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, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

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 44 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 > 
   4301. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 09:53 PM (#4698572)
You, being an idiot on the subject, can't seem to distinguish "better than others have, simply because your "normal" is the default setting of most of society" and


Wouldn't "the default setting of most of society" be normal, not "SugarBear's 'normal'"?

It's funny because we went through a period some years ago where everything was classified as an illness. Being fat, eating too many twinkies, etc. Now liberals want to ignore mental illness and pretend deep mental illness is normal. It reminds me of how Bill Clinton solved the homeless problem: the media stopped writing stories about it. But it was still a problem for the homeless, and having gender identity disorder is still a problem for those who have it.

It would seem to me that if a person goes to a psychiatrist and says "I have a problem eating in public," the first step of the psychiatrist would not be to wave his hands and immediately announce that the patient has no problem; it would be to gather information, diagnose the problem, and propose a remedy or treatment. In the GID case, it seems to me that the LAST RESORT -- when all other treatments proposed have failed -- would be to break the glass and begrudgingly go along with gender reassignment surgery. Certainly the surgery helps some people... but what of those who it doesn't?
   4302. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 09:55 PM (#4698573)
I'm not sure who told you that you were good at code-switching, Sam.
   4303. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4698577)
(*) Which is the fundamental flaw in all the silly cliched nonsense about "privilege" spewed forth on these here boards.


It's odd that the liberals get so aflutter over the word "privilege."
   4304. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4698580)
Morty: acknowledging the facts of the world is the first step

David: you're no judge of me. Ever. You can't judge your betters son.
   4305. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4698581)
Ray: it's a term with meaning. I'm not the one pisses himself every time it's used.
   4306. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:06 PM (#4698584)
I cannot imagine being so willfully blind. Do you even know any black people or women? Ask them if they think there's not a significant social advantage to being a white male.


I'm not sure that being the one group in the country (if we add the "straight" qualifier) that suffers the resulting slings and arrows of not being able to lay claim to any of the left's precious Victim classes makes those in that group "privileged." But I'm sure the liberals will be along to high five as they laugh about how wrong I am.

Straight white males can't be discriminated against; they can be safely turned down for jobs because they're white; they can be passed over in school admissions in favor of a less accomplished minority, in the name of "Diversity"; they can be the target of nasty jokes and nobody cares.

Privilege, indeed. If I were going for a job in a big corporate environment, to take one example, I'd much rather be a minority.
   4307. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4698586)
Rays ##### also hurts.
   4308. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:11 PM (#4698589)
But if I had been poor, southern and black, or female, or gay, or transgendered, all of the problems I have faced to date would have been complicated and compounded by those additional social pigeonholes.


See, there it is. If this were Sesame Street you'd be asked to identify the one group that is missing from your laundry list of victim groups.

I have benefited from the basic privilege of being part of dominant caste for the most part.


That used to be true. It hasn't been for some time. Please do try to keep up. Liberals seem to be forever going through their lives as if they're in a Quantum Leap episode, forever stuck in a time period of the past. For Andy time stood still at 1964.
   4309. Morty Causa Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:12 PM (#4698590)
Morty: acknowledging the facts of the world is the first step

That's a principled solution?
   4310. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:15 PM (#4698592)
Privilege, indeed. If I were going for a job in a big corporate environment, to take one example, I'd much rather be a minority.

Sure, but then again you'd be more likely to be "detained" for "shoveling while black."

So it all evens out.
   4311. Morty Causa Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:20 PM (#4698595)
I cannot imagine being so willfully blind. Do you even know any black people or women? Ask them if they think there's not a significant social advantage to being a white male.

And ask yourself if there is an advantage in thinking that way and promoting that as a truth. To whom is the advantage.

There's a tendency here among the progressives to think that nothing in the last 50 years, much less the last 150 years, has changed when it comes to race. That the many private ombudsman organizations don't exist, that private don't exist, that laws on race aren't what they are now, and that the courts remain closed wrt all this. Come out of the time warp.
   4312. Morty Causa Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4698597)
Rickey! is so swamped by guilt over his white privilege that he must insist that his misery must have company. His refrain about dominant caste skirts the real issue of how to obtain a solution. It just feels so good to flog someone, even if they only exists as figments of an imagination. When has there not been a dominant caste? (Not to mention, this dominant caste had a lot to do with us leaving the tree for something better.) If not this dominant caste, which one would be better? If no dominant class, how do you structure processes and institutions to promote and maintain all that? For a culture to survive and thrive, there has to be something more than sado-masochistic arbitrary and aimless protocols that serve little purpose beyond assuaging an all-consuming guilt by slaking a unquenchable thirst for revenge. No one is entitled to ride a horse that high.
   4313. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:36 PM (#4698600)
Rays ##### also hurts.


Good rebuttal. I do love the "Ask them!" challenge, though. "Ask the people who we've told are victims all their lives whether they're victims!"

You can't make it up.

Thankfully, many minorities can see liberals' condescension towards them for what it is.
   4314. BDC Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4698603)
Morty, the notion of open vs. girl's/women's divisions is modeled on open vs. frosh/soph in HS track. It has little to do with revenue sports - and what if it did? Let's say an occasional woman were good enough to play high-level basketball - beating out one man from a scholarship opportunity. So what, she beat him, she's good.

Opposing or supporting Title IX is a whole nother matter, and has to do with the role of athletics at colleges to begin with. If you want to argue that no athletic scholarships should exist, or that revenue sports should be detached from education and their athletes professionalized, I might agree. But if you fund baseball scholarships you should fund softball scholarships - both are essentially a kind of recreational enhancement of academic life, which should feature gender equality.
   4315. Lassus Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:52 PM (#4698606)
Ray have you ever spoken to a transgender person in your entire life? Have you ever spoken to a homosexual person about what it was like to come out? Have you ever once had a conversation with a non-conservative/libertarian minority about a racial issue? I mean, maybe the answer is yes, that's why I'm asking. I'll honestly admit doubt.
   4316. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 01, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4698607)
A new Gallup Poll, on an interesting subject:
Every state has at least some residents who are looking for greener pastures, but nowhere is the desire to move more prevalent than in Illinois and Connecticut. In both of these states, about half of residents say that if given the chance to move to a different state, they would like to do so. Maryland is a close third, at 47%. By contrast, in Montana, Hawaii, and Maine, just 23% say they would like to relocate. Nearly as few -- 24% -- feel this way in Oregon, New Hampshire, and Texas.

