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

Monday, October 29, 2018

OTP 2018 October 29: Baseball team’s name makes a stink, takes off like a rocket

Meet the Madison-based Rocket City Trash Pandas.

Al.com reports the team held an event Saturday to unveil their new logo and start merchandise sales. They will begin playing in 2020.
“The name has gone viral,” said managing partner Ralph Nelson. Nelson told the newspaper they had already received merchandise requests from 30 countries around the world.

The team’s logo features a raccoon lifting off in a trash-can like rocket.

 

A team press release said official team colors included “Space Black, Rocket Red, Sky Blue and Trashcan Gray.”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 09:26 AM | 1715 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: minor leagues, off topic, politics, team name, trash panda

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 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. BDC Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5778729)
Sorry I've been away for a while, there's been baseball on TV lately.
   2. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5778737)
From the previous thread:


My pool playing buddy's no Goldbach, and in fact he's Jewish. But since this just arrived in my inbox this morning, I thought it'd be worth sharing for grins. Any resemblance to the talking points I've seen around here on occasion is purely coincidental, especially the talking points in the link at the bottom.

So you responded so fast you didn't watch any of the people that spoke, and no, I double majored in history, and business, I've known about all of the " liberal " moves , since the para-military arm of the liberal KKK
and your famous kleagle, "Robert Byrd " for quite some time, a life time.

Regarding blame all on Trump, uhhh it's been done since he came down the escalator, and nominated himself as a potential candidate. There has been 24/7 slamming of Trump, ( the most successful president ever ) and there is good reason; the sharp contrast of the worst president Obama, a failure at everything. Particularly o'care, ( what a disaster ) Although he was successful at one thing, the divider in chief. I think your getting old and out of touch. The black pop. has suffered under liberals for wayyyyyy too long. Welfare just another form of slavery. Liberals went door to door looking for single black mothers to wed the govt. ; congratulations. Now Every, without exception, liberal run state is a failure regarding the black community. As Trump said " what do you have to lose ???? "

That's why they are leaving in droves. I really thought I would die before the black population got hip to liberals thirst for power, at any cost.

Look it up, 32 % have now WALKED AWAY!

You could learn a lot from Candace Owens, or Dinesh D'souza

Me thinks you were taken to the cleaners as an unwitting accomplice to enslave blacks, but I don't think you did it with malice in your heart.

Since you probably didn't major in history, here's a great quick link

http://barackobamafile.com/the-true-history-of-us-civil-rights/



   3. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5778739)
Where Are They Now...

No longer. Halfway into Trump’s term, the president has settled into power, remaking the office in his own attention-sucking style and pushing the national conversation in directions it hasn’t taken in generations. But his most flamboyant supporters, who once planned to overrun Washington, find themselves in retreat. Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart tech editor and right-wing campus provocateur, has lost his book deal, the sponsorship of his billionaire patrons and most of his staff. Charles Johnson, the online alt-right activist who alarmed the public by attending this year’s State of the Union address as a guest of freshman Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, has quit social media. Lucian Wintrich, the inaugural White House correspondent for the Gateway Pundit, a pro-Trump outlet with a penchant for publishing fake news and conspiracy theories, has been dumped by the site and returned to New York. The white nationalist Richard Spencer, organizer of 2017’s alt-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, has given up his residence in Alexandria, Virginia, and is living on a family property in Montana, where he is plotting a move to an undisclosed location.

As for Cernovich—a right-wing men’s empowerment blogger who saw Trump as the counterweight to political correctness and establishment conservatism—he’s become disillusioned with politics and increasingly critical of the president. These days, he spends most of his time on other pursuits, including the “Gorilla Mindset” lifestyle-coaching practice he runs from his home in southern California. In September, he tweeted glumly, “There’s no Wall. She’s not locked up. But Flynn got fired and sent to wolves. And Sauadi [sic] Arabia sold weapons of murder. I give zero f-cks about Republicans losing the House.”

* * *
One way to see the vanishing of the Trumpists is that they won: Now that their ideas have become mainstream on the right, it’s their revolutionary style that keeps them sidelined as individuals. Charlie Sykes, a conservative commentator and critic of Trumpism, says the movement’s success has been their undoing. “Since Trumpism has become normalized in the GOP, they no longer played an essential role,” Sykes says of the original crew. Their provocations “made them a liability,” he says—“and there were more than enough new-generation grifters to take their place.”
   4. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5778750)
Whattya know!

I agree with Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King about something!

King cited Austria’s Freedom Party—an extremely anti-immigrant, populist political party founded in 1956 by a former SS officer—to argue to the Washington Post that it was more fair to refer to these groups as “far right.”

“If they were in America pushing the platform that they push, they would be Republicans,” King told the Post.


The Freedom Party is currently led by Heinz-Christian Strache, who was active in neo-Nazi circles as a youth and who claimed to have met with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at Trump Tower in winter 2016. Other members of the party shared photos online that they said were taken at Trump Tower on election night, where they celebrated Trump’s victory.
   5. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:23 AM (#5778755)
How Should Churches Respond to Mass Shootings
Aten: What is your reaction to the national conversation that has sprung up about churches and houses of worship taking precautions against mass shootings?

Fugate:The minute we start talking about security in churches and houses of worship, we’re admitting we have a much bigger problem. Places of worship by their very design are to be open and welcoming, not restrictive and exclusive to keep people out. I think that’s going to be a fundamental challenge for faith-based houses of worship: what does security look like while you’re trying to be a welcoming center for people to come?(...)

Aten: It seems that after any mass shooting in places of worship, a lot of people suggest bringing more guns into these sacred spaces, held by either parishioners or trained security. What is your take on this?

Fugate: We should first respond with a non-aggressive approach, and instead provide the initial training on what to do during an active shooter situation. But people need to be thinking hard and fast about bringing guns into a place of worship. For some, that’s pretty straightforward. But for others, they look at these spaces as a sanctuary from the outside world.

The least intrusive thing we can do for houses of worship across the nation is the active shooter training for lay people and the leadership, so if it does happen you can get people out. Everybody thinks a gun is going to stop an active shooter. We’ve seen these active shooters going in heavily armed with vests. I’d really hate to see an arms race inside of a place of worship as to who’s better armed while shooting in a room full of people.
   6. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:25 AM (#5778757)

The "Where are they now" inexplicably omits Bannon -- he's mentioned in the article as having lost his WH position, but not in that summary of where they actually are now. He's fallen farther than any of those people. He was once in the WH, the head of Breitbart, and was boldly proclaiming his plan to primary every GOPe senator in Washington. Now, he's reduced to holding events with a few dozen people and giving fundraising speeches where they have to give away tickets.
   7. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5778760)
Any governing methodology, either political or economic, fails when it ceases to provide adequate, sustainable well being for the citizenry it claims to represent. Western capitalism, what we call late stage capitalism to David's childish chagrin,
is doing exactly the opposite. Thanks for noticing!
   8. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5778761)
What did you people do?
Too bad about OG retiring from this board, for he was one of the more original of posters here. But I am somewhat puzzled. Why now?
He stated exactly why, as eloquently as ever.

Not that this place has ever been (or should be) a model of decorum, but it's slid a bit too far on the continuum to mindless vitriol. There's still plenty of thoughtful discussion, which has been worth my while, at least, but OG's reasoning is an extension of what Biscuit Pants found distasteful. Not just the mindless Bivens-style approach of laying down personal landmines in most every post, even on those occasions when an SBB or YC was actually making a decent point, but the degree to which the community as a whole lets people get away with it.

