Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, March 13, 2014

In the Mets Locker Room, an Old Slur Resurfaces

In the New York Mets locker room Monday morning, I was talking with Jeff Cutler, a 30-year old Japanese American from suburban Boston who serves as the interpreter for Japanese-born pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka.

We were talking casually about Asian communities in America when we heard a voice behind us.

“Jeff!”

Cutler and I turned around. It was Dan Warthen, the Mets pitching coach.

“I’m sorry I called you a ‘Chinaman’ yesterday,” Warthen told Cutler.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM | 308 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: general, mets, new york, new york mets, race in baseball

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4671406)
flip
   102. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4671410)
I like my women as human beings. Equals really, not simply sperm depositories. And I would find anyone who doesn't see them that way to be fairly repulsive.

I simply cannot in any way understand how those three lines must equal what you've written above here. YMMV, as you say.
   103. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4671412)
OK, but are you equally concerned that someone kinky (perhaps a young girl) feels pressured by the relentless onslaught of vanilla love and normal relationships to do things they are not comfortable doing? Why not?


To a certain extent, yes. No one should feel uncomfortable with trying something new. For me that is much less of a concern than someone pressured into degradation. Obviously all the caveats of 'this is only in personal understandings of the situation apply' but I think most men would be quite open (with the exception of foreign objects being inserted in their own asses) to trying anything a female would like to try.
   104. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4671413)
No one should feel uncomfortable with trying something new. For me that is much less of a concern than someone pressured into degradation.


Like listening to Nickelback isn't degrading already.
   105. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4671414)
I just find it odd that the same sector of society that finds "Chinaman" racist and offensive often doesn't have any problems with blatant misogyny, and also often describes acting like a whore as somehow empowering.


I wasn't claiming that the term Chinaman is completely innocuous, or that it was appropriate in this particular instance, but in certain circles people can and do takes jokes that innocently make light of someone's appearance, race or sex without getting bent out of shape about it.
   106. zonk Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4671416)
Then she played you for a sucker too. A guy using the term in a private meeting leads to hysterical calls for firing, but a political ally using the same term on a public broadcast heard by thousands of simpletons is dismissed as "satire". The woman doesn't have a sincere bone in her body.


Well, I'll qualify by saying that yeah -- certainly she made good political theater about it, and sure - auto-firing might be a bridge too far...

But that said, I'm talking about the message, not the messenger... It doesn't restrict Rahm's ability to be a ######### for him to quit using the term as a go-to slur. See? #########. Comparing an individual to an inanimate object has the effect with the potential for discomfort to bystanders...
   107. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4671419)
I like my women as human beings. Equals really, not simply sperm depositories. And I would find anyone who doesn't see them that way to be fairly repulsive.
YMMV.


The point isn't what my milage is, the point is people get to be consenting adults and do what they want. I can't stop you from judging others, but honestly I find being judgemental about that sort of thing more loathsome than two consenting adults enjoying a relationship that both of them prefer. Why does anyone outside of that relationship care?

Now it is totally different when we leave the arena of consent. There judging is totally appropriate in my opinion, but if that is not the case, then they should have at. There are thousands of kinks out there, and I do not get a huge percent of them, but then I don't have to. No one does, except the people involved.
   108. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4671420)
Having re-read #102, SoSH, I will say that I do grasp your core argument and meaning and why and how you've gotten there.

I suppose then what is more accurate is to say that in regards to that lyric, I simply cannot agree that what I've quoted of yours must be true or accurate.
   109. GregD Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4671425)
I just find it odd that the same sector of society that finds "Chinaman" racist and offensive often doesn't have any problems with blatant misogyny, and also often describes acting like a whore as somehow empowering.
What sector? Who?

When you made this claim, a series of people said they found whore repulsive and I said that it would lead to a bigger backlash than Chinaman.

You're tilting against windmills here.
   110. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4671427)

I simply cannot in any way understand how those three lines must equal what you've written above here. YMMV, as you say.


To put it simply, because my impressions aren't based on seeing three lines on a computer screen, but having the unfortunate experience of repeated exposures to the whole ####### song. Obviously, others who have plumbed the full Nickelback catalog to get a more complete picture of the complete POV of Chad Kroeger may have a better impression of his views on sexuality, but when I was exposed to that ####, the impression I formed (possibly incorrectly, which I alluded to earlier) was that the author was just as I said.
   111. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4671431)

I wasn't claiming that the term Chinaman is completely innocuous, or that it was appropriate in this particular instance, but in certain circles people can and do takes jokes that innocently make light of someone's appearance, race or sex without getting bent out of shape about it.


Some people WERE claiming that Chinaman is completely innocuous. That is the issue I have. I don't really care what happens to Warthen, in my view he has been shamed enough. But it is the height of idiocy to claim that the term is not racist. It is.

   112. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4671430)
To a certain extent, yes. No one should feel uncomfortable with trying something new. For me that is much less of a concern than someone pressured into degradation.


But what you think is degradation, perhaps the participants don't (or maybe get off on being degraded). It is a multivarious world out there, if you are going to start being concerned about how some music (or other art) is showing something that someone somewhere is uncomfortable with, then there is no art or music possible. You can always find someone that would find it awful, terrible, no good, or degrading to participate in most any possible relationship configuration.