EDIT: BTW, I got a phone call this evening purporting to be from Gallup, but I declined to participate. Might make their next poll a little "skewed".
   4317. BDC Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4698611)
Interesting indeed, Clapper. I can't see any pattern in that map - it doesn't seem to track politics or climate or economy. I'm missing something, I'm sure. Part of it may simply be that percentage of people wanting to leave isn't a measure of how good a place is. If few people want to leave, it could be great, or it could suck so much that all the unhappy people already left :)
   4318. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4698613)
Ray have you ever spoken to a transgender person in your entire life? Have you ever spoken to a homosexual person about what it was like to come out? Have you ever once had a conversation with a non-conservative/libertarian minority about a racial issue? I mean, maybe the answer is yes, that's why I'm asking. I'll honestly admit doubt.


Yes to all of the above, except that I've not spoken to a transgender person about the "gender identity" issue specifically.

Your move.
   4319. Lassus Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4698616)
Yes to all of the above, except that I've not spoken to a transgender person about the "gender identity" issue specifically. Your move.

Did you mock their issues to their faces the way you do here?
   4320. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:19 PM (#4698619)
What do you consider "mocking"? Calling a mental illness a mental illness?
   4321. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:23 PM (#4698620)
I can't see any pattern in that map - it doesn't seem to track politics or climate or economy. I'm missing something, I'm sure.

Well, the Top 3 states that people want to leave, and 7 of the Top 8, do lean strongly to the Democrats, although the states with the fewest people wanting to leave are more of a mixed bag, with Texas by far the largest state that few people want to leave.
   4322. Lassus Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4698623)
What do you consider "mocking"? Calling a mental illness a mental illness?

Telling the transgender person they were mentally ill, sure. Telling black people you were the real minority, not them. Telling someone gay that coming out was no big deal because widespread acceptance is a non-issue. I don't have time to harvest your dismissiveness for other gems, that's a good start.
   4323. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:35 PM (#4698625)
I have benefited from the basic privilege of being part of dominant caste for the most part.


That used to be true. It hasn't been for some time. Please do try to keep up. Liberals seem to be forever going through their lives as if they're in a Quantum Leap episode, forever stuck in a time period of the past. For Andy time stood still at 1964.

Ray, I could spend the next ten pages of this thread listing the innumerable ways that we've changed since 1964, and mostly for the better---though you spend more time complaining about many of those changes than you do celebrating them. You may be aware of what year we're living in, but you seem to think we're living in Zimbabwe.
   4324. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:43 PM (#4698630)
I don't consider any of those things mocking, no - presuming you're talking about "telling them" in a serious conversation and under the right circumstances, and not that you're claiming I go up to transgender people and scream "mentally ill!" at them. Sometimes it's not my place to tell people these sorts of things, sometimes they didn't ask for my opinion, sometimes it would just be plain mean and rude, etc. You know, society.

And I think coming out is no big deal as far as society at large is concerned, because "society" doesn't care anymore (*). I fully grant that coming out to one's family, for example, can be a big deal.

(*) Which is why all the "Ellen Page/Robin Roberts/Jodie Foster Comes Out" type stories from the media are silly, which is why Jason Collins's "story" as orchestrated by that agenda group was silly, which is why the Michael Sam story was not news, which is why the story of that other college athlete who recently announced (as choreographed by an agenda group of course) that he is gay was so non-newsworthy that I've forgotten his name.

   4325. Lassus Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4698631)
I'm glad you're using celebrities to form your opinion of gay experience in America.
   4326. GregD Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:54 PM (#4698632)
Those move in/move out numbers are always weird. Partly because the same place is often a spot to move into and to move out of. A place of desire is also a place that becomes expensive. And the places that draw people into purple or red states are often like Atlanta or Tampa actually hugely blue areas. I doubt there is anything partisan to read in it. And I don't think Repubilcans are actually celebrating the idea of people leaving Illinois for Arizona in terms of electoral politics. There are two big factors; cities draw people in and push them away. And people have long term been moving south from northern states.
   4327. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 01, 2014 at 11:54 PM (#4698633)
? Did you read what I wrote? I said "I fully grant that coming out to one's family, for example, can be a big deal."
   4328. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 12:00 AM (#4698635)
? Did you read what I wrote? I said "I fully grant that coming out to one's family, for example, can be a big deal."

Coming out to non-family members in tight-knit conservative bible-belt communities is always easy as pie, however.
   4329. Shredder Posted: May 02, 2014 at 12:05 AM (#4698637)
The move in/move numbers in Illinois May be skewed by asking people that question after the worst winter in God knows how long, when it's still 40 degrees in late April.
   4330. GregD Posted: May 02, 2014 at 12:08 AM (#4698638)
Wasn't Michael Sam's father the one who denounced his son's homosexuality and claimed he had taught the heterosexuality by taking them as teenagers to prostitutes?
   4331. CrosbyBird Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:36 AM (#4698682)
And, really, probably a whole slew of top-rated college players could beat her, if a cigarette smoking, beer guzzling, never serious about training low-ranked male player could hand both her and her sister their heads without hardly trying, in matches one after another at the same event.

Well, she lost 6-2, but she was 17 years old. At the time, he said anyone in the top 500 men would beat her.

I think she's probably in the top 1000 but not 500 in the world. I doubt Bobby Riggs would have much of a chance seeing as he's dead.
   4332. CrosbyBird Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:50 AM (#4698683)
Straight white males can't be discriminated against; they can be safely turned down for jobs because they're white; they can be passed over in school admissions in favor of a less accomplished minority, in the name of "Diversity"; they can be the target of nasty jokes and nobody cares.

And yet somehow they manage to get harassed far less frequently by police, they manage to dominate positions of power and wealth, and they are grossly overrepresented in entertainment. They get less serious criminal sentences and serve less time.

I have yet to hear a joke about my whiteness that made me even the least uncomfortable, but there may actually be such an animal. I still think I'll stick with this white heterosexual male thing for a while longer. It's been a great deal for my entire life, although time has gone on, it has gone from an overwhelming advantage to a really good advantage.
   4333. CrosbyBird Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:56 AM (#4698684)
And ask yourself if there is an advantage in thinking that way and promoting that as a truth. To whom is the advantage.

The advantage is in creating awareness that our society is not a meritocracy, but full of structural bias, and working to address the disadvantages that result from that structural bias. As for who benefits, ultimately, the answer is "everyone who has an interest in creating a society that is closer to a meritocracy and less of an oligarchy."

There's a tendency here among the progressives to think that nothing in the last 50 years, much less the last 150 years, has changed when it comes to race.

