But you did take one side's view in a condescending and divisive manner. The side you took is the one that divides people into a Red Tribe and a Blue Tribe, ascribes stereotypical views to each, and makes lists of attributes to categorize people into one of these two tribes.

People are quite a bit more complex than that, and these kinds of arbitrary binary divisions get in the way of finding common ground.

It's a bit of a strange prediction. If we take boxing as a model of a formerly massively-popular sport now considered excessively dangerous, we can observe that minority (Latino and African-American) participation remains high. These demographics are generally not considered part of the Red Tribe coalition. If football follows the same trend, it will be a weak tribal correlate at best.

Not trying to argue, but just curious: was boxing as big as football is now in the US? I'm not much into sports in general, and I wasn't around when boxing was big (or just completely missed it), so I'm lacking context.

Boxing was the football of the 1920s, with saturation radio and newspaper coverage, and became the top sport of the early broadcast TV era. It has been declared dead or dying at regular intervals despite being a solid performer into the pay-per-view era. Like football, it would probably be somewhat safer if its "protective" gear was reduced or redesigned.