Songs and conversations are different. A song about treating a woman like a sexual object (or other offensive treatment, take your pick) may not ring my bell, but it is very different than person "A" treating another person (in a non-consensual manner) that way. It is not the same thing at all.

Song <> non-consensual treatment <> consensual relationship. Conflating them is not helpful.

EDIT: And note, I don't listen to much rap, and a huge part of the reason is I find much of the messaging repulsive personally. That doesn't mean I am against the music or anything, just I don't want to listen to that crap.
   113. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4671432)
re: #110 - That absolutely makes perfect sense.
   114. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4671435)
Now it is totally different when we leave the arena of consent.



As someone said earlier, young people, girls especially, are exceptionally vulnerable to peer pressure, and also often mistake being treated as a sex object for actual love and positive attention.

Its amazing how society has shifted in this regard. The Everlys were worried about their reputation being shot for falling asleep in the movie theatre and being an hour or so late getting their date home. I'm not saying I wish we coudl go back to the uptight 50's, just making the comparison.
   115. jmurph Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4671437)
I just find it odd that the same sector of society that finds "Chinaman" racist and offensive often doesn't have any problems with blatant misogyny, and also often describes acting like a whore as somehow empowering.


Yeah so your initial claim wasn't confusing, exactly, just wrong. Factually, I mean. That's why people responded to it. You didn't need to clarify it. Just for the record.
   116. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4671439)
a series of people said they found whore repulsive


I didn't read all the posts, but do they find acting like whore repulsive, or the correct application of the term "whore"?
   117. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4671441)
But what you think is degradation, perhaps the participants don't (or maybe get off on being degraded). It is a multivarious world out there, if you are going to start being concerned about how some music (or other art) is showing something that someone somewhere is uncomfortable with, then there is no art or music possible. You can always find someone that would find it awful, terrible, no good, or degrading to participate in most any possible relationship configuration.


I think you are taking this way too far down the personal freedom trail. I totally, completely agree that it is a multivarious world and to each his or her own. I consider myself very open minded and try not to judge what others may do as gross, bizarre, offensive, you name it. What I think you are missing is the peer pressure aspect of this. Somehow Nickleback is a very popular band. A lot of people listen to their shitty music. This has to be considered in this situation. If scads of hormonally imbalanced teen males listen to this and think that is how oral sex should be done then there will be pressure on teen females to perform oral sex in that manner. No one should have to feel like they need to have sex in a degrading manner, just because that may be a 'popular' message being put out there by an idiot musician.

EDIT:
Jesus ####### christ, I just used the 'think of the children' argument. You suck for making me do that.
   118. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4671442)
simply be contrite, apologize, and stop doing it... It's honestly not that hard.


From #85.

I agree with this. Everyone is different, and some people will take offense to a personally-directed comment that another would not. But I can't stand it when people try to tell me what I or anyone else should be offended by.
   119. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4671446)
buts it A-OK when Jay-Z routinely refers to the opposite sex as ####### and Chad Kroeger starts a song with:

Nothing Chad Kroeger says is A-OK.

I'd be curious to see Zizek expand on his point about racism as solidarity. On a very localized level I think I agree with him. In high school my circle of friends was me (a fairly standard white guy), a Trinidadian, a Greek, and Indian, and a guy from Tanzania (all born in Canada of immigrants). Race, among a wide selection of other things, is one of the ways we made fun of each other and I think that only helped build solidarity within our social unit, which, if I'm understanding Zizek right, is what he's talking about.

But I think that only works when there there are shared assumptions about what's going on amongst the speaker, listener, and observers. The second you bring in someone who isn't operating within these shared assumptions you get problems.
   120. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4671447)
...and also often describes acting like a whore

As the standard definition by men regards "liking sex a lot" as "acting like a whore", I'm not really taking your description with much merit here.
   121. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4671451)
Lassus, I'm more talking about the long line of female performers who are obvious role models for young people - Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Beyonce, etc. They all act like whores. It is certainly possible to love sex, have it often, and be in touch and honest with yourself about your sexuality without being a whore or a man-whore.
   122. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4671452)
What sector? Who?

When you made this claim, a series of people said they found whore repulsive and I said that it would lead to a bigger backlash than Chinaman.


So ... "Chinawhore" or "Chinamanwhore" or I suppose "Chinawomanwhore" wouldn't be good, either?
   123. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4671453)
Songs and conversations are different. A song about treating a woman like a sexual object (or other offensive treatment, take your pick) may not ring my bell, but it is very different than person "A" treating another person (in a non-consensual manner) that way. It is not the same thing at all.

Song <> non-consensual treatment <> consensual relationship. Conflating them is not helpful.


YMMV I guess, but I don't see how anyone could read anything but pure misogyny into that song's lyrics. If the intent was to mock the sentiment being voiced it'd be one thing, but correct me if I'm wrong, that doesn't seem to be the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be curious to see Zizek expand on his point about racism as solidarity. On a very localized level I think I agree with him. In high school my circle of friends was me (a fairly standard white guy), a Trinidadian, a Greek, and Indian, and a guy from Tanzania (all born in Canada of immigrants). Race, among a wide selection of other things, is one of the ways we made fun of each other and I think that only helped build solidarity within our social unit, which, if I'm understanding Zizek right, is what he's talking about.