Things have gotten remarkably better when it comes to race (and sex and the disabled and sexual orientation and gender identity). Society is absolutely trending in the right direction; every generation gets a little better at it. But there's a long way to go from where we started and we're not close to all the way there.
   4334. BrianBrianson Posted: May 02, 2014 at 06:01 AM (#4698688)
I absolutely respect your self-identification as "non-gendered" if that's really how you view and present yourself. Hell, if you view yourself as non-gendered and present as male, but tell me that you just do that to "pass" easily without actually feeling your maleness, then I'll respect that too.


But, of course, I haven't said that I'm not gendered. I said very explicitly I'm gendered, in the same way a fence is painted - it's a layer that's applied to my exterior by other people. That's what being gendered is. It's not what having a gender identity is, but it is what being gendered is.

If you dress like a man, and walk like a man, and talk like a man, then you're presenting as male-gendered. If you tell me that yes, you've actually considered it, and don't really feel a sense of maleness outside of your private parts, then I will respect that. If you just have never bothered to think about it, then I'm not sure that you don't have an actual male identity as opposed to thinking you have no gender at all. (I never thought about it consciously until I learned about what gender was, at which point it became obvious to me that I was male-gendered.)


Nobody has mistaken me for a woman since I was about 15 (before that, often long hair + often shy meant occasionally). These days, Beard + 6'3" is enough that everyone identifies me as a man. But again, you're entirely ignoring anything internal to me, and focussing on how I'm perceived by other people to construct my maleness. So Maleness = how other people perceive me. Of course, once I thought about what gender I have, it was also obvious to me I'm a male. And then when I thought about how I got that gender, it was clear it was given to me by my doctor "It's a boy", my parents, and so on. And when I thought about what it meant, it meant people perceive my actions certain ways, treat me certain ways, expect certain things from me. But it doesn't come from me, it comes from them.

The place where I disagree with you is that, at least as an adult, the way others treat me is irrelevant to me. If the rest of the world starts treating me as if I am female, my gender will not change. I am male, and maleness feels right in my skin, and female will never feel right in my skin. At least not in this culture. I suppose there might be a culture where the thousands of tiny factors that make up my personality are more aligned with a female identity, but not one I know of on this planet.

EDIT: But if you're going to say that you're non-gendered while manifesting a presentation and social identity as male, with a male name, either you're not being truly honest or you're doing a lot of work to pretend to be something you're not.


For starters, transgendered people, and transvestites, experience a lot more violence than non-transvestites and non-transgendered people. Transgendered people get murdered a whole lot more than non-transgendered people too. Whether or not other people assault and/or murder me ain't irrelevant to me, and I suspect it ain't actually irrelevant to you either. (Warning: Non-male behaviour coming!) And I rather like having friends, so it matters some what people think of me. I need a job. So it matters what people think of me. Other cases less, but it's not irrelevant.

Beyond which, it's completely wrong to suggest presenting as male is a lot of work. If I do literally nothing, I'll be 6'3" and have a beard, and everyone will identify me as male. If I go into clothing stores and buy the first item of clothes I find that fits me, I'm invariably going to end up with clothes that are gendered male, because clothes in my size are almost invariably made for me. Actually, I rather like wearing a kilt, and would be pretty open to skirts if I could find them, and not get ostracized, but neither of those are really the case. I knit a lot of my own clothes (which of course would be me putting a lot of effort into performing femininity if I were a woman, but is just nothing because I'm a man), and because they're sized to me, they still "look male". Even if it's in light colours with fair isle or cabling that'd clearly be performing femininity if I were a woman.

And my name was given to me by my parents. It's on my birth certificate, my passport, my work visa. It's no work to keep it, but it would be a lot of work to change it. Unless you swim strongly against the current, you're going to be perceived by everybody as performing (masculinity/femininity). Just by the shape of your silhouette. By your name. By your height. By the hair on your face (or lack thereof). Presenting as male is far easier than not presenting as male. Parsing my closet, all but two of the shirts I own were gifts. Wearing male-looking clothes is easier than not again!

Fundamentally, you keep assuming "Other people perceive you as male = your self-identity is male", without any reasoning or evidence it's true.
   4335. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 06:20 AM (#4698689)
they manage to dominate positions of power and wealth, and they are grossly overrepresented in entertainment.

Well, yeah -- society values "male" traits more than other traits. It isn't males dominating those positions, it's people "performing" male. Since "gender" is so fluid and we're all just "performing" anyway, non-males can simply adopt "male" traits and the purported domination will end.

This is the natural end of the (fatuous) idea that there are such things as "male" traits and norms.
   4336. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 06:30 AM (#4698690)
Another take on Sterling's chances of remaining the owner of the Clippers:

Little Recourse for Sterling

Q. Does Silver have the right to do this?

A. Commissioners usually have broad powers to punish owners, team executives, players and coaches. In Sterling’s case, the power to bar and fine him is clearly laid out in the N.B.A. constitution. But the power to get rid of Sterling as the Clippers’ owner is not stated as obviously. Making racist comments is not one of the specific grounds listed in the constitution to terminate Sterling’s ownership. Silver appears to be broadly interpreting a clause that would allow termination when an owner fails to fulfill his contractual duties, and adversely affects the league and fellow owners.

Q. Has the process of removing Sterling begun?

A. Yes. The league’s advisory and finance committee met on Thursday to begin the process of pushing Sterling out.

Q. Where does it go from there?

A. The league’s advisory/finance committee voted unanimously on Thursday to proceed with terminating Sterling’s ownership of the Clippers, which sets the stage for Silver to file charges against Sterling. Once he does, he must provide Sterling with a copy of them within three days. Once Sterling has received the charges, he has five days to produce a written reply. Silver then must provide the charges and answers to the league’s Board of Governors, which will then call a special hearing on the case. (Failing to respond within five days would be viewed as an admission of guilt.) The hearing must be held no more than 10 days after Sterling has responded to the charges.

Q. What will happen at the hearing?

A. It is not technically a judicial hearing because strict rules of evidence will not apply. But Sterling can bring a lawyer and evidence. After the hearing, a three-quarters vote, or 23 of the 30 owners, would be required to oust him. With so many of the owners voicing outrage about Sterling’s comments and backing Silver’s actions, it seems likely that Silver has the necessary votes....