I've made the analogy before; Aaron Altman in Broadcast News describes how the devil will win - by lowering our standards, bit by bit, without us realizing it. The Age of Trump is doing that to us, and we're letting it. Sure, Lassus was riffing to make a point, but is it (ever?) funny/poignant enough when the collateral damage is OG? Or Biscuit Pants - or the ten or forty Biscuit Pants that just came by, sniffed the air, and left? I grok Rickey!'s schtick as well as anybody, but it's become as much white noise as SBB's "modern liberal". Particularly when crap like Bowers is happening, maybe we need to be a little more cognizant of where the rhetoric may lead, and while Sam isn't actually going to stab anybody in the neck, maybe Idiot Boy reading Rickey! takes inspiration, and I don't want to be a part of that either.

For me, OTP provides a release valve of sorts. Trump, personally and the idea of his ascendancy, repulses me viscerally, and I'd rather blow off that steam here than in my office or my home. Thank you all for that, but maybe it's time to see if I can get along without it.
   9. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5778763)
Is wealth inequality definitely growing worldwide?
It's increasing within nations, but decreasing massively worldwide. But, just to reiterate: "inequality" is not poverty. Inequality is increasing within countries because of growth at the top, not because of decline at the bottom. Leftists hope that repeating "inequality" three times will summon Beetlejuice and cause it to become true that people are getting poorer, but it's not the case.
   10. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5778766)
But, just to reiterate: "inequality" is not poverty.


IN terms of social stability inequality seems worse for stability than poverty is. Inequality seems to drive more social unrest and result in more outcomes like Trump and similarly bad leadership in other nations.

Just because inequality is not poverty does not mean it is not a really bad thing.
   11. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5778767)

Also, a meta moment here, but it'd interesting if SBB's departure changes things enough so that the primary lines of argument here are not Democrat vs Other but instead become Mainstream Democrat vs Hyper Left.

Until or unless David gets driven off, I'm fairly sure that the free market purist/libertarian position will never fail to have a champion.
Yes, and I'll outdebate you all. But the primary debates here right now are not statism vs. libertarianism, but Trumpism vs. anti-Trumpism. And if FLTB really leaves -- something I doubt will happen -- then the Trumpism side of the debate is going to be reduced to Ray, whose heart doesn't really seem to be in it anymore.
   12. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:37 AM (#5778769)
then the Trumpism side of the debate is going to be reduced to Ray


Dammit, David, NOBODY puts Clappy in a corner!
   13. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5778774)
IN terms of social stability inequality seems worse for stability than poverty is. Inequality seems to drive more social unrest and result in more outcomes like Trump and similarly bad leadership in other nations.
That's the ideology, but where's the evidence? Where is the example of a country as rich and successful as the U.S. collapsing into fascism because of inequality? I mean, on the one hand it's sort of an unfair question because there are no examples of countries as rich and successful as the U.S.; on the other hand, that's kind of exactly my point. Even if we lower our standards and include countries performing at the level of the countries of Western Europe, there are no examples that I can think of.

(No fair trying to count Weimar; I'm talking about countries as rich and successful as the western countries are now, not merely countries that were advanced for their time. Also, Weimar was not an example of inequality-driven collapse; it was an example of an economic collapse-driven collapse. (I don't have Weimar statistics handy, but the general pattern in capitalist societies is that major depressions decrease inequality, while economic booms increase it.))
   14. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5778775)
Dammit, David, NOBODY puts Clappy in a corner!
I cannot recall a single pro-Trump thing Clapper has ever said.


(Yes, I know this is OTP and therefore someone is going to dig something up.)
   15. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5778776)
Curio in the NYT:

The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected

It wasn’t long ago that the worry was that rich students would have access to the internet earlier, gaining tech skills and creating a digital divide. Schools ask students to do homework online, while only about two-thirds of people in the U.S. have broadband internet service. But now, as Silicon Valley’s parents increasingly panic over the impact screens have on their children and move toward screen-free lifestyles, worries over a new digital divide are rising. It could happen that the children of poorer and middle-class parents will be raised by screens, while the children of Silicon Valley’s elite will be going back to wooden toys and the luxury of human interaction.
This is already playing out. Throwback play-based preschools are trending in affluent neighborhoods — but Utah has been rolling out a state-funded online-only preschool, now serving around 10,000 children. Organizers announced that the screen-based preschool effort would expand in 2019 with a federal grant to Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho and Montana.

Lower-income teenagers spend an average of eight hours and seven minutes a day using screens for entertainment, while higher income peers spend five hours and 42 minutes. Two studies that look at race have found that white children are exposed to screens significantly less than African-American and Hispanic children.

And parents say there is a growing technological divide between public and private schools even in the same community. While the private Waldorf School of the Peninsula, popular with Silicon Valley executives, eschews most screens, the nearby public Hillview Middle School advertises its 1:1 iPad program.
   16. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5778777)
but the degree to which the community as a whole lets people get away with it.


I think the tone of incivility is often a bad thing here (even as I occasionally engage in it I admit), but how exactly would we succeed in not "let people get away with it"?

I have called out posters whose politics I generally (not always) agree with, for example YR and Rickey!, but I refuse to add an admonition every time I see one of them step outside what I prefer. It is not my job (or even my right) to try to police in that manner, and honestly I think a stream of people constantly calling each other out would end up making things worse here. It could quickly drown out actual political discussion (there is some here) even more than what is currently posted.

I try to mostly ignore such incendiary posts, though I do have a line. Some direct attacks are way out of line, but if I got upset every time a group was called out it would overwhelm everything else. Groups that get called out really often here include Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and a wide variety of religions (and also atheists).

I ignored the rant against Buddhists, not because I felt it was appropriate. It wasn't, but neither have many other attacks against Catholics (specifically the Catholic Church for obvious reasons) as well as other religions. I admit as an atheist even though I generally don't attack religions I don't feel very compelled to defend them either.

But, to bring this back around, how do you think we should police our own? What is the right way to respond to such comments? I mean the forum is already light years better than most other internet comment forums, even moderated ones, but I would like to to be even better I must admit.
   17. PreservedFish Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5778782)
I cannot recall a single pro-Trump thing Clapper has ever said.


Me too. Which I think indicates that Clapper dislikes Trump or is even outright disgusted by him. (Obviously he likes many of Trump's policies).

It's kind of sad that Clapper won't share his honest feelings, that he edits himself so mercilessly. I wonder why he can't admit that any Republican anywhere might be less than perfect?
   18. PreservedFish Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5778786)
The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected


I read this too. Interests me as a dad that doesn't know how much screentime is appropriate. My daughter is addicted - often turning off the television leads to tantrums. And she's almost 7! It's not good. She gets maybe 6-7 hours of screentime at home per week, some of which is family movie time.

Her school loves using iPads, which I don't like, but I'm not going to throw a fit about it.

There a "forest school" nearby that I wonder about - should she be going to the forest school where they spend all their time outdoors? Is that the best possible thing? Or just some stupid hippy bullshit?
   19. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:53 AM (#5778788)
That's the ideology, but where's the evidence? Where is the example of a country as rich and successful as the U.S. collapsing into fascism because of inequality? I mean, on the one hand it's sort of an unfair question because there are no examples of countries as rich and successful as the U.S.; on the other hand, that's kind of exactly my point. Even if we lower our standards and include countries performing at the level of the countries of Western Europe, there are no examples that I can think of.


Collapse is WAY too high a bar. There has been a metric to of troubling election results worldwide - see the US, Europe, Philippines, and now Brazil (not a complete list). Full on collapses happen rarely enough that I don't think we will get enough examples any time soon, certainly not soon enough to discuss intelligently here.

I think inequality leads to more social instability. I think we have seen that historically and I think we are seeing that in the word today. Even if it doesn't lead to a full on collapse, even if the nation recovers that doesn't mean damage has not been done. And of course I have argued often here that the US is not in crisis and will not collapse because of Trump. But that doesn't mean the election of Trump has not been very damaging.