But I think that only works when there there are shared assumptions about what's going on amongst the speaker, listener, and observers. The second you bring in someone who isn't operating within these shared assumptions you get problems.


Right on all counts. And it's such an elementary distinction that it never ceases to amaze me how so many people pretend not to understand it.
   124. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4671455)
Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Beyonce, etc. They all act like whores.

Lol.
   125. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4671458)
Lol.


Believe me, I fully understand I'm in the minority.
   126. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4671460)
without getting bent out of shape about it


The insensitivity displayed here toward contortionists is appalling.
   127. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4671461)
Lassus, I'm more talking about the long line of female performers who are obvious role models for young people - Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Beyonce, etc. They all act like whores. It is certainly possible to love sex, have it often, and be in touch and honest with yourself about your sexuality without being a whore or a man-whore.


Beyonce may dress provocatively, but when has she acted like a whore?
   128. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4671464)
Jesus ####### christ, I just used the 'think of the children' argument. You suck for making me do that.


Heh.

I don't think the way to address the problems of peer pressure is through monitoring music or trying to decide which exact sexual and relationship dynamics are OK and which are not. And non-standard (kinky, what have you) people feel peer pressure as well. Gays get a ton of peer pressure (more in the past) to be not gay and have relationships with opposite sex partners.

It is OK to have straight relationships in song. And gay relationships. And other kinds of relationships. And all of them exert peer pressure to an extent, but there is nothing you can do to prevent that.

Peer pressure effects basically everyone at every age. We are a social animal and nothing I can do will change that. I have tried to educate my boys, to give them the tools with which to fashion their own personal moral compass. I support safe areas (like schools) where music and even freedom of speech are not completely free and open, because those involved are not adults and are definitionally unable to fully consent.

However I refuse to judge if some collection of consenting adults get together and "consent" together however they want.
   129. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4671467)
YMMV I guess, but I don't see how anyone could read anything but pure misogyny into that song's lyrics. If the intent was to mock the sentiment being voiced it'd be one thing, but correct me if I'm wrong, that doesn't seem to be the case.


Misogyny in a consensual relationship is not definitionally wrong, any more than any safe and sane dynamic is wrong, so long as it is consensual. I don't have to like it, but someone does.

Misogyny outside of a consensual relationship is inappropriate. Within one, hey some people get off on being hated, treated like an object or whatever. Not for me to judge one way or another, so long as it is consensual.

Which the original conversation and slur was not. And that is the difference.
   130. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4671470)
#128 -

Well said, I agree completely.
   131. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4671476)
Misogyny outside of a consensual relationship is inappropriate. Within one, hey some people get off on being hated, treated like an object or whatever. Not for me to judge one way or another, so long as it is consensual.

I have a friend who was really into the submissive stuff with his wife (err ambiguous sentence there, his wife was into it too). Which was totally cool, their business. But they'd occasionally bring it out in public, which was less cool. It's not very fun having bar managers come over to your table and ask you to please stop treating that woman so poorly.

I remember one story the wife told about when they were waiting on a train platform late at night with one stranger about 50 feet down the platform. She asked her husband to knock her down and kick her repeatedly in the stomach. Felt pretty awful for the poor guy who has to see that by himself in the middle of nowhere at 2am.
   132. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4671481)

I remember one story the wife told about when they were waiting on a train platform late at night with one stranger about 50 feet down the platform. She asked her husband to knock her down and kick her repeatedly in the stomach. Felt pretty awful for the poor guy who has to see that by himself in the middle of nowhere at 2am.


Wow, yeah, that could lead to some adverse reactions from people.
   133. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4671482)
YMMV I guess, but I don't see how anyone could read anything but pure misogyny into that song's lyrics. If the intent was to mock the sentiment being voiced it'd be one thing, but correct me if I'm wrong, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Misogyny in a consensual relationship is not definitionally wrong, any more than any safe and sane dynamic is wrong, so long as it is consensual. I don't have to like it, but someone does.


Andy, you may not remember, but our first discussion on BTF was about the misogyny of Playboy, which you did not at all see. I do think in this case it's definition generational. Playboy has always been about women as furniture, as nothing but someone - someTHING - to objectify. The "appreciation" there is a chimera and inaccurate. The lyric quoted is an interaction - an interaction to don't agree with or understand, but the interaction has less misogyny than those decades of Playboy. (And, FYI, I'm not really entirely on board with BM's misogyny definitions, but that's another thing.)


But they'd occasionally bring it out in public, which was less cool.

1000% in agreement.
   134. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4671484)
YMMV I guess, but I don't see how anyone could read anything but pure misogyny into that song's lyrics. If the intent was to mock the sentiment being voiced it'd be one thing, but correct me if I'm wrong, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Misogyny in a consensual relationship is not definitionally wrong, any more than any safe and sane dynamic is wrong, so long as it is consensual. I don't have to like it, but someone does.


No problem there.

Misogyny outside of a consensual relationship is inappropriate. Within one, hey some people get off on being hated, treated like an object or whatever. Not for me to judge one way or another, so long as it is consensual.

Misogyny in a song is a bit of a gray area. Nobody's forced to listen to it, but OTOH it can sometimes have an influence that reaches beyond its consenting audience. And in this case the lyrics themselves represent pure misogyny on a juvenile fantasy level.