Q. What are Sterling’s legal options?

A. The league’s constitution is blunt: The decision to terminate “shall be final, binding and conclusive,” and the person ousted “waives any and all recourse to any court of law to review any such decision.” That does not mean Sterling will not sue the N.B.A. in federal court on antitrust grounds for, possibly, conspiring to cause him economic damage. But he would probably have to prove that excluding him would diminish competition for basketball in the Los Angeles market. “Antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, and it’s not as if they’d be eliminating the team,” said Jim Quinn, a litigator at Weil, Gotshal & Manges with an expertise in sports antitrust law. “Somebody else will own the Clippers. There’s a decent chance he’d file a case like that and that it will be kicked out on a motion.”
   4337. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 06:31 AM (#4698691)
"I don't think society should spend $1 trillion to try to cure thyroid cancer."

"Have you ever actually spoken with a thyroid cancer patient in your whole life? Would you say that to their face when they're on their deathbed?"

"No, it would be very rude and out of place."

"HYPOCRITE!!!"

   4338. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 06:41 AM (#4698692)
Oh, and in the Man Bites Dog Story of The Day:

Florida Advances Tuition Aid for Children Brought to U.S. Illegally

Is it possible that a few Republicans are taking the hint?

MIAMI — After weeks of hand-wringing in the State Legislature and last-minute attempts by Senate leaders to scuttle the effort, the Florida Senate on Thursday voted to make students who were brought to the United States illegally as children eligible for in-state college tuition, an issue dominated by political calculations at least as much as policy ones.

The vote, 26 to 13, capped off an emotional debate on the Senate floor over the importance of giving talented Florida students, the so-called Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children by their parents, the chance to have access to affordable higher education.

Looking up at the gallery filled with the students, an emotional Senator Jack Latvala, the Republican lawmaker who fought to revive the bill, said he saw the “hopeful eyes cast down on us today that are thinking about their future, about how they are going to get an education and provide for their families just as we all have tried to do.”

Attorney General Mark R. Herring in March in Petersburg, Va. Republicans accused him of thwarting legislative debate.
Virginia Attorney General Opens In-State Tuition to Students Brought to U.S. IllegallyAPRIL 29, 2014

“Their eyes are on us today as are the eyes of the country because Florida is a big and diverse state,” he added....

The amended bill will now move to the House, which has already passed it once, and then head to Gov. Rick Scott for his signature, making Florida the 20th state to offer some kind of in-state tuition to students brought to the country illegally....

The amended bill will now move to the House, which has already passed it once, and then head to Gov. Rick Scott for his signature, making Florida the 20th state to offer some kind of in-state tuition to students brought to the country illegally....

For now, some Republicans view the in-state tuition bill as a step in the right direction, one that will benefit children in vulnerable positions. “This is about upward mobility, about a subset of our population that has attended our public schools,” said State Representative Jeanette Nuñez, a Miami Republican who sponsored the bill in the House. “We have spent tens of thousands of dollars educating them and it doesn’t make sense to hold these children back.”


Or as Ray and Blanks might want to put it: This isn't 1964 anymore.
   4339. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 07:40 AM (#4698693)
"I don't think society should spend $1 trillion to try to cure thyroid cancer."

"Have you ever actually spoken with a thyroid cancer patient in your whole life? Would you say that to their face when they're on their deathbed?"

"No, it would be very rude and out of place."

"HYPOCRITE!!!"


For all those using said descriptors for the left, remember please that there is no one here more aflutter, dramatic, and hysterical on these issues than SBB.
   4340. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:01 AM (#4698697)
Well, yeah -- society values "male" traits more than other traits. It isn't males dominating those positions, it's people "performing" male. Since "gender" is so fluid and we're all just "performing" anyway, non-males can simply adopt "male" traits and the purported domination will end.


Yes, the simple solution for everyone is just to "perform white male." Instant Can O' Privilege.
   4341. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:22 AM (#4698699)
And yet somehow they manage to get harassed far less frequently by police, they manage to dominate positions of power and wealth, and they are grossly overrepresented in entertainment.


Some cultures commit more crime than others. Some cultures emphasize education more than others.

I have yet to hear a joke about my whiteness that made me even the least uncomfortable, but there may actually be such an animal.


So the test for whether a joke is offensive to a group is whether we can find one member of the group who is not uncomfortable or offended?
   4342. CrosbyBird Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:29 AM (#4698702)
(Warning: Non-male behaviour coming!)

Caring about what other people think isn't "non-male" behavior. It's "functional member of society" behavior.

Your gender isn't tied up in whether you like football or knitting (although there is societal "guidance" toward the former if you are male and away from the latter if you are not a woman). Your gender becomes relevant if you gravitate toward or away from particular things because you identify with the activity specifically as an expression of gender.

I'm not talking about weighing your desire against social pressure and choosing the "easy" path. I'm talking about identifying with that activity as gender expression.

Fundamentally, you keep assuming "Other people perceive you as male = your self-identity is male", without any reasoning or evidence it's true.

Quite the opposite. I would say that how other people perceive you is irrelevant to your gender identity (outside of the initial assignment of gender, which almost always takes place long before you have the capacity as a developed human being to have an identity at all).

However, your presentation is a fairly reliable indicator of your personal gender identity. Not perfect, of course, because you might be deliberately or accidentally expressing a gender that differs from your self-identification.

I strongly suspect that you, like me, are genetically/biologically male and were assigned male gender at or before birth, and since the gender assignment was correct, you experience no dissonance between your identity and your gender assignment. This means all the stuff that happens by default is the "easy" part. You don't feel like some sort of stranger in your own body when you assume the male role.

If your parents deliberately assigned you the female gender before you developed your own identity due to, say, a botched circumcision, it is pretty likely that you would have ended up feeling "off" in some way (since the overwhelming majority of people have a matched gender/sex). Being assigned the "wrong" gender would likely have caused some body-identity dissonance (even with hormone therapy to prevent male secondary sex characteristics), no matter how many people treated you as female or expected you to behave as a female.
   4343. zonk Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:30 AM (#4698703)
The move in/move numbers in Illinois May be skewed by asking people that question after the worst winter in God knows how long, when it's still 40 degrees in late April.


Yeah - may not be the whole story, but I've lived in the midwest my whole life and I think this was far and away the worst one I can remember... Others had their big snow events, but this one started rather early, never gave us a break, and went really, really late. It was damn near five months of consistently cold, consistent snow.

It's been brutal... and it's already May - but we've still had just a handful of "spring" days.
   4344. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:38 AM (#4698705)
Well, yeah -- society values "male" traits more than other traits. It isn't males dominating those positions, it's people "performing" male. Since "gender" is so fluid and we're all just "performing" anyway, non-males can simply adopt "male" traits and the purported domination will end.


