and plural (τα τρακτέρ). Just switch the “το” to the plural “τα” and problem solved.
As I said, in most cases they didnt cross the line of that “contriversy”. Honestly, this procces of starting its random, and hatrid towards you can be generational and you did nothing wrong. My point was and still stands - if you are famous, in some extinct you already controversial. Like when people love something, there is same room for hating. You can call them insane, or etc, put they point is they DO exicst and DO impact on the world
Somehow this reminded me of some people that tried to pretend that they were “disgruntled Brandon Sanderson fans” and wanted to stir some controversy that somehow “Sanderson has lost his touch”. Their “criticism” of his latest Stormlight archive book?
It is too long.
Yeah, I’ll take these people into account, for sure.
For this reason, the correct plural of “Scénario” in French is simply “Scénarios”, but you will sometimes see “Scenari” as some people try to match the Italian plural.