Which the original conversation and slur was not. And that is the difference.

I wasn't really trying to compare the two things. I'm a fan of archaic language when the context is understood and accepted by everyone, but that didn't seem to be the case in the Mets locker room.
   135. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4671485)
She asked her husband to knock her down and kick her repeatedly in the stomach


Someone's got some serious ####### issues.
   136. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4671486)
Wow, yeah, that could lead to some adverse reactions from people.

Yeah I think in addition to submission/domination stuff, they also enjoyed making other people very uncomfortable.
   137. GregD Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4671490)
I hope the stranger called the cops. I would have. And I wouldn't have stopped because the morons told me it was consensual. Doing that #### in public is abusive to other people.
   138. Mark S. is bored Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4671493)
I remember one story the wife told about when they were waiting on a train platform late at night with one stranger about 50 feet down the platform. She asked her husband to knock her down and kick her repeatedly in the stomach. Felt pretty awful for the poor guy who has to see that by himself in the middle of nowhere at 2am.

Wow, yeah, that could lead to some adverse reactions from people.

They had that situation on this past week's episode of Girls.
   139. Bug Selig Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4671496)
As someone said earlier, young people, girls especially, are exceptionally vulnerable to peer pressure, and also often mistake being treated as a sex object for actual love and positive attention.


Shame! Shame on Nickelback for inventing teenage girls, the internet, blowjobs, men who like them, and Sarah Palin!
   140. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4671497)
Andy, you may not remember, but our first discussion on BTF was about the misogyny of Playboy, which you did not at all see. I do think in this case it's definition generational. Playboy has always been about women as furniture, as nothing but someone - someTHING - to objectify. The "appreciation" there is a chimera and inaccurate. The lyric quoted is an interaction - an interaction to don't agree with or understand, but the interaction has less misogyny than those decades of Playboy.

I'd have to see that discussion in context to be able to fully respond to that. About the only way I'd defend Playboy** would be by saying that (a) It's not nearly as bad as Hustler; (b) It's had a fair amount of non-centerfold writing and features (on jazz, film, politics, etc.) that distinguished it from other girlie mags; and (c) It's "Philosophy" has always been fairly upfront.

That said, 99% of the Playboy readers I knew in college weren't reading it for the interviews, and a sizable minority of them never had relationships with women that extended past a bedroom romp with the picture in the centerfold. In a word, creepy. And of course you're right about the underlying view that women were in many ways viewed as little more than a Porsche: Something to use and show off to your friends. But comparing Playboy to that song lyric is kind of apples and oranges, since the misogyny of those lyrics seems much cruder and more direct.

**Meaning the Playboy of the 60's. I have no idea what it's like today.
   141. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4671499)
On the subject of misogyny and music, I've always been fascinated with the song-writing of the Cardigans.

Obviously Lovefool isn't that far removed from just the standard damsel in distress style song that has always been popular.

But then you have Step On Me:

Oh, I think you're standing
on my left foot
it's hurting, but that's OK
cause I'm in your way

You'll break that foot that
you're standing on
I'll walk with the other one

Do what you want to do what you want to
be what you want to be what you want to
go on and step on me


Or my favourite You're the Storm, which essentially casts the man as a belligerent nation and courtship as conquest. There's a great line where she asks you to plant your flag on her.

come and conquer and drop your bombs
cross my borders and kill the calm
bear your fangs and burn my wings
I hear bullets singing

and if you want me I'm your country
if you win me I'm forever - oh yeah!


I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, I have to imagine she's at least somewhat being tongue-in-cheek and pointing out the standard submissive message in a lot of pop music by taking it to an extreme, but that could just be me projecting. I do really love the Cardigans either way.
   142. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4671501)
They had that situation on this past week's episode of Girls.

Yeah, the woman from my story has about the same level of emotional stability as Hannah.
   143. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4671504)
Shame! Shame on Nickelback for inventing teenage girls, the internet, blowjobs, men who like them, and Sarah Palin!


Some people have a sense of decency, some don't. I'm not advocating any legislative controls to consensual human behaviour. But, I guess this kind of thing will only increase as we lose the generations of people who know what privacy even is, let alone value the concept.
   144. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4671507)
I do really love the Cardigans either way.

I do as well.
   145. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4671508)
#141 - I've always liked the Cardigans, but hadn't necessarily paid attention to the lyrics in the first song (haven't heard the second).

Its funny how often a given band's most juvenile, fluffy song (lyrically) is their biggest or only hit.

   146. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4671509)
This has to be considered in this situation. If scads of hormonally imbalanced teen males listen to this and think that is how oral sex should be done then there will be pressure on teen females to perform oral sex in that manner. No one should have to feel like they need to have sex in a degrading manner, just because that may be a 'popular' message being put out there by an idiot musician.

EDIT:
Jesus ####### christ, I just used the 'think of the children' argument. You suck for making me do that.