Ann Coulter - gender justice warrior.
   4345. CrosbyBird Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:41 AM (#4698707)
So the test for whether a joke is offensive to a group is whether we can find one member of the group who is not uncomfortable or offended?

Certainly not. What I said in the paragraph below that you didn't cite is that even if there are such jokes that would be offensive, that I would still find it a very easy decision should I be presented with the option of choosing whiteness and maleness. All things being equal, it isn't just clearly better to be a white male in modern American society, but clearly much better.

Although I am genuinely curious as to what sort of white male joke you might find offensive, because I've never heard one that was remotely offensive. My tolerance for what others find offensive is quite high, so I freely concede that there may be some real zingers out there that I somehow can't see as offensive in the way "What's green and sits on my porch?" clearly is (even though even that outrageously racist joke doesn't offend me).

What offends me is when someone deliberately distorts my position, especially when I have good reason to believe that the person doing so is intelligent enough to know better.
   4346. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:51 AM (#4698712)
Yes, the simple solution for everyone is just to "perform white male." Instant Can O' Privilege.


Well hey studies have shown that resumes with "white" names get more response than those with "black" names, so you are on to something. Of course I would rather work towards a fair and unbiased society rather than force people to change their name.
   4347. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:54 AM (#4698715)
Here's a story that should make everyone smile. It goes a long way towards explaining how a racist like Donald Sterling managed to get a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from a local branch of the NAACP. The link is worth opening just for the illustration at the top of the article.

N.A.A.C.P. Scrutinizes Branch Over Honor for Clippers Owner

When the racist words of the Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling spilled out in a recording last week, the incident not only caused the N.B.A. to ban Mr. Sterling for life, it also drew attention to the N.A.A.C.P.’s small Los Angeles branch, which had been planning to honor him with a lifetime achievement award this month.

Officials from the California state conference of the N.A.A.C.P. are reviewing why the branch was planning to give one of its highest awards to Mr. Sterling, who has been accused of making racially offensive comments and discriminating against blacks and Hispanics before, a person familiar with the review said.

At the center of that investigation is the man that many people familiar with the Los Angeles branch say spearheaded the effort to honor Mr. Sterling, Leon Jenkins, its president. Under Mr. Jenkins’s leadership, the branch gave Mr. Sterling a similar award in 2009. On Thursday evening, Mr. Jenkins resigned, saying in a letter to the national group that he wanted to “separate the Los Angeles N.A.A.C.P. and the N.A.A.C.P. from the negative exposure I have caused the N.A.A.C.P.”...

Mr. Jenkins, who became a judge in a Detroit district court in 1983, was removed from the bench in 1991 and disbarred in Michigan in 1994 for soliciting or accepting bribes that included money and firearms to dismiss traffic citations, misstating his address to lower his insurance premiums, encouraging a person to commit perjury and other ethical violations, according to Michigan court records.

After a federal investigation led to an indictment, Mr. Jenkins was acquitted. But the Michigan Supreme Court, which oversaw Mr. Jenkins’s work, conducted its own investigation and concluded that from 1984 to 1987, he “systematically and routinely sold his office and his public trust.” The court removed him from the bench, and he was subsequently disbarred in the state.

Mr. Jenkins moved to California but was prevented from practicing law in the state in 2001 because of his problems in Michigan. The state bar has twice rejected his applications for reinstatement, most recently last year, on the grounds that he “failed to establish his rehabilitation from his past misconduct or that he presently possesses the necessary moral qualifications for reinstatement.”

The bar association, in an opinion published last month, praised Mr. Jenkins’s “impressive record of involvement in community service,” primarily with the N.A.A.C.P., noting his success in raising $2 million to host the organization’s national convention in Los Angeles in 2011. But it declined to reinstate him, saying he had failed to disclose a $660,000 debt, had twice misrepresented himself on rental applications and had not disclosed a $25,000 loan from a friend, Leland Spencer, who was also described by the state bar as Mr. Jenkins’s employer.

Mr. Spencer, a restaurant owner in the Los Angeles area, was also scheduled to receive a humanitarian award from the Los Angeles branch of the N.A.A.C.P. at its May 15 dinner. According to the bar association, Mr. Jenkins never repaid Mr. Spencer’s $25,000 loan. One of Mr. Spencer’s restaurants, the Warehouse, also paid Mr. Jenkins $14,575 in 2007, the document shows....
   4348. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:58 AM (#4698716)
Well hey studies have shown that resumes with "white" names get more response than those with "black" names,

Just as Donald "Sterling" probably thought with some justification that that name probably opened more doors than his birth name of "Tokowitz".
   4349. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 08:59 AM (#4698717)
Of course I would rather work towards a fair and unbiased society rather than force people to change their name.


Plenty of Eastern European immigrants changed their names when they came to America. My family did. And these were real family names with lengthy histories, not some homemade mishmash of apostrophes and the prefix "la". And of course nobody forced them to do it, aside from any misilliterations at Ellis Island. When you see a chance to improve your family's prospects some people move to take advantage and others stand on principle and suffer.

Just as Donald "Sterling" probably thought with some justification that that name probably opened more doors than his birth name of "Tokowitz".


And there you go.
   4350. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:00 AM (#4698718)
Q. What are Sterling’s legal options?

A. The league’s constitution is blunt: The decision to terminate “shall be final, binding and conclusive,” and the person ousted “waives any and all recourse to any court of law to review any such decision.” That does not mean Sterling will not sue the N.B.A. in federal court on antitrust grounds for, possibly, conspiring to cause him economic damage. But he would probably have to prove that excluding him would diminish competition for basketball in the Los Angeles market. “Antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, and it’s not as if they’d be eliminating the team,” said Jim Quinn, a litigator at Weil, Gotshal & Manges with an expertise in sports antitrust law. “Somebody else will own the Clippers. There’s a decent chance he’d file a case like that and that it will be kicked out on a motion.”


I don't think this flies with a Federal judge. The idea that the league gets to violate its Constitution to take a team from an owner, and then gets to hide behind the fact that said Constitution says you can't appeal, would be pretty much a farce of justice.

And this part shows such a laughable lack of historical knowledge, that I doubt this "expert" is one.

“Antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, and it’s not as if they’d be eliminating the team,”

Anti-trust laws were established to protect other competitors from the predatory action of the "Trusts". The 19th century trusts generally were good for consumers in that the vast economies of scale they brought lowered consumer prices even with the extraction of monopoly profits. The biggest complaint against Rockefeller's Standard Oil was that he used monopoly power to get preferential rates from the railroads, allowing him to undercut his competitors. That was great for consumers, bad for competitors.
   4351. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:02 AM (#4698719)
What offends me is when someone deliberately distorts my position, especially when I have good reason to believe that the person doing so is intelligent enough to know better.