If you want to argue that income inequality did not contribute to Trump or any of the other troubling election results, well we can discuss that. But limiting it to full collapse is ridiculous.

Note: Also there basically are no other countries as rich and successful as the US, so yes it is an unfair question.
   20. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5778791)
Me too. Which I think indicates that Clapper dislikes Trump or is even outright disgusted by him. (Obviously he likes many of Trump's policies).


I'm fresh out of benefit of the doubt...
   21. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5778796)
Yes, and I'll outdebate you all. But the primary debates here right now are not statism vs. libertarianism, but Trumpism vs. anti-Trumpism. And if FLTB really leaves -- something I doubt will happen -- then the Trumpism side of the debate is going to be reduced to Ray, whose heart doesn't really seem to be in it anymore.


Heh... well, this caused me to go check - and sure enough, there's at least a login for "." this AM. Clearly, this means we must Build a Wall.

But in any case, yes on the larger point. If I can find myself nodding in agreement with Bill Kristol, then I am quite comfortable saying that Trumpism vs. anti-Trumpism now most certainly trumps all prior, practical, and 'real' debates. Fortunately, I can multi-task so if the occasion arises where salon brandies and cigars call for it...
   22. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5778797)
That's the ideology, but where's the evidence? Where is the example of a country as rich and successful as the U.S. collapsing into fascism because of inequality? I mean, on the one hand it's sort of an unfair question because there are no examples of countries as rich and successful as the U.S.; on the other hand, that's kind of exactly my point. Even if we lower our standards and include countries performing at the level of the countries of Western Europe, there are no examples that I can think of.

Not Fascism per se, but it's sort of common theme in history that social unrest and revolution doesn't necessarily come out of abject poverty, but out of the classes that are doing ok, or have the expectation of doing ok, and have the rug pulled out from under them. There are many examples, but 1630s England could be one. I don't personally put a lot of stock in the English Civil War being about a class revolution, but certainly in the 1630s you have England enjoying overall economic growth outstripping previous generations. But also growing inequalities, most of that wealth being captured by a minority.

By the 1640s you have revolution and the total upheaval of society.

Again, I think there's a lot of other things happening that help push that along, but it's a running theme. The middling sort develop expectations, and get very angry when their position either deteriorates, or they see other people reaping the rewards of economic growth. Fascism is just a relatively new option on the board for societies to turn to in their frustration.
   23. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5778800)
I think the tone of incivility is often a bad thing here (even as I occasionally engage in it I admit), but how exactly would we succeed in not "let people get away with it"?...But, to bring this back around, how do you think we should police our own? What is the right way to respond to such comments? I mean the forum is already light years better than most other internet comment forums, even moderated ones, but I would like to to be even better.
I fully admit, I have no idea, which is part of my dilemma. Maybe some metatalk will help; maybe it will just bug the crap out of people.

I've tried to take each sub-thread as its own thing, and attempt not to take the history of a poster factor into it, at least at first. I don't often succeed. What annoys me the most is the assumptions made by either side about what "the others" will do and say. "The usual suspects will..."... screw that, make your point, and let people discuss it. Don't direct things the way you expect or project them, and do treat everyone as an individual who has their own valid viewpoint. Just because one of my arguments may sound like Miserlou or Mouse or Zonk doesn't mean we're all in lockstep.
   24. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5778802)
The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected
But that won't stop them from complaining. It seems like complaining is the point; what they're complaining about is unimportant.

I read this too. Interests me as a dad that doesn't know how much screentime is appropriate. My daughter is addicted - often turning off the television
The term you're looking for is "babysitter."
leads to tantrums. And she's almost 7! It's not good. She gets maybe 6-7 hours of screentime at home per week, some of which is family movie time.
My kids do watch TV, but it's youtube that they're really addicted to. But I try not to let them have more than 8 or 9 hours per day.
   25. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5778805)
If you want to argue that income inequality did not contribute to Trump or any of the other troubling election results, well we can discuss that. But limiting it to full collapse is ridiculous.
I'm talking about collapse into fascism, not collapse into Somalia.

Note: Also there basically are no other countries as rich and successful as the US, so yes it is an unfair question.
But it's not, because my whole point is that you can't extrapolate from a poor country like Brazil as a guide for the effects of inequality in the U.S.
   26. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5778806)
(No fair trying to count Weimar; I'm talking about countries as rich and successful as the western countries are now, not merely countries that were advanced for their time. Also, Weimar was not an example of inequality-driven collapse; it was an example of an economic collapse-driven collapse. (I don't have Weimar statistics handy, but the general pattern in capitalist societies is that major depressions decrease inequality, while economic booms increase it.))

I think it may be a bit too easy to differentiate between boom and bust. In other words, inequalities build in the boom times, but resentment about those inequalities doesn't really emerge until the bust.

Also I think it's difficult to separate out inequality-driven and economic-driven unrest. Quite often its a general downturn in the economy that sparks social instability, but it's not the poorest that usually take to the barricades. It's the middling sort who feel they haven't benefited as much as they were promised from the system as a whole. They may have griped about it rather than fought over it in the good times, but the second the system hits a rough patch they feel no great loyalty to it.
   27. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5778807)
I'm talking about collapse into fascism, not collapse into Somalia.


But it is still a continuum. Electing Trump is not a "collapse into fascism", but it is still pretty bad. Collapse is not the correct bar to measure against.
   28. BDC Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5778808)
"inequality" is not poverty. Inequality is increasing within countries because of growth at the top, not because of decline at the bottom. Leftists hope that repeating "inequality" three times will summon Beetlejuice and cause it to become true that people are getting poorer, but it's not the case


Except … both poverty and inequality are, ultimately, socially-defined and relative conditions. Revolutions triggered by inequality are rarely fended off by rich people pointing out that the poor are better off than cavemen.

I realize that right/libertarians attribute inequality-driven unrest to irrational envy of the rich. But that seems to be an extremely primal part of humanity. If you don't have much relative to another class, and you see that class benefit from unearned wealth or a system tilted in their favor, and you see opportunity receding, well, you'll get restive, and whether that's rational or not is extremely beside the point.

EDIT: Greg made these points much better while I wasn't refreshing, so he can have several Cokes … I'll just add that the French Revolution, though it drew energy from extreme poverty, is the classic case of an essentially middle-class revolution of the decently-off against the exceedingly-well-off: at least that's how it's traditionally been interpreted.
   29. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5778811)
Also, a meta moment here, but it'd interesting if SBB's departure changes things enough so that the primary lines of argument here are not Democrat vs Other but instead become Mainstream Democrat vs Hyper Left.


I think SBB is one of the most sincere, thought provoking and valuable contributors here, and I hereby call on him to return.

RDP, I'm curious. When you look at this guy they elected in Brazil, do you see Trump in him? Does it feel like a related phenomenon?


I honestly haven't been following closely enough to provide an intelligent answer.
   30. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5778812)
I've tried to take each sub-thread as its own thing, and attempt not to take the history of a poster factor into it, at least at first. I don't often succeed. What annoys me the most is the assumptions made by either side about what "the others" will do and say. "The usual suspects will..."... screw that, make your point, and let people discuss it. Don't direct things the way you expect or project them, and do treat everyone as an individual who has their own valid viewpoint. Just because one of my arguments may sound like Miserlou or Mouse or Zonk doesn't mean we're all in lockstep.

My strategy is the cowardly way (as called out by OG). I tend to jump into the conversation where I feel like there is a good faith discussion to be had, that I might learn something from, and ignore everything else. Which doesn't do much to raise the tone of conversation here.