No one "made" you do it; you did it. Speaking of which, as per your point in the quoted paragraph above: This is the Foucault bastardization thing again. "Structural coercion" does exist when it comes to things like shopping at Wal-Mart, immigration, steroids in baseball until recently, etc. Economics and action. But squishy liberalism has adopted that valid analytical concept and applied it where it doesn't belong in a liberal society -- to pop culture, art, and human emotion. Not picking on you specifically here, but your comments are very representative of a type I'm very familiar with, the Generic Liberal Activist who is much more energized (read: offended in a uniquely shrill, hand-wringing, yet totally boring way) by the "problem" of a stupid pop culture product that potentially, possibly -- assuming people are stupid and take things way too seriously -- could hurt someone's precious feely-feelies than, say, by the real problem (using the example of teenage girls feeling "forced" to perform fellatio because of a freaking Nickelback song) that more and more teenage girls have to buy junk food at Wal-Mart with food stamps while being cashiered by another teenage girl being paid #### wages for a crappy job when she should be doing homework. Our Rulers are no doubt pleased by the ridiculous choice of emphasis. In the process Generic Liberal Activist X becomes the embodiment of the worst of the historic left (a Zhdanovian commissar, with an appropriately strident blog devoted to the examination of art and pop culture product according to its ideological value) and the worst of the clay-eating, dullard, cultural Right, with its "Hollywood is the tool of the Devil" schtick; Andrea Dworkin and Ed Meese, sitting in a tree....The phenomenon of liberals being fixated on relative chickenfeed issues to the detriment of more important things is sadly not new, but it's more entrenched now, somewhat paradoxically, that the culture war has already been won. OTOH, people can still be _mean_, and other people can feel _excluded_. We'd better correct that problem universally before we devote appropriate energy to other issues -- you know, dumb ####, like people being excluded economically or people even being excluded from life because America murdered them. Why, I bet somewhere, somehow, some transsexual, probably today, has been referred to with the wrong pronoun! We must make it known that such things are _hurtful_ and so anyone who does so must be demonized as the hate criminal they are and deprived of their job if possible.
   147. Bug Selig Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4671510)
Some people have a sense of decency, some don't.


On that we agree. Your little "superior dance" is far more offensive than the song is.
   148. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4671511)
About the only way I'd defend Playboy** would be by saying that (a) It's not nearly as bad as Hustler;


I think an argument can be made that Hustler - by being upfront about getting you off by showing you naked women - is better than the veiled - read it for the how to be a classy gentleman articles - that Playboy touts. Might not be a good argument, but I think the distinction between the two is a lot grayer than general perception may lead you to believe (keeping in mind the general populace is a bunch of uptight sexually repressed peoples).
   149. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4671514)
Its funny how often a given band's most juvenile, fluffy song (lyrically) is their biggest or only hit.

Another personal favourite of mine has this problem, Fountains of Wayne.

I mean, Stacey's Mom, really? I'm not sure you could come up with a song that was less representative of Fountains of Wayne than that.

Speaking of decency, I think their song, You Curse At Girls is somewhat apt here:

They say you curse at girls
Don't you know it isn't right
   150. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4671515)
#146 -

That'll teach me to not check on someone's screen name history before I seriously doubt my reading comprehension skills...
   151. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4671516)
I think an argument can be made that Hustler - by being upfront about getting you off by showing you naked women - is better than the veiled - read it for the how to be a classy gentleman articles - that Playboy touts.

Whoa. This is rather verbatim an argument I've made.
   152. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4671519)
I remember one story the wife told about when they were waiting on a train platform late at night with one stranger about 50 feet down the platform. She asked her husband to knock her down and kick her repeatedly in the stomach. Felt pretty awful for the poor guy who has to see that by himself in the middle of nowhere at 2am.

Sorry, it is never OK to knock a woman down and kick her in the stomach repeatedly. I don't care if she gets off on it. Civilized humans don't hurt other people for shits and grins.

If your wife enjoys getting beaten up, you should get her some therapy.
   153. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4671520)
Whoa. This is rather verbatim an argument I've made.


I think it's a bit easier now to argue that with the fact that Hugh Hefner is one of the most despicable men alive.
   154. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4671521)
There was a good documentary about Hefner a couple of years ago that is worth watching. He's certainly a bit more nuanced in his philosophies than Larry Flynt, but they aren't much different. I admire both of them on some aspects, not so much on others.
   155. Bunny Vincennes Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4671522)
I just assumed the slur made in the locker room was "losers."
   156. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4671523)

Sorry, it is never OK to knock a woman down and kick her in the stomach repeatedly. I don't care if she gets off on it. Civilized humans don't hurt other people for shits and grins.


You must not enjoy boxing or MMA or Fight Club or gladiatorial combat or...........
   157. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4671524)
Its funny how often a given band's most juvenile, fluffy song (lyrically) is their biggest or only hit.


Lord, yes (posted as a Chumbawamba devotee from 1992-on). The Cure's "Lovesong," easily the least (IMHO, obviously) of any song they've ever done, is a strikingly obvious example as well.
   158. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4671525)
About the only way I'd defend Playboy** would be by saying that (a) It's not nearly as bad as Hustler;

I think an argument can be made that Hustler - by being upfront about getting you off by showing you naked women - is better than the veiled - read it for the how to be a classy gentleman articles - that Playboy touts. Might not be a good argument, but I think the distinction between the two is a lot grayer than general perception may lead you to believe (keeping in mind the general populace is a bunch of uptight sexually repressed peoples).