Considering that the person you're addressing this to has been distorting his opponents' positions on pretty much everything for the past seven years, at some point you might want to consider the alternate explanation.
   4352. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:05 AM (#4698720)
Q. What are Sterling’s legal options?

A. The league’s constitution is blunt: The decision to terminate “shall be final, binding and conclusive,” and the person ousted “waives any and all recourse to any court of law to review any such decision.” That does not mean Sterling will not sue the N.B.A. in federal court on antitrust grounds for, possibly, conspiring to cause him economic damage. But he would probably have to prove that excluding him would diminish competition for basketball in the Los Angeles market. “Antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, and it’s not as if they’d be eliminating the team,” said Jim Quinn, a litigator at Weil, Gotshal & Manges with an expertise in sports antitrust law. “Somebody else will own the Clippers. There’s a decent chance he’d file a case like that and that it will be kicked out on a motion.”


I don't think this flies with a Federal judge. The idea that the league gets to violate its Constitution to take a team from an owner, and then gets to hide behind the fact that said Constitution says you can't appeal, would be pretty much a farce of justice.

We won't know for sure until the case goes to trial, but how do you address the second part of that answer?
   4353. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:06 AM (#4698722)
Concerning crime and death and to be further off-topic, people should look up the cinematic life of Walter Walsh, who died at 106 this week. (I'm on my phone, so linking is too troublesome.)
   4354. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:09 AM (#4698724)
Man fired for saying Donald Sterling has the right to be a bigot in private. He worked for the game development studio that made "Left 4 Dead 2", a game that I love. The offender later wrote:

Anyone who follows me knows my tweets were not in support of Sterling's actions. Rather, they were promoting three core tenets I believe in: 1) The harm sensational media presents to society. 2) The importance and sanctity of your privacy within your own home. And 3) The right to be whatever you want to be as an American, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. That last point not to be confused with condoning Sterling's actions, which I don't.

That said, it's disappointing to see that a select few in Turtle Rock and 2K Games management bought into this hysteria without even having a conversation with me - or even thoroughly reviewing the context of the tweets themselves. Ironically, it serves as a great example of why I hold tenet #1 above so close to heart. That said, everyone should totally still buy Evolve. The guys and gals making that game know their ***, and are making it good.


He's completely right - "Evolve" looks awesome.
   4355. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4698725)
I dunno, y'all, shouldn't us lefties just admit that we live in the libertarian paradise where all prejudice has been eliminated for generations now, and the innate capacities of all genders and races are transparently reflected in the social order? It might be time to 'fess up :-D

I rather like wearing a kilt

There was a guy wearing a kilt at the Ft Worth Opera the other night, looked a bit like James Cromwell, heck maybe it was. Always an example of how arbitrary clothing can be, because it's a very masculine garment particularly in highly formal situations like this one. That's one of the strange things about gender markers: they are arbitrary and highly contingent, but they are also often univocal: who knows why in the #### a kilt should be a macho thing to wear, but it definitely is.

I wore black jeans and boots to the opera, also a formal gesture in Ft Worth particularly if accompanied by a Western jacket. But jeans, boots, and workshirts can be pretty unisex items here, and they're also highly functional. But they also code "cowboy" and there is some anxiety expressed at times by others over whether one is entitled to them. A 60something guy came up to me in the supermarket a few weeks ago and asked if I had a horse, in an almost challenging way. Well, La Dernière does have a horse, and I help out with the horse, so I was able to meet the challenge. Then the guy says "I couldn't ever get up on a horse. A horse threw me once and I've been scared of them ever since." But he's still going around policing the boundaries of dress semiotics :)
   4356. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4698727)
We won't know for sure until the case goes to trial, but how do you address the second part of that answer?

see my edit to [4350]. The expert doesn't know what he's talking about. Anti-trust laws were established to protect competitors, and thus indirectly serve consumers. It's always a competitor that brings an anti-trust suit, not a class-action of consumers. e.g. MCI against AT&T, Netscape against Microsoft.

If the others owners conspired to force out the Steinbrenners and the Dodger ownership, in order to install ownership that would spend less, that would be clear anti-competitive behavior.
   4357. BrianBrianson Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4698730)
Quite the opposite. I would say that how other people perceive you is irrelevant to your gender identity


Yes, of course, how other people perceive you is irrelevant to your gender identity. But how other people perceive you is your gender. This is why transgendered people dress as the gender they want, have cosmetic surgery to bring their appearance in line with the other sex, etc. To bring their gender identity (how they think of themselves/feel) in line with their gender (how other people perceive/treat them).

But to assert that I'm a man, you haven't used anything about how I think/feel about myself. Every piece of evidence for that comes from how other people treat me. As for Your gender becomes relevant if you gravitate toward or away from particular things because you identify with the activity specifically as an expression of gender., I can't possibly imagine doing that. What does it even mean? I do things that range from being perceived as extremely male (do I? I fix my own car sometimes) to things that're perceived as extremely feminine (where knitting my own clothes is a handy example). But none of them express my gender. Whether an activity is stereotypically male, female, or neuter doesn't change how I feel about it, or doing it.

If your parents deliberately assigned you the female gender before you developed your own identity due to, say, a botched circumcision, it is pretty likely that you would have ended up feeling "off" in some way


Asserted without evidence, and I would suggest extremely unlikely. I would take it as a reasonable null hypothesis that given ~1% of people have a gender identity and an assigned gender that don't match, ~1% of people have a gender identity and assigned gender that do match. Anything beyond that would take some decent evidence (since there's in fact no evidence, and it seems exceedingly unlikely given that gender is assigned without regard for gender identity).

I'm not talking about weighing your desire against social pressure and choosing the "easy" path.

You are, because you're taking gender expression as something people work at to express themselves. If dressing like a man took more effort than just dressing, and other people were neutral about it, you'd be right. But both of those statements are farcically wrong. That I wear men's clothes isn't an expression of my identity. It's the easiest way for me to wear clothes that fit, and not be harassed (which is easy enough to see in my statement that almost all of my shirts were gifts. I didn't decide I should wear men's shirts. Other people did. I just didn't fight it.) None of my activities are gender expression. Some are stereotypically male, and so people latch on to those to label me a man. Others are stereotypically female, so people ignore them, or rationalize them away. But until people reward/punish me for acting congruently/incongruently with my assigned gender, they're the same for me.
   4358. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4698731)
There's a tendency here among the progressives to think that nothing in the last 50 years, much less the last 150 years, has changed when it comes to race. That the many private ombudsman organizations don't exist, that private don't exist, that laws on race aren't what they are now, and that the courts remain closed wrt all this. Come out of the time warp.