I think that's something to build on though. Direct our comments towards each other, not the monolithic political blocs ("leftists", "Trump supporters") we imagine we're talking to.
   31. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:15 PM (#5778813)
But it's not, because my whole point is that you can't extrapolate from a poor country like Brazil as a guide for the effects of inequality in the U.S.

I don't know. I'm as far from a proponent of universal laws of history as you can be. I think it's important to look at each society/period in its own terms.

But I think we have to be able to draw connections between different times and places. I agree with you that a simple correlation of as in Brazil, so in the US is not tenable. But if we're talking about a more general point about inequality being a historical source of social instability, I think we've got a broader collection of evidence to work with.
   32. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:15 PM (#5778815)
Also, a meta moment here, but it'd interesting if SBB's departure changes things enough so that the primary lines of argument here are not Democrat vs Other but instead become Mainstream Democrat vs Hyper Left.

No idea. But the lessening of noise to signal by his departure can only increase the quality of the discussion.


This amusing lack of self awareness is followed by:

Similarly, if we dropped Clapper's incessant ####-polishing


No noise there.

for anything with an R behind it act, and maybe the Daily Polling Updates, we could probably ask harder and more pertinent questions. It's hard to even attempt a real, intellectually useful, adult conversation when half of the bandwidth is eaten up by


In honor of SBB:

Lol.
   33. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5778819)
RDP, I'm curious. When you look at this guy they elected in Brazil, do you see Trump in him? Does it feel like a related phenomenon?

I honestly haven't been following closely enough to provide an intelligent answer.
Respectfully, maybe you should.

You often decry anti-Trump hysteria here and in the media. Part of what drives what you call TDS - and I will be the first to admit that there is a hefty segment of folks who go overboard with it - is the fear that Trumpism encourages Bolsonaros around the world. Some of them aren't as incompetent as Trump, and isolationism is not practical going forward.
   34. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5778820)
I think SBB is one of the most sincere, thought provoking and valuable contributors here


"Man who claimed global warming a hoax believes fake lawyer troll offers valuable insights."

Wotta scoop!
   35. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5778821)
I honestly haven't been following closely enough to provide an intelligent answer.

Respectfully, maybe you should.


Why start now?
   36. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5778823)
Just because inequality is not poverty does not mean it is not a really bad thing.


Inequality is not a bad thing at all and actually is a good thing because it shows that there is incentive in the social structure.

It's societies with _less_ inequality that are worse off.

Again, _poverty_ is a problem; inequality is not. How leftists can be continually confused by this is interesting but not a mystery.
   37. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5778825)
I have called out posters whose politics I generally (not always) agree with, for example YR and Rickey!, but I refuse to add an admonition every time I see one of them step outside what I prefer.


Me? I'm one of the most sincere, thought provoking and valuable contributors here! Ask anyone. Ask Sean Hannity.
   38. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5778829)
Inequality is not a bad thing at all and actually is a good thing because it shows that there is incentive in the social structure.


Inequality in what? Because if you're going to be intellectually consistent and honest, you might find out that going to the gym twice a week might fall short of being sufficient to protect you from the predations of physical capitalism.
   39. SteveF Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:26 PM (#5778830)
But if we're talking about a more general point about inequality being a historical source of social instability, I think we've got a broader collection of evidence to work with.

Inequality between whom, exactly? Poor people tend not to be a source of social instability until we get to the point where they are starving to death.

The kind of inequality that starts revolutions tends to be between the middle classes and the elites. That kind of inequality would be hard to maintain in a Western democracy, I'd think. Most government policy is created to serve the interest of those two groups. If they don't serve those interests, they get voted out given those groups are the dominant force in that part of the electorate that actually votes.
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5778833)
I think SBB is one of the most sincere, thought provoking and valuable contributors here,

I hate to keep stealing one of your own favorite lines, but....you can't make this up.
   41. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5778837)
I think the tone of incivility is often a bad thing here (even as I occasionally engage in it I admit), but how exactly would we succeed in not "let people get away with it"?
I know my opinion isn't what is right, but it is just that, my opinion but how I think "people get away with it" isn't so much a problem of someone needs to do something (which really only moderators can) but more of a stop engaging people when they do act that way. I don't just mean by ignoring the hate but by being active towards to person the hate is being directed. If you found yourself in a room with two people who disagreed with each other and one of them got belligerent, even if it was the person you did not agree with, I am sure you would apologize for the way the other guy acted. You instantly take the other persons side, not in the argument but in the way they were treated. If both sides are dicks then that's different.

I found what Omerica Greg said to be very much on point (though I did not read any of it until after he left). You don't have to agree with a religion to know that calling out all members is not fair. I know people get mad and say things they don't mean but I think his point was that nothing was ever said by anyone to say something as easy as "Well not all Buddhists but I get that you're mad".

My rule of thumb on a lot of this is if you substitute a marginalized group you care about in a statement and it becomes bigoted or hateful then it is.

I think a stream of people constantly calling each other out would end up making things worse here.
then just engage the person being argued with and say "Hey I don't agree with the way they are saying X but I disagree/agree with this point". It drives the conversation back to the discussion while letting the person know that it is not an ad hominem attack but a discussion about the actual topic.
   42. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5778838)
I think the tone of incivility is often a bad thing here (even as I occasionally engage in it I admit), but how exactly would we succeed in not "let people get away with it"?...But, to bring this back around, how do you think we should police our own? What is the right way to respond to such comments? I mean the forum is already light years better than most other internet comment forums, even moderated ones, but I would like to to be even better.

I fully admit, I have no idea, which is part of my dilemma. Maybe some metatalk will help; maybe it will just bug the crap out of people.

I've tried to take each sub-thread as its own thing, and attempt not to take the history of a poster factor into it, at least at first. I don't often succeed. What annoys me the most is the assumptions made by either side about what "the others" will do and say. "The usual suspects will..."... screw that, make your point, and let people discuss it. Don't direct things the way you expect or project them, and treat everyone as an individual who has their own valid viewpoint. Just because one of my arguments may sound like Miserlou or Mouse or Zonk doesn't mean we're all in lockstep.


I think self-reflection is always a good thing - indeed, it's sadly ironic given the last page OG/Lassus item (for however little it's worth, don't go OG) - because I have walked back and apologized for spreading the derision a bit too wide and the last time was a few weeks ago when Lassus called me out... without going back on the particulars, I think it was an occasion where I incorporated my pure and unadulterated hatred of Trump to all his voters and supporters, and I really did not and do not believe that (now... if we're going to do proportions?)

That said... there are three sort of pillars I fall back on here.

First, I tend to at least try to avoid self-important navel-gazing... things said here reach ~100 eyeballs at most. I doubt they influence anyone to do anything. Much as I would likewise consider it sad that some folks get turned off and driven out by it, it is the internet... the sad reality is that even sans any real moderation or the exceedingly low levels of self-policing, I imagine my social media feeds - made up almost entirely of people I actually know in real life - are not unlike those of others in being far worse.

Second, coming at this from the left - but also continuing to agree with David that the important matter of the day is trumpism vs anti-trumpism - until that battle is over, I have zero interest or inclination to waste any effort tsk-tsking anyone on the right side of that debate. I will say in memoriam - I do very much think that Trump was more the culmination than he was a singular cataclysm. So, why does Clapper replace SBB atop my "Who's Next!" list? Because he's perfectly comfortable to accept that culmination and benefits of it. I'm not going to waste my breath or typing bemoaning a BBTFer I've never even met or Maxine Waters saying whatever that one time because it is a complete waste of time and/or effort. The day that there's a penalty for Trump and the Republicans for the Trumpism will be the day I care. Near as I can tell? When I see the exiles of people like Jeff Flake or Charlie Sykes or Max Boot or Bill Kristol or John Kasich, people I disagree with on most (and in some cases, every)things? I think it's pretty clear cause and effect is really ###### up right now. To borrow from Tyrion Lannister, I cannot fix everything today... and see point 1 - I try not to forget that bloviating here actually doesn't fix anything today.