I guess that's one way of looking at it, but to use a crude political analogy, Playboy: Hustler = Bush I: Ayn Rand.
   159. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4671528)
Civilized humans don't hurt other people for shits and grins.


They do it to root out heresy!
   160. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4671529)
There was a good documentary about Hefner a couple of years ago that is worth watching. He's certainly a bit more nuanced in his philosophies than Larry Flynt, but they aren't much different. I admire both of them on some aspects, not so much on others.

Underneath all the veneer and mud, they're both just hustlers at heart. On a moral scale they're both somewhere between Murray Chass and the CEO of a tobacco company.
   161. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4671532)
You must not enjoy boxing or MMA or Fight Club or gladiatorial combat or...........

No, I'm not. But at least boxing and MMA don't involve men beating up women.
   162. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4671535)
Brilliant. I am slayed by your pithy genius, oh master.
   163. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4671536)
Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Beyonce, etc. They all act like whores. It is certainly possible to love sex, have it often, and be in touch and honest with yourself about your sexuality without being a whore or a man-whore.


You know that there is a difference between someone who enjoys sex, and someone who is a whore, right?

It's money.

Unless you think Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Beyonce, etc. actually get paid to have sex men, maybe you are in the wrong for assigning the term "whore" to them.
   164. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4671539)
If your wife enjoys getting beaten up, you should get her some therapy.


Maybe it's redemptive suffering.
   165. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4671541)
You must not enjoy boxing or MMA or Fight Club or gladiatorial combat or...........

No, I'm not. But at least boxing and MMA don't involve men beating up women.

Ms. McGunnigle and I used to box, but it was in the training ring at the local Y with boxing gloves and headgear and mouthpieces and so forth. And of course sparring and throwing padded-glove jabs at someone wearing protective gear is about a million miles removed from pushing someone down and kicking her in the stomach.
   166. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4671543)
Maybe it's redemptive suffering.

Raskolnikov porn--a VERY niche fetish.
   167. Sunday silence Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4671544)

Franceman in particular sounds like a superhero. He could battle ennui, sit in cafes for 12 hours at a stretch, and sleep with his best friend's wife. I'm not a comic book guy, but I'd totally read that comic.


Gallic-Man, has a better ring to it. BUt then people would keep getting him confused with "Garlic-man" a comic-Italian knock off w/ none of the Gallic man's highly developed gastronomic sense. Basically Garlic-man would just breath on you or something.
   168. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4671546)
Using the "kicking a woman in the stomach" argument as a talking point any direction regarding consensual behavior, sexual or otherwise, is not intelligent, as it is an extreme outlier.
   169. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4671547)
Gallic-Man, has a better ring to it. BUt then people would keep getting him confused with "Garlic-man" a comic-Italian knock off w/ none of the Gallic man's highly developed gastronomic sense. Basically Garlic-man would just breath on you or something.

Or fix you up a nice scampi. Maybe suggest a nice wine pairing, too.
   170. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4671548)
Gallic-Man, has a better ring to it.


I prefer "Frogman". Because then if someone calls you out on it you can always say, "Wait, I thought you were a professional scuba diver! Like Jacques Cousteau!"
   171. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4671550)
You know that there is a difference between someone who enjoys sex, and someone who is a whore, right?

It's money.

Unless you think Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Beyonce, etc. actually get paid to have sex men, maybe you are in the wrong for assigning the term "whore" to them.


Ummm, they're engaging in sexually provocative behavior in order to promote their business and make more money. You're right that they're not technically whores, but they're at least making a good head fake in that direction. They're not doing anything fundamentally different from what strippers do.
   172. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4671551)
Franceman in particular sounds like a superhero. He could battle ennui, sit in cafes for 12 hours at a stretch, and sleep with his best friend's wife. I'm not a comic book guy, but I'd totally read that comic.


Considering the way DC is flailing about while supposedly hemhorrhaging readers after a short-lived uptick with the launch of the "New 52" nonsense, I suspect you might not have long to wait.
   173. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4671554)
Ummm, they're engaging in sexually provocative behavior in order to promote their business and make more money. If they're not technically whores, they're at least making a good head fake in that direction.


I hate it when I agree with snapper, mainly because it almost certainly means one of us is wrong.
   174. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4671555)
Using the "kicking a woman in the stomach" argument as a talking point any direction regarding consensual behavior, sexual or otherwise, is not intelligent, as it is an extreme outlier.

Oh yeah, I somewhat feel bad for bringing it up as it seems to have somewhat derailed the conversation. I just meant the anecdote as an example of how private/public intrudes on consent. The point wasn't so much the details of the act (though I probably should have realized that since it was so extreme it would dominate things), but the position it put the poor guy watching in. Or, in the other anecdote, the position it put me in when they'd do stuff like that when we were sitting together at a restaurant.

I should say I actually know quite a few people in the "scene" as they like to refer to it. And the vast majority of them are very aware of this distinction and are mindful to not put other people in awkward or harmful situations.
   175. Greg K Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4671558)
A friend of mine actually just told me she's putting together a Canadian-themed night at a pub/cinema in England and was asking my advice. Does anyone know where the ethnic epithet "Canuck" comes from? From the best I can tell it appears to be what Americans called French-Canadians in the early 19th century. But aside from that it all seems a bit fuzzy.
   176. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4671561)
Ummm, they're engaging in sexually provocative behavior in order to promote their business and make more money. You're right that they're not technically whores, but they're at least making a good head fake in that direction. They're not doing anything fundamentally different from what strippers do.