Do you have any evidence for this bizarre assertion? Because I have heard no liberal state this in any forum ever. In fact I have heard no one state this ever, liberal, conservative or other.
   4359. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4698733)
Yes, of course, how other people perceive you is irrelevant to your gender identity. But how other people perceive you is your gender. This is why transgendered people dress as the gender they want, have cosmetic surgery to bring their appearance in line with the other sex, etc. To bring their gender identity (how they think of themselves/feel) in line with their gender (how other people perceive/treat them).


My ex is much happier now to be seen and treated as a male. This is fairly typical. People want to (in general) have the world in "alignment", and having one's own body aligning with one's own perception and also have others treat you in agreement with that alignment has to be much better than a constant conflict where the three are not in alignment.

The idea that wanting others to see you as you see yourself is a mental illness strikes me as more than a little odd. (Not that you are, just making that as a side point).
   4360. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4698739)
We won't know for sure until the case goes to trial, but how do you address the second part of that answer?

see my edit to [4350]


Okay, here's what you added after I'd replied to the first part:

Anti-trust laws were established to protect other competitors from the predatory action of the "Trusts". The 19th century trusts generally were good for consumers in that the vast economies of scale they brought lowered consumer prices even with the extraction of monopoly profits. The biggest complaint against Rockefeller's Standard Oil was that he used monopoly power to get preferential rates from the railroads, allowing him to undercut his competitors. That was great for consumers, bad for competitors.

But protection for competitors is only half of the story behind anti-trust legislation. The other half is that consumers eventually suffer from fewer choices. From the consumer's standpoint, it's always going to be a balance between greater efficiencies and too much power in the hands of too few hands. I'm not saying how a judge would view Sterling's case, but I doubt if the competition in the Los Angeles market is going to be damaged by actions taken against one rogue owner when there are a host of others willing to take his place.

   4361. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4698740)
I didn't decide I should wear men's shirts. Other people did

Fair enough, Brian, but even clothes associated with one gender are not a yes/no proposition. There are degrees of masculinity and femininity within both ranges of clothing, and a lot of overlap. Somebody mentioned ties upthread, and they are very male across a whole range of colors and patterns. But there is also a women's look with vest and skirt and subdued tie that is distinctly feminine despite taking its general cue from a tailored masculine look. Then there's the weird phenomenon of hirsute guys in skinny jeans, which is low on the testosterone chart but extremely hetero. My point is, that though we have to deal with the palette we're given, we always make choices among the very complex range of options there. And that's just clothes!
   4362. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4698757)
Although I am genuinely curious as to what sort of white male joke you might find offensive

Are "Polacks" white males?
   4363. BrianBrianson Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4698758)
Indeed, and you note that a kilt is a very masculinely perceived garment, but all the girls going to the Catholic School down the street from my house when I was a teenager wore kilts (or at least, pleated plaid or tartan skirts), and I didn't perceive them as masculine in the least. And as I recall, I spent a fair bit of time and effort perceiving. The gendering by and large ain't in the item or activity, it's in the mind of the people watching.
   4364. Mefisto Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4698759)
The advantage is in creating awareness that our society is not a meritocracy, but full of structural bias, and working to address the disadvantages that result from that structural bias. As for who benefits, ultimately, the answer is "everyone who has an interest in creating a society that is closer to a meritocracy and less of an oligarchy."


Nicely phrased.
   4365. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4698763)
But protection for competitors is only half of the story behind anti-trust legislation. The other half is that consumers eventually suffer from fewer choices. From the consumer's standpoint, it's always going to be a balance between greater efficiencies and too much power in the hands of too few hands. I'm not saying how a judge would view Sterling's case, but I doubt if the competition in the Los Angeles market is going to be damaged by actions taken against one rogue owner when there are a host of others willing to take his place.

Right, but in most anti-trust litigation no actual harm to the consumer is demonstrated. Often the consumer is doing well in the short term, e.g. Microsoft giving away Explorer for free, or a firm selling at cost to undercut rivals. It is the competitor that is harmed in the short term, the long-term harm to the consumer is assumed, but need not be demonstrated.

If the NBA can oust owners outside of the terms of their Constitution, what is to prevent them from using that power in ways that hurt the consumer? Refer back to my example about MLB replacing the Yankees and Dodgers owners with ownership that won't spend so much. If an owner can be ousted for being a racist (which is not in the NBA Constitution) why can't they oust an owner for spending too much?
   4366. Shredder Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:00 AM (#4698764)
Yeah - may not be the whole story, but I've lived in the midwest my whole life and I think this was far and away the worst one I can remember... Others had their big snow events, but this one started rather early, never gave us a break, and went really, really late. It was damn near five months of consistently cold, consistent snow.
It did have the highest percentage (of the states listed) that said their decision would be based on weather, so there's probably something to that. A lot of if could be all of the butt-hurt down staters who want to secede as well (and good riddance, I say). I would imagine that might fit into the "quality of life" category, only because I can't think of anywhere else it would be slotted, except maybe taxes. Illinois was pretty high in those categories as well.
   4367. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4698766)
It is nicely-phrased, but to the degree that there's "structural bias" in the system, it's trait-based -- not sex or race-based. If different sexes and races have different traits, you wouldn't expect equal outcomes.

Note, again: We weren't the ones who said different sexes and races have different traits (or "norms"). That was other people, primarily the usual suspects.
   4368. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4698768)
The advantage is in creating awareness that our society is not a meritocracy, but full of structural bias, and working to address the disadvantages that result from that structural bias. As for who benefits, ultimately, the answer is "everyone who has an interest in creating a society that is closer to a meritocracy and less of an oligarchy."


(Aside):
Once I would have suggested meritocracy is the goal and a worthy one at that. While I think it better than oligarchy, I am not sure pure meritocracy is what I want from a society. Not that I think we need to worry about pure meritocracy in actuality any time soon, but I think veneration of meritocracy is part of the problem we see today, echoed in the sentiment that the rich "deserve" everything they have and more, because of merit!

I like the idea of merit driving rewards to a certain level, if only because it results in efficient economics (most economic theory is based on the idea that the economy is largely merit based in its pure form). I guess it is not a surprise I have the same misgivings about meritocracy that I do about pure capitalism. I acknowledge it is extremely efficient and effective, but I am not sure in its purer forms it is efficient and effective towards the right goals.

