I'm sure this will end up being locked, but there's something very annoying that goes on far too often when you're trying to have a legitimate conversation about something. It seems like the easiest defense against someone that disagrees with you is to call them either a "homer" or a "hater" and that's that, their opinion is voided because they aren't thinking clearly. So my question is... what constitutes a homer? Is it wanting to wait to see how things play out before passing judgement? Is it talking about the potential for success? Is it talking about the way [player X] fits into the system in a thread dedicated to that person's signing? Is it suggesting that a 2nd year quarterback could get better in his second year? I just want to know what it is that people say that makes them a homer, therefore making their opinion invalid.
A "homer" is a fan whose passion and allegiance to his or her home team is so extreme that he or she lacks the clarity to render objective and unbiased opinions/judgements when it comes making assessments of the home team's performance, ability, talent and/or potential. Hope that helps....
I'm well aware of what homers and haters are. My question is, and I guess I'm really only asking the people who use homer and hater as their only line of defense... what qualifies a homer in your mind? I even gave 3-4 examples for you to tell me if that makes someone a homer. Example: Person A loves the Decker signing, Person B doesn't and calls Person A a homer that blindly supports the Jets. Person A then goes on to say he dislikes the Chris Johnson signing. So how can Person A be a homer if they dislike something? Is it just Person B lacking the ability to form a coherent response? Is it Person B being immature and unwilling to concede that there can be more than one opinion on something?
Lets call this what it is. You're calling out Big Blocker for his ridiculous overuse of the term "homer." In your example obviously person A is not a homer. Homer's blindly support this team without any rhyme or reason. If you can backup your stance with facts, I don't think that you can be considered a homer.
Not much to add to this as all the definitions given so far are correct. Most reasonable fans try to walk between the extremes. For the most part, those that take the time to post on message boards tend to lean one way or the other. Makes for both lively debate and frustrations. This message board is known for being "dark" as a lot of its members are older and have perhaps a more cynical outlook. Again, just remember that you're referring to a star crossed franchise that is still trying to sell the future and forget its past. That's bound to generate extremists. Like I say in my signature.. When it comes to the Jets, "Show Me". Hope that helps!
Furthermore, there are two basic types of "Homers." A "Sunshine Homer" is typically inclined to take an excessively optimistic view on all things related to his team whereas a "Darkside Homer", emotionally crippled by the pain, grief and trauma of past disappointments, is hopelessly and helplessly confined to reflexively spewing forth negative viewpoints on all matters related to his team. Usually (but not always) the only cure for the latter is a Championship title whereby the years of furious agony, frustration and unrelenting pain are released in massive, orgasmic explosion of relief and happiness and the dark curtain of perpetual pessimism is finally lifted (at least for a year). Both can be zombie-like with respect to their willingness and capacity for impartial reason. So before you try to engage a Homer, be sure to ask yourself what kind of Homer you're dealing with and, when it comes to trying to convince them to accept a point you're attempting to make, do you really have the time to persuade a zombie to eat and enjoy veggies?
An example of a homer is when some Jets fans, which I think we all are, blindly support every player on this roster and act as if they're the second coming of Jerry Rice. That's clearly over the top homerism especially when certain players just aren't any good. Now if you're a realistic Jets fan like myself, you critically evaluate the players on the roster to see if they give the Jets the best chance to win games. I will always root for the JETS to do well. Yet I will also question the Owner, FO, CS if they put inferior players on the field. There's nothing wrong with me being critical of players that I don't think give the Jets the best chance to win. It's not that I'm a hater, moreso it's that I clearly know that some players just suck (or aren't good enough for all you sensitive ones out there). I'm not going to blindly support a player if he's hurting the JETS on the field. Homers tend to support the last guy on the roster just like they would the best player. They tend to almost never be critical of a player's ability and always give them the benefit of the doubt. They tend to act like some 3rd stringer who makes a great play in a meaningless preseason game is the best undiscovered secret since sliced bread. I have never been one of those. I'd like to think of myself as a fair evaluator of talent and how that player helps the Jets on the field, period. Players come and go, being a Jets fan is forever. On the flip side, I'm never going to wish a player does bad or sucks because that only hurts my team's chances of winning games. Yet I will call them out if they suck it up and hurt the team.
Oh no don't disagree on this forum... You will be accused of not knowing football.. Every signing we make is great didn't you know?
This thread would be better if we could rank the top 5 homers on the site. The top 5 haters would be good too.
You may think your made up quote was obviously that, but ftr for others here I never said that, and I do not think it, either. Some casual readers here might on the other hand think I did write that at one point, so I do not appreciate your misleading post. Ftr, I would consider you a homer. For the most part.
You never actually say it but your way of posting says otherwise. [Regarding the bold part] LOL, I rest my case. We never agree on anything ever, which is why you call me a homer. You wanted a CB in the first, I wanted a receiver or safety. That doesn't make me a homer by any means, I have my doubts about this team just like you, they are just pointed in a different direction.
One of the problems is that saying a player "just sucks" means you are dramatically oversimplifying what it is he does for for a team strategically. The same thing is true for homers; they dramatically oversimplify things. Every player on a 53 man roster has skills that can be utilized effectively, and it is the coaching staff's responsibility to effectively use these skills. Sometimes a front office does not do an adequate job of accumulating enough players who have dominant skill sets, but that does not in fact mean the players on the roster suck. The coaching staff must use what they do have in a strategic way to still be an effective football team while the front office works on infusing more highly skilled players. You may not be a darksider on the whole, but any time you say a player "just sucks" you are oversimplifying in exactly the same way a darksider or homer (except the opposite) does.
FTR, do you consider me a homer? You've certainly used that before to completely ignore part of an argument that contradicted what you believe.