Third, the reason I do think it still matters is - frankly - a direct link back to the bearskin. To wit - seeking some stupid boogeyman to raise for purposes of an October surprise, this shitbag administration and its coddlers have been screaming about an INVASION!!! for weeks now. Even accepting the departed's claims that he wasn't 'really' a Trumpkin - he did gladly and loudly and for about 3-4 pages seize on INVASION!!! And just minutes before bursting into a synagogue to murder 11 people, Bowers acted on the same bullshit. To gradient point 3 to point 2 above... If I cared about Mitch McConnell's dinner being ruined by people screaming at him as much as I cared about Shabbat Services being ruined by someone murdering them...

   43. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5778840)
I honestly haven't been following closely enough to provide an intelligent answer.

Respectfully, maybe you should.

Why start now?
Ha ha.

OK, here goes. YR, this sidethread had nothing to do with you, and jumping in the middle of it with a non sequitur ad hominem adds nothing. Butt out, so we can at least see where it goes.
   44. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5778841)
Inequality is not a bad thing at all and actually is a good thing because it shows that there is incentive in the social structure.


Nonsense. Or at least dramatically oversimplified and over generalized.

Some inequality is not only necessary but inevitable. However, just because some is inevitable does not mean more is good. Rising levels of inequality appears (to me at least) does lead to rising levels of political instability.

If I could I would like to draw comparisons between the US, Brazil, and European elections. Populist authoritarians thrive when there are widespread problems that can lead to unhappiness and unrest. The problems tend to be complex, and the authoritarians typically respond by blaming some other group as being the root f the problem, and then asserting that the problem is simple (all the other's fault) and that they can solve the problem easily once they are put in power.

As far as I can tell that is what has happened and is happening in the US, Europe, and Brazil and other places.
   45. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5778847)
FWIW, I can read OTP because I have a lot of people on ignore. I occasionally take some or all of them off, but they usually go right back on. I filter for vitriol, what looks like trolling, and posters who generally lessen the readability of the thing. This makes me a part of the problem, in a passive sort of way, but I've found that it's a lot better for my peace of mind.
   46. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:38 PM (#5778848)
I cannot recall a single pro-Trump thing Clapper has ever said.

Me too. Which I think indicates that Clapper dislikes Trump or is even outright disgusted by him. (Obviously he likes many of Trump's policies).


My guess is that Clapper doesn't like Trump but sees him as an effective tool to slow the country's slide into full on socialism and leftism, and thus better than the alternative (i.e., a Democrat in office). Immediately as Trump's campaign started gaining traction Clapper said something like "Not my idea of a candidate, but..."

Many well intentioned Republicans find Trump's rhetoric abhorrent but they find the leftism that the Democrats are selling to be outright toxic. Thus they're willing to put up with Trump.

Also: As to Clapper specifically, many of you have not been following the ball: court appointments. Clapper understands that that's where the real power is, which is why he is forever citing Trump's record on judicial nominees. And not only the Supreme Court either, but the federal courts. Clapper understands that elections are transient but that court appointments last generations, and if the courts are not packed with activist judges then leftists can't enact social change through the courts and they have to do it legislatively. You folks on the left are missing the story here because all you can think about and talk about is racism and sexism and whatever other ism you're stuck in an endless loop on. You need to figure out how to beat Trump in 2020 if you want to stem the bleeding on court appointments but you show no understanding of how to do that. Perhaps talking about racism and sexism and transgenderism will work in 2020 where it didn't in 2016. I guess you're intent on finding out.
   47. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:38 PM (#5778850)
The kind of inequality that starts revolutions tends to be between the middle classes and the elites. That kind of inequality would be hard to maintain in a Western democracy, I'd think. Most government policy is created to serve the interest of those two groups. If they don't serve those interests, they get voted out given those groups are the dominant force in that part of the electorate that actually votes.

Here's my take on when inequality has gotten out of hand: It's when a critical percentage of the population can't afford to pay for their basic necessities----food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education for their children----without going into more than an easily manageable amount of debt.

"Critical percentage" is subjective and hard to quantify precisely, but that's the standard that I think we should be held to. And I'm not talking about the idiots who buy McMansions and other luxury items and then get in trouble when they get laid off and hadn't thought about that possibility. I'm talking about people who never could afford those McMansions and luxury items in the first place, but are having trouble paying the rent on their unluxurious dwelling along with their health insurance.
   48. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:40 PM (#5778851)
(No fair trying to count Weimar; I'm talking about countries as rich and successful as the western countries are now, not merely countries that were advanced for their time. Also, Weimar was not an example of inequality-driven collapse; it was an example of an economic collapse-driven collapse. (I don't have Weimar statistics handy, but the general pattern in capitalist societies is that major depressions decrease inequality, while economic booms increase it.))


I think it may be a bit too easy to differentiate between boom and bust. In other words, inequalities build in the boom times, but resentment about those inequalities doesn't really emerge until the bust.

Also I think it's difficult to separate out inequality-driven and economic-driven unrest. Quite often its a general downturn in the economy that sparks social instability, but it's not the poorest that usually take to the barricades. It's the middling sort who feel they haven't benefited as much as they were promised from the system as a whole. They may have griped about it rather than fought over it in the good times, but the second the system hits a rough patch they feel no great loyalty to it.


I agree.

I think I've mentioned it before - and while I do not disagree that economic matters were the prime mover - I really found Eric Weitz's Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy to be an interesting read. Economics may have occupied the top spot -- but there was a lot of cultural liberalism and reactionary pushback that comes into play, too.

Indeed - one could certainly make the case that the Nazis crested at around ~30-35% with their 'economic message' (such as it was. I mean, the message was basically "this sucks, here are the people to blame, we alone can fix it". It was hardly any kind of policy blueprint or even coherent ideology strictly on economic matters).

By 1932/1933 - the Weimar economy had actually stabilized and was recovering... to say nothing of the fact it hadn't even reached the depths of the decade prior. Now, the recovery wasn't as broad, as rapid, or fulfilling as I'm sure most Germans would have liked - but it's undeniable that most of the needles were pointing up.

So... I don't think you can explain the final steps of the NSDAP seizure of power purely in economic terms. You can't explain it WITHOUT economics, to be sure -- but that wasn't the complete story. It wasn't what really kept their crest as high as it was. There was a lot of cultural reactionary under currents, too.
   49. BDC Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5778854)
Inequality is not a bad thing at all and actually is a good thing because it shows that there is incentive in the social structure


Provided there's mobility, and that mobility is linked to some scale of merit and effort that people buy into.

It's societies with _less_ inequality that are worse off


You mean this subjectively, I reckon. I don't think there's a great correlation between wealth and standards of living on the one hand, and equality/inequality of wealth and income on the other. The most egalitarian countries of all, by some measures, are those of Scandinavia and Benelux, and countries with great inequality can be pretty badly off in lots of ways: e.g. Brazil, which is I guess how this conversation started.
   50. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5778856)

My guess is that Clapper doesn't like Trump but sees him as an effective tool to slow the country's slide into full on socialism and leftism, and thus better than the alternative (i.e., a Democrat in office). Immediately as Trump's campaign started gaining traction Clapper said something like "Not my idea of a candidate, but..."

Many well intentioned Republicans find Trump's rhetoric abhorrent but they find the leftism that the Democrats are selling to be outright toxic. Thus they're willing to put up with Trump.


Golly, THAT'S never caused problems before.