What about Jodie Foster?
She's been naked on screen a couple of times, has also simulated sex (albeit non-consensual sex), and even played the part of a whore!
As she has received a LOT of money and fame (which is used to promote her "business" of acting), I guess she'd be considered a "whore" based on your terms.
   177. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4671568)
A friend of mine actually just told me she's putting together a Canadian-themed night at a pub/cinema in England and was asking my advice. Does anyone know where the ethnic epithet "Canuck" comes from? From the best I can tell it appears to be what Americans called French-Canadians in the early 19th century. But aside from that it all seems a bit fuzzy.


You'll want to be careful about using "Canuck". It has some very ugly meaning behind it now.
Essentially, you're calling that person a diver, a choker, and an underachiever.
The only thing worse would be to call someone an "Oiler".
   178. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4671569)
What about Jodie Foster?
She's been naked on screen a couple of times, has also simulated sex (albeit non-consensual sex), and even played the part of a whore!
As she has received a LOT of money and fame (which is used to promote her "business" of acting), I guess she'd be considered a "whore" based on your terms.


The sexuality there is not being added to a fundamentally non-sexual activity (singing) in order to boost sales.

If an actress gratuitously appears naked in roles that have no need for it, then she would be getting close to what those singers are. The often gratuitous nudity added to pay-cable shows is very much in the same vein as the Miley Cyrus, et al, antics.
   179. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4671570)
The sexuality there is not being added to a fundamentally non-sexual activity (singing) in order to boost sales.

Oh my lord, snapper, seriously? Where have you been living the past 2000 years?
   180. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4671573)
Yeah I think in addition to submission/domination stuff, they also enjoyed making other people very uncomfortable.


And I would classify that as non-consensual and very uncool. You want to do something have a good time. You want other people to watch (and they want to watch), sure no problem. You foist your thing on other people without their consent, VERY uncool.

I hope the stranger called the cops. I would have. And I wouldn't have stopped because the morons told me it was consensual. Doing that #### in public is abusive to other people.


I sympathize with this reaction. Along with everything else you can't know as an innocent bystander what is and what is not consensual, and in that case for safety's sake you sort of have to assume not consensual (i.e. likely criminal or at least awful) behavior and put a stop to it.

Ummm, they're engaging in sexually provocative behavior in order to promote their business and make more money. You're right that they're not technically whores, but they're at least making a good head fake in that direction. They're not doing anything fundamentally different from what strippers do.


Sure, but I happen to think there is nothing wrong (intrinsically) with doing that. I find strip clubs horrifically boring and terrible. Yuck. But I don't feel the need to slut-shame the strippers. Or slut-shame anyone.
   181. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4671577)
Oh my lord, snapper, seriously? Where have you been living the past 2000 years?

There is not one single piece of music I have ever enjoyed more b/c of the sexuality of the performer. 99% of the time, you don't even see the performer when you consume music.
   182. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM (#4671579)
Sure, but I happen to think there is nothing wrong (intrinsically) with doing that. I find strip clubs horrifically boring and terrible. Yuck. But I don't feel the need to slut-shame the strippers. Or slut-shame anyone.

And I do think there's something wrong with it. I think the conversion of sex into a near pure commodity is a horrible development that stunts human development and the enjoyment of life. It's a fundamentally mis-apprehension of the purpose and power of sex.

I think the over-sexualization of society makes us worse off as a people, and harms interpersonal relationships. I also find it highly amusing that certain brands of feminists will insist it is "empowering" for women to turn themselves into sex objects.
   183. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4671580)
There is not one single piece of music I have ever enjoyed more b/c of the sexuality of the performer.

Yeah, that's not the same thing as what you said originally. Also, perhaps you may have heard of love songs.
   184. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4671583)
Yeah, that's not the same thing as what you said originally. Also, perhaps you may have heard of love songs.

What does the performer writhing around naked or semi-naked have to do with love songs?

I didn't say all songs were devoid of sexuality. I said the act of performing the song, by the singer, is fundamentally non-sexual.
   185. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4671585)
What does the performer writhing around naked or semi-naked


If memory serves, Lassus is a vocalist by, I think, avocation & perhaps vocation.

I ... I don't want to think about this anymore.
   186. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4671586)
I said the act of performing the song, by the singer, is fundamentally non-sexual.

I think you oversell with "fundamentally". Vaughan-Williams' settings of the sacred texts of George Herbert practically exude the image of writhing spiritual physicality in honor of the Lord. And popular music has forever been about people getting screwed in whatever language was appropriate for the time.

There are endless, infinite pieces of music that are not about sex. But there are the same that are. To call that non-quality fundamental to music is not true.
   187. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4671592)
And I do think there's something wrong with it. I think the conversion of sex into a near pure commodity is a horrible development that stunts human development and the enjoyment of life. It's a fundamentally mis-apprehension of the purpose and power of sex.

I think the over-sexualization of society makes us worse off as a people, and harms interpersonal relationships. I also find it highly amusing that certain brands of feminists will insist it is "empowering" for women to turn themselves into sex objects.