And yes I realize I am cheating a bit because you never said nor implied anything about "pure meritocracy", I am just using your statement as a jumping off point.
   4369. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4698772)
It is nicely-phrased, but to the degree that there's "structural bias" in the system, it's trait-based -- not sex or race-based. If different sexes and races have different traits, you wouldn't expect equal outcomes.


This is basically a BS assertion. The scare quotes around "structural bias" are awesome. And the conflation of outcome with merit and the assumptions therein. Really nice.
   4370. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4698773)
all the girls going to the Catholic School down the street from my house when I was a teenager wore kilts

But not all plaid skirts are kilts. Did these girls wear sporrans? I think I have to run some Google searches on this, I'll be back in a couple of hours …
   4371. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4698776)
Ukraine continues to spiral ...


KIEV, Ukraine — In an apparent bid to deter Ukrainian government forces from pressing ahead with a surprise assault on the eastern Ukraine flashpoint town of Slovyansk, pro-Russian separatists this morning abducted several Western journalists and cameramen, then released most of them when the attack on the town subsided.

The journalist abductions came as President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, warned that Kiev’s military operations this morning against Slovyansk had “killed the last hope” for the Geneva accord, a deal agreed last month that was aimed at defusing the Ukraine crisis. He described Ukraine’s operation as “punitive”.

Anti-terrorist units loyal to the government in Kiev launched their attacks at dawn on checkpoints mainly to the north and northwest of the town. Separatists overseen by Russian military intelligence officers responded using a shoulder-launched missile to down a military helicopter, killing the pilot. They also splattered with rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire another government helicopter carrying medical staff, according to Ukraine’s interior minister, Arsen Avakov. At least one paramedic was wounded. By mid-day the Ukrainian government had confirmed two of its choppers had been downed.
   4372. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4698777)
Right, but in most anti-trust litigation no actual harm to the consumer is demonstrated. Often the consumer is doing well in the short term, e.g. Microsoft giving away Explorer for free, or a firm selling at cost to undercut rivals. It is the competitor that is harmed in the short term, the long-term harm to the consumer is assumed, but need not be demonstrated.

But you still haven't demonstrated the harm to competition in the LA area, other than the harm to one particular rogue competitor, who can easily be replaced.

If the NBA can oust owners outside of the terms of their Constitution, what is to prevent them from using that power in ways that hurt the consumer? Refer back to my example about MLB replacing the Yankees and Dodgers owners with ownership that won't spend so much. If an owner can be ousted for being a racist (which is not in the NBA Constitution) why can't they oust an owner for spending too much?

Anything's theoretically possible, but in a case like that the players and the media would all be lined up in opposition to the ouster, rather than giving it their wholehearted support. And again, while the rationale in your case would be to limit the competition for the best players, there's nothing in Sterling's removal that would have any such effect---if anything, the new owners would likely be more willing to invest in the team than Sterling has been over the years.
   4373. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4698778)
It would seem to me that if a person goes to a psychiatrist and says "I have a problem eating in public," the first step of the psychiatrist would not be to wave his hands and immediately announce that the patient has no problem; it would be to gather information, diagnose the problem, and propose a remedy or treatment.


The first step would be to assure the patient that he was a victim of cis-eaters and their eating privilege.
   4374. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4698781)
Plenty of Eastern European immigrants changed their names when they came to America. My family did. And these were real family names with lengthy histories, not some homemade mishmash of apostrophes and the prefix "la". And of course nobody forced them to do it, aside from any misilliterations at Ellis Island.


"My made-up fake name is totally cooler than your made-up fake name".
   4375. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4698783)
Of course it is. My made up name helps me and my family - I think the evidence is in on that. Your made up name is purportedly a barrier to entry - according to 4346, at least. It's why we take kids away from men who name their sons "Adolph Hitler Johnson".
   4376. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4698784)
The idea that wanting others to see you as you see yourself is a mental illness strikes me as more than a little odd. (Not that you are, just making that as a side point).


Because why should we humor delusional people and pretend we see them as something they're not?
   4377. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4698785)

Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is battling cancer, sources have confirmed to ESPN.com.

The news, which was first reported by the New York Post, came as other NBA owners took initial steps to forcing Sterling to sell the Clippers, which lost 100-99 Thursday in its playoff match-up against the Golden State Warriors.

...

The Post, citing sources, reported that Sterling, 80, has been battling prostate cancer for an extended period of time.


Interesting. Certainly might explain why he decided he needed to start recording his "wisdom" for posterity. I wonder if it will affect his decision making in responding to what the NBA will try and do.
   4378. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4698790)
All things being equal, it isn't just clearly better to be a white male in modern American society, but clearly much better.


And you offered no counter to my points about preferences in school admissions and hiring/firing decisions for minorities in modern American Society.

I'm 40 and so for my entire adult life racist comments or jokes have not been accepted or tolerated in polite society or in workplace environments bigger than mom & pop stores; preferential treatment has been given to minorities over white males in hiring/firing decisions in many circumstances and settings. No business or company of any size worries about how many straight white males it has on its roster; no business or company of any size worries what will happen if it gives a job to a minority over a white male -- in fact, they actively seek to give jobs to minorities over white males. Companies DO shy away from hiring white males over minority candidates. The larger corporations in particular actively shut out white males so that their diversity numbers are in order. If you don't believe me, "Go ask Go ask Go ask" someone in a hiring/firing position at a major corporation. It's also more difficult to fire minority candidates, and companies have to keep documentation of the candidate's problems at work so that they can defend themselves against a discrimination lawsuit later if one occurs.

Although I am genuinely curious as to what sort of white male joke you might find offensive, because I've never heard one that was remotely offensive.


Well, I personally don't get offended by anything, but I'd begin by citing the jokes against "rednecks." Under what circumstances are similar jokes towards minorities tolerated?
   4379. Publius Publicola Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4698791)
Man fired for saying Donald Sterling has the right to be a bigot in private. He worked for the game development studio that made "Left 4 Dead 2", a game that I love. The offender later wrote:

Anyone who follows me knows my tweets were not in support of Sterling's actions. Rather, they were promoting three core tenets I believe in: 1) The harm sensational media presents to society. 2) The importance and sanctity of your privacy within your own home. And 3) The right to be whatever you want to be as an American, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. That last point not to be confused with condoning Sterling's actions, which I don't.


Note to self: Immediately terminate Twitter account.
   4380. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4698795)
Because why should we humor delusional people and pretend we see them as something they're not?


Well, we tolerate you, so yes, apparently