This sort of nonsense is basically the Trumpkin Webelos badge...
   51. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5778858)
Also: As to Clapper specifically, many of you have not been following the ball: court appointments. Clapper understands that that's where the real power is, which is why he is forever citing Trump's record on judicial nominees. And not only the Supreme Court either, but the federal courts. Clapper understands that elections are transient but that court appointments last generations, and if the courts are not packed with activist judges then leftists can't enact social change through the courts and they have to do it legislatively. You folks on the left are missing the story here because all you can think about and talk about is racism and sexism and whatever other ism you're stuck in an endless loop on. You need to figure out how to beat Trump in 2020 if you want to stem the bleeding on court appointments but you show no understanding of how to do that. Perhaps talking about racism and sexism and transgenderism will work in 2020 where it didn't in 2016. I guess you're intent on finding out.


Also bookmarked for the next time the contrary case of "most court decisions are unanimous and people make too big a deal about judges" comes up.
   52. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5778866)
Inequality is not a bad thing at all and actually is a good thing because it shows that there is incentive in the social structure.

If I remember my Keynes (and I don't), inequality is also helpful in creating a store of capital that can be invested in growth.

Like everything else, whether inequality is a good or bad thing is contingent. Some societies could deal with more of it, some with less. The trick is identifying which we live in.
   53. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM (#5778867)

Except … both poverty and inequality are, ultimately, socially-defined and relative conditions. Revolutions triggered by inequality are rarely fended off by rich people pointing out that the poor are better off than cavemen.
See, people, this is what "begging the question" looks like.

I realize that right/libertarians attribute inequality-driven unrest to irrational envy of the rich. But that seems to be an extremely primal part of humanity. If you don't have much relative to another class, and you see that class benefit from unearned wealth or a system tilted in their favor, and you see opportunity receding, well, you'll get restive, and whether that's rational or not is extremely beside the point.
I don't actually disagree with that. But the difference between capitalism (did I mention how much I dislike the word) and historical examples is in the phrase "unearned wealth." Throughout most of human history, the rich did get wealthy by stealing from the poor. Serfs did do the work and the feudal lords simply forcibly took (at gunpoint! (swordpoint?)) what they wanted. And poverty remained endemic. Capitalism changed that. People got wealthy by voluntary exchange. Of course, the U.S. is not perfect, and there's too much rent seeking in our country (and in every basically-capitalist country). But wealth is now created, not merely transferred, and the pie keeps growing.
   54. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM (#5778868)
Many well intentioned Republicans find Trump's rhetoric abhorrent but they find the leftism that the Democrats are selling to be outright toxic. Thus they're willing to put up with Trump.
Can't... help... self...

Many well intentioned Germans found That Guy's rhetoric abhorrent...
   55. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5778870)
@radiofreetom:
In the 48 hours since the Pittsburgh attack, POTUS tweets:

- RTing D'Souza interviewed by the NRA
- going after Tom Steyer
- the press is the Enemy of the People
- calling Andrew Gillum a thief
- the caravan
   56. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5778871)
Inequality between whom, exactly? Poor people tend not to be a source of social instability until we get to the point where they are starving to death.

The kind of inequality that starts revolutions tends to be between the middle classes and the elites. That kind of inequality would be hard to maintain in a Western democracy, I'd think. Most government policy is created to serve the interest of those two groups. If they don't serve those interests, they get voted out given those groups are the dominant force in that part of the electorate that actually votes.

I think this is the great benefit of democracy as a model. It's proven far better at managing and reconciling the grievances of those groups. But things don't always work out so neatly. Trust in the democratic system can erode in other ways too (wide-spread corruption, ethnic divisions, etc.) If you get governments that too obviously serve those elite groups, or fail to address other problems in the system, then you open up the door to a popular argument that the whole system ought to be tossed out.
   57. Traderdave Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5778872)
I don't keep up with this thing page by page, so what happened w SBB?

Banned? Left in a huff? What was last straw?

   58. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5778873)
Can't... help... self...


Nor should you.

Because it's the truth and it applies to far more than just That Guy.

I'd be more than happy to extend it to the Lenins, the Stalins, the Maos, and the Pots too.

The problem with the latter is only a ####### idiot would try to make the case the Obamas, the Clintons, the Bookers, or the Harrises share the same adjacency as the Trumps on the other side of the spectrum.
   59. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:58 PM (#5778876)
My guess is that Clapper doesn't like Trump but sees him as an effective tool to slow the country's slide into full on socialism and leftism, and thus better than the alternative (i.e., a Democrat in office). Immediately as Trump's campaign started gaining traction Clapper said something like "Not my idea of a candidate, but..."

Many well intentioned Republicans find Trump's rhetoric abhorrent but they find the leftism that the Democrats are selling to be outright toxic. Thus they're willing to put up with Trump.



Golly, THAT'S never caused problems before.

This sort of nonsense is basically the Trumpkin Webelos badge...


I don't think Democrats realize how much Republicans despise their tactics. Branding everyone who disagrees with them racists and sexists; trying to destroy the family of a Supreme Court nominee because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. There's a lot of Trumpism that well meaning Republicans can put up with if the alternative is letting the kind of people who would do those things rise to and stay in power.
   60. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5778878)
I think SBB is one of the most sincere, thought provoking and valuable contributors here,

I hate to keep stealing one of your own favorite lines, but....you can't make this up.


Andy, you've never contributed 1/1000th to this board that SBB has.
   61. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:00 PM (#5778879)
OK, here goes. YR, this sidethread had nothing to do with you, and jumping in the middle of it with a non sequitur ad hominem adds nothing. Butt out.


Make me.
   62. BDC Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:00 PM (#5778880)
Revolutions triggered by inequality are rarely fended off by rich people pointing out that the poor are better off than cavemen.
See, people, this is what "begging the question" looks like


No, it's not … unless like a good libertarian you automatically reinterpret "triggered by inequality" as "triggered by shiftless good-for-nothings who cannot appreciate how well off they are" :-D
   63. Nasty Nate Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:00 PM (#5778881)
trying to destroy the family of a Supreme Court nominee
systematically?
   64. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5778883)
I don't keep up with this thing page by page, so what happened w SBB?

Banned? Left in a huff? What was last straw?


He got offended that I re-posted without any edits or ellipses, his first 4 posts from page 1 of last week's thread on page 19 of last week's thread.
   65. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5778884)
I don't keep up with this thing page by page, so what happened w SBB?

Banned? Left in a huff?


Rumor has it that a Hissy Fit did him in.
   66. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5778885)
Inequality is not a bad thing at all and actually is a good thing because it shows that there is incentive in the social structure.
As a basic answer to a test question this works. But really it is a matter of how much is too much and how little is too little. Right now I believe the government is incentivizing the rich at the expense of the poor with the capital gains tax structured the way it is. Hell just get rid of stock as a salary work around for executives and it probably evens out.
   67. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5778886)
I don't think Democrats realize how much Republicans despise their tactics. Branding everyone who disagrees with them racists and sexists; trying to destroy the family of a Supreme Court nominee because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. There's a lot of Trumpism that well meaning Republicans can put up with if the alternative is letting the kind of people who would do those things rise to and stay in power.
I don't agree with the way *extreme* Democrats behave either.

I don't think you, or Republicans, care to admit how Trump, personally and as the guiding light of the GOP, embodies those same distasteful policies.
   68. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5778887)

The kind of inequality that starts revolutions
"Revolutions" is kind of an overbroad term. There's the Russian or French revolutions on the one hand, and there's the American revolution on the other. The latter, not so bad; the former two, we should be a bit concerned about.
   69. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5778888)
I don't think Democrats realize how much Republicans despise their tactics. Branding everyone who disagrees with them racists and sexists; trying to destroy the family of a Supreme Court nominee because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. There's a lot of Trumpism that well meaning Republicans can put up with if the alternative is letting the kind of people who would do those things rise to and stay in power.