All of this may well be true, but that says nothing about shaming the people who do those things. I have no issue with you sharing my opinion of strip clubs. But the people doing those actions are still people and no less worthy than you or I.
   188. Ron J2 Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4671593)
I like your pants around your feet
And I like the dirt that's on your knees
And I like the way you still say please, while you're looking up at me


New verse to These Are A Few Of My Favorite Things?
   189. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4671595)
I think you oversell with "fundamentally". Vaughan-Williams' settings of the sacred texts of George Herbert practically exude the image of writhing spiritual physicality in honor of the Lord. And popular music has forever been about people getting screwed in whatever language was appropriate for the time.

There are endless, infinite pieces of music that are not about sex. But there are the same that are. To call that non-quality fundamental to music is not true.


And yet how many singers of the past decided to perform naked or semi-naked, or simulate sex acts on stage? That's modern, lowest common-denominator, marketing pure and simple. It has nothing to do with music.
   190. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4671597)
I didn't say all songs were devoid of sexuality. I said the act of performing the song, by the singer, is fundamentally non-sexual.

Yeah, right.
   191. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4671598)
All of this may well be true, but that says nothing about shaming the people who do those things. I have no issue with you sharing my opinion of strip clubs. But the people doing those actions are still people and no less worthy than you or I.

Of course they're people, and have equal fundamental dignity. But that doesn't mean society shouldn't disapprove of their actions.

The idea that we need to be 100% non-judgemental about every bad choice people make is insane. It can only lead to more bad choices.
   192. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4671600)
Sex is natural
Sex is fun
Sex is best
When it's
One on One
One on One
   193. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4671601)
Singing and performing can be very sexual completely independent of the way the singer looks and dresses. And art throughout human history has had a strong sexual component, from the drawings of vulvas in cave art from 20,000 years ago, to Bernini's sculpture of Saint Teresa, to the closing lines of Ulysses.
   194. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4671604)
I basically agree with snapper here. I find it especially, well heart-breaking, for women with the undeniable musical talents that Rihanna, Miley Cyrus and Beyonce possess to feel the need to turn their acts into what comes close to a live sex show. It demeans their real talents. I excluded Kesha because she has no talent at all.
   195. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4671606)
Performers have been wearing clothes to accentuate their sexuality for centuries. So have regular people.
   196. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4671610)
If memory serves, Lassus is a vocalist by, I think, avocation & perhaps vocation.

More or less.

If it makes snapper or you feel any better, I have a gig this weekend conducting the choir for a Presbyterian service. I won't be naked.
   197. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4671611)
The idea that we need to be 100% non-judgemental about every bad choice people make is insane. It can only lead to more bad choices.


I was talking about this with my wife the other day. We have become so ridiculously tolerant of all behaviours, a lot (and no, I don't have stats) of college students spend their money on partying and then feel no shame in getting up the next afternoon and going to the food bank.
   198. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4671614)
If it makes snapper or you feel any better, I have a gig this weekend conducting the choir for a Presbyterian service. I won't be naked.


But will you be wearing pants?
   199. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4671625)
Singing and performing can be very sexual completely independent of the way the singer looks and dresses.


Indeed. Why is it only the visual component that seems to upset us? Put another way, if we accept that songs can address matters of love, sex, and attraction, would we expect the performers themselves to not embody that visually as well as audibly? Why the disconnect? Why does visual 'marketing' of the sexiness of the content bother us, while the lyrics and sounds of the songs themselves don't? Plenty of sexy voices out there.

I suppose we could always go down the route of UK tabloids, decrying the oversexualisation of pop singers while managing to make many, many pages of colour photos available so that all of the readers know exactly what they're upset about. I wonder how many people outraged by the performances of today's pop music see 3 seconds and then turn off, and how many watch the whole thing just to be sure they've taken in every curv- I mean, every moment of what they're outraged by.
   200. Lassus Posted: March 14, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4671633)
The idea that we need to be 100% non-judgemental about every bad choice people make is insane. It can only lead to more bad choices. I was talking about this with my wife the other day. We have become so ridiculously tolerant of all behaviours, a lot (and no, I don't have stats) of college students spend their money on partying and then feel no shame in getting up the next afternoon and going to the food bank.

I have no problem being completely judgmental about bad choices. That's not the issue. The issue is being judgmental about bad choices without knowledge of or interest in anything at all that might possibly affect that judgment in a way one would rather not deal with.
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(13 - 5:26pm, Nov 26)
Last: AROM

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8703 - 5:26pm, Nov 26)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(15 - 5:26pm, Nov 26)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(534 - 5:17pm, Nov 26)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4961 - 5:15pm, Nov 26)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1137 - 5:12pm, Nov 26)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(54 - 5:02pm, Nov 26)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

NewsblogAdam Rubin: My Hall of Fame ballot
(64 - 4:59pm, Nov 26)
Last: TJ

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(22 - 4:31pm, Nov 26)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(169 - 4:21pm, Nov 26)
Last: rlc

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(2 - 4:18pm, Nov 26)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(18 - 4:07pm, Nov 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYankees won't get into bidding war for Chase Headley: source - NY Daily News
(12 - 4:02pm, Nov 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-26-2014
(8 - 3:19pm, Nov 26)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(580 - 2:47pm, Nov 26)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 0.6698 seconds
72 querie(s) executed