Could be worse... they could all be branded as "leftists" and "socialists" and "SJWs".

But yes, I'm well aware of how you discern valid complaints about tactics from invalid complaints about tactics.

I just noted my awareness a few posts upthread.
   70. Greg K Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5778890)
"Revolutions" is kind of an overbroad term. There's the Russian or French revolutions on the one hand, and there's the American revolution on the other. The latter, not so bad; the former two, we should be a bit concerned about.

Speak for yourself!

EDIT: More seriously, there are "good" revolutions and "bad" revolutions. I just wouldn't care to live through one good or bad. They tend to be violent. I'm all for the good of future generations, but I like my comfortable life now.

OK, I guess that wasn't entirely serious after all.
   71. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5778891)
Can't... help... self...

Many well intentioned Germans found That Guy's rhetoric abhorrent...


At any rate, rich and well off liberals do petty things like: cut Trump supporters out of their social circles, because they're Trump supporters. The Dershowitz - Martha's Vineyard story got a good laugh, but it was representative. (And happened even though Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter but was simply perceived as one.)

(Edited because my initial comment didn't follow. The comparison to Hitler does get old.)
   72. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:06 PM (#5778892)
My pool playing buddy's no Goldbach, and in fact he's Jewish.


I'll just note the obvious here. This idiot "buddy" of Andy's gets to vote. This moronic idiot #### heel gets treated as if he's an actual, rational human being with the capability to make informed decisions regarding the nation's governance and well being.
   73. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5778893)
I don't think Democrats realize how much Republicans despise their tactics. Branding everyone who disagrees with them racists and sexists; trying to destroy the family of a Supreme Court nominee because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. There's a lot of Trumpism that well meaning Republicans can put up with if the alternative is letting the kind of people who would do those things rise to and stay in power.

The pot calling the kettle black. Or perhaps "It's not fair that my side is winning so much and yet I can't go out and publicly bash all those pesky minorities"

The "well meaning Republicans" can put up with a lot of sexism, racism, death, and destruction just as long as we lower their taxes and don't give people with darker skin tones any of that money.

But yeah, other than that they are the salt of the Earth and being driven into the arms of the fascists because of mean old liberals who are fighting for equal rights and equal say.
   74. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:09 PM (#5778897)
I don't agree with the way *extreme* Democrats behave either.


But see, here's the problem...

Who are those *extreme* Democrats?

Hell, completely setting aside that I hardly consider their platforms and policies beyond the pale and you'd be awfully hard-pressed to find statements from them that would make even Trump's top 100,000 --- Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez aren't even self-described Democrats.
   75. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5778898)
Where is the example of a country as rich and successful as the U.S. collapsing into fascism because of inequality?


Donald Trump.
   76. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5778899)
Andy, you've never contributed 1/1000th to this board that SBB has.

So was it his "modern liberals" schtick that stole your heart, or his crusade to get Jack Morris and Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame? He was so thought provoking in so many ways it's almost impossible to pick and choose among them.
   77. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5778901)
At any rate, rich and well off liberals do petty things like: cut Trump supporters out of their social circles, because they're Trump supporters. The Dershowitz - Martha's Vineyard story got a good laugh, but it was representative. (And happened even though Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter but was simply perceived as one.)


The horror... the horror.

But "got" a good laugh?

I'd say it still retains the capability to get a good chuckle.
   78. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:12 PM (#5778902)
Which I think indicates that Clapper dislikes Trump or is even outright disgusted by him.


In about the same manner Melania is.
   79. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5778903)
Whoever mentioned it before was right. We are the country of the aggrieved.
   80. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5778904)
No noise there.


The stating of brute fact is not noise, Raymond.
   81. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5778905)
So was it his "modern liberals" schtick that stole your heart, or his crusade to get Jack Morris and Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame? He was so thought provoking in so many ways it's almost impossible to pick and choose among them.


Whereas you're thought provoking in none. I suppose someone on your Duke freshman hall in 1963 found your comments during the bullshitt sessions interesting, but his views changed with time as circumstances did while yours remained the same for the next half century and counting.
   82. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5778906)

MATT DRUDGE

@DRUDGE

A segment on Fox News this morning where hosts laughed and joked their way through a discussion on political impact of terror was bizarre. Not even 48 hours since blood flowed at synagogue? Check your soul in the makeup chair!
12:01 PM - Oct 29, 2018


Ummm.... what? How long was I asleep?
   83. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:16 PM (#5778908)
I'll just note the obvious here. This idiot "buddy" of Andy's gets to vote. This moronic idiot #### heel gets treated as if he's an actual, rational human being with the capability to make informed decisions regarding the nation's governance and well being.
I have heard that what that guy says more than once and it is not always by people I would describe as idiots. I don't know how they got to thinking that way but I've met enough of them (mostly family) that it has confused me. I have even spent many hours trying to get to the bottom some of the thoughts in the case of my brother who caught me by surprise with his views. I do think some of it is ignorance but I have a feeling it is way more what PepTech said above
"I've made the analogy before; Aaron Altman in Broadcast News describes how the devil will win - by lowering our standards, bit by bit, without us realizing it."


Makes me wonder what I have been doing bit by bit to not recognize where I started
   84. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5778912)
At any rate, rich and well off liberals do petty things like: cut Trump supporters out of their social circles, because they're Trump supporters.
And this is where the Trump supporters/enablers don't get it. Trump is unlike any candidate or office holder in modern history. You supported Bush (either one)? Fine. McCain? Fine. Romney? Fine. I disagree with you, but I don't think any less of you.

Trump is different. Trump is ugliness. Trump is the embodiment and amplification of our basest qualities as a culture. Trump represents bullying, lying, narcissism, fear-mongering, ignorance, authoritarianism and many other despicable things at their most rank. That is not "TDS." That is fact, based on his own words and actions.

You support that? That says something about you. You are willing to put up with that because you despise the left, or whatever other reason? That also says something about you, whether you acknowledge it or not. A lot of people will react negatively to learning that about you. You're not entitled to no consequences if you sign on to ugliness like that.
   85. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5778913)
My pool playing buddy's no Goldbach, and in fact he's Jewish.

I'll just note the obvious here. This idiot "buddy" of Andy's gets to vote. This moronic idiot #### heel gets treated as if he's an actual, rational human being with the capability to make informed decisions regarding the nation's governance and well being.


Well, in "Goober"'s case** he's probably too lazy to take the trouble to vote, and even if he did, he'd be drowned in a sea of Montgomery County blue votes.

** His lifelong nickname. Obviously I'm not going to post his real name here, and outside his political Bizarro World he's actually a pretty good sort.
   86. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5778915)
I found what Omerica Greg said to be very much on point (though I did not read any of it until after he left). You don't have to agree with a religion to know that calling out all members is not fair. I know people get mad and say things they don't mean but I think his point was that nothing was ever said by anyone to say something as easy as "Well not all Buddhists but I get that you're mad".


So, what you're saying is that, in order to make sure religious people aren't offended and driven away, people should moderate and curb the language and manner in which they discuss religion. For the sake of the greater group's civil dynamic, as a whole. Which is to say, you're arguing that in order to create a community that has space for a more DIVERSE set of beliefs and opinions, people should bracket and gate their POLITICAL SPEECH in a way as to consider the feelings and offense given to the others.

You're arguing for political correctness.
   87. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:20 PM (#5778916)
At any rate, rich and well off liberals do petty things like: cut Trump supporters out of their social circles, because they're Trump supporters. The Dershowitz - Martha's Vineyard story got a good laugh, but it was representative. (And happened even though Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter but was simply perceived as one.)
You continue to not respond to the important question: Just because some Democrats are behaving badly, does that mean all Americans should accept and allow Trump to behave like Trump?

You have called out Trump for his sexism, for example. And you don't care - at least, not yet - that Bolsonaro (and Dutarte, and Kim, and Putin, and who knows how many others) are stoked by Trump's tactics and successes:
“Stay here, Maria do Rosario. A few days ago you called me a rapist, in the Green Room,” he said, referring to one of the rooms of the capitol building in Brasília. "And I said I wouldn't rape you because you're not worthy of it. Stay here and listen."
Bolsonaro won the Brazilian presidency despite (in part due to? False Flag!) being stabbed while campaigning, albeit not in the neck.
   88. Traderdave Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5778918)
SBB will be back. He got too much endorphin from posting here.


Ray + a little therapy = SBB
   89. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5778919)
As to Clapper specifically, many of you have not been following the ball: court appointments. Clapper understands that that's where the real power is, which is why he is forever citing Trump's record on judicial nominees.


Yes, Ray. Clapper is happily willing to molly coddle and support evil in service of his own preferred power. He's Vichy scum. We've established this already.
   90. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5778920)
I suppose someone on your Duke freshman hall in 1963 found your comments during the bullshitt sessions interesting, but his views changed with time as circumstances did while yours remained the same for the next half century and counting.

You're right about that: I was a liberal then and I'm a liberal now. I didn't buy Goldwaterism then and I don't buy your Trumpism now.
   91. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:29 PM (#5778923)
So, what you're saying is that, in order to make sure religious people aren't offended and driven away, people should moderate and curb the language and manner in which they discuss religion. For the sake of the greater group's civil dynamic, as a whole. Which is to say, you're arguing that in order to create a community that has space for a more DIVERSE set of beliefs and opinions, people should bracket and gate their POLITICAL SPEECH in a way as to consider the feelings and offense given to the others.

You're arguing for political correctness.
No, not political correctness. There is a huge gap between political correctness and going out of your way to be offensive.

Telling someone you believe their chosen faith is made up by people who I think are totally off base (wrong) is a lot different than \"#### all of X, they are too ####### stupid"

Being able to disagree with someone without attacking them as a person is not political correctness, it's normal.
   92. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5778925)
Well since I am supposed to chime in in such instances ... I find it more than little off putting for Ray to be trying to faux-quantify value to this board in order to attack another poster.

That seems to be more than a little out of bounds. If Ray wants to mourn Stretchy leaving, I support his right to that opinion and I would also support Ray if he wanted to contribute how to make the board better in order to either lure people back or reduce the numbers of those that leave. But using someone leaving as an excuse to attack another poster (perhaps causing them to leave) seems exactly opposite what the sub-thread was discussing.
   93. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5778927)
But yeah, other than that they are the salt of the Earth and being driven into the arms of the fascists because of mean old liberals who are fighting for equal rights and equal say.


And getting mad when people literally dress their young children up as Hitler for Halloween.
   94. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5778928)
I have heard that what that guy says more than once and it is not always by people I would describe as idiots. I don't know how they got to thinking that way but I've met enough of them (mostly family) that it has confused me.


Yeah. There's a reason I only talk to 2 or 3 members of the extended family any more.
   95. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:35 PM (#5778929)
Recently a certain poster (last week's thread I believe) spoke about how the Democrats were doing nothing but attacking Trump and that is what they were running on.

It is not surprising in the slightest that this take was exactly wrong, and spectacularly so. Perhaps in the future said poster will have evidence before such attacks against Democrats.

Wall Street Journal: “In the midterm elections of his first term, 28% of all House and Senate ads — fully 50% of all GOP ads — were anti-Obama. This year, less than 7% of the ads carry an anti-Trump message. Trump-opposition commercials make up just 15% of Democratic ads.”


EDIT: Link
   96. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5778933)
At any rate, rich and well off liberals do petty things like: cut Trump supporters out of their social circles, because they're Trump supporters. The Dershowitz - Martha's Vineyard story got a good laugh, but it was representative. (And happened even though Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter but was simply perceived as one.)


Representative of the way pampered, insulated popinjays react to not being accepted by the cool kids. Literally the sort of thing most people figure out in middle school.

What is it about a law degree that creates such stunted and even regressed emotional development? It seems to be in evidence literally every day around here.

   97. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:38 PM (#5778935)
I could have linked to all three different sources, but this seemed simpler - More Key Races Tilt Towards Democrats

A Reuters analysis of election-prediction data by three major political handicappers – Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics – showed that while Republican ratings had improved since early September in seven of 65 competitive races, Democrats had gained in 48 races.
   98. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:39 PM (#5778937)
No, not political correctness. There is a huge gap between political correctness and going out of your way to be offensive.


I disagree. I think the key thing here is that conservatives are bagging on Lassus - ####### LASSUS OF ALL PEOPLE! dude's the least offensive person in the room - for failing to completely and utterly subsume his casual conversational posting tone, ONE ####### TIME, to some politically correct standard that magically doesn't "offend" religious people.
   99. Traderdave Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5778938)
What is it about a law degree that creates such stunted and even regressed emotional development? It seems to be in evidence literally every day around here.



Creates it, or attracts it?
   100. Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust Posted: October 29, 2018 at 01:41 PM (#5778940)
And this is where the Trump supporters/enablers don't get it. Trump is unlike any candidate or office holder in modern history. You supported Bush (either one)? Fine. McCain? Fine. Romney? Fine. I disagree with you, but I don't think any less of you.

Trump is different. Trump is ugliness. Trump is the embodiment and amplification of our basest qualities as a culture. Trump represents bullying, lying, narcissism, fear-mongering, ignorance, authoritarianism and many other despicable things at their most rank. That is not "TDS." That is fact, based on his own words and actions.

You support that? That says something about you. You are willing to put up with that because you despise the left, or whatever other reason? That also says something about you, whether you acknowledge it or not. A lot of people will react negatively to learning that about you. You're not entitled to no consequences if you sign on to ugliness like that.


If a Trump is necessary to carry the banner of the army, it is necessary to consider whether one is in the wrong army.

It's entirely possible that the day may come when folks "on the left" need to face that same reckoning. But I have seen exactly no one even remotely feasible as a bizarro version of him. And no - D list celebrities, self-promoting opportunist attorneys, and their porn star clients have not yet even gotten to the starting line of feasible.

Page 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogChicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon reveals the book he says is helping him manage millennial players
(130 - 11:23am, Dec 19)
Last: Zonk Can't Hide his Disdain or Disgust

NewsblogMatt Harvey, Angels Reportedly Agree to 1-Year, $11 Million Contract
(4 - 11:22am, Dec 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(728 - 11:20am, Dec 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogReport: Mike Piazza's family was unhappy to learn he had bought the 'Pittsburgh' of Italian soccer
(16 - 11:19am, Dec 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(260 - 11:16am, Dec 19)
Last: Topher

NewsblogTwins to retire Joe Mauer's No. 7
(29 - 11:12am, Dec 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(535 - 11:10am, Dec 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Atlanta Braves
(27 - 11:07am, Dec 19)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-19-2018
(2 - 11:03am, Dec 19)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(137 - 10:59am, Dec 19)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Braves voting thread
(7 - 10:58am, Dec 19)
Last: Rusty Priske

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(410 - 10:49am, Dec 19)
Last: Al Peterson

NewsblogESPN: Penny Marshall, director of 'A League of Their Own,' dies at 75
(7 - 10:14am, Dec 19)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogCubs Owners Discussed Moving Team Out Of Chicago During Beef With Mayor
(4 - 10:08am, Dec 19)
Last: bfan

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3782 - 9:47am, Dec 19)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Page rendered in 0.8521 seconds
46 querie(s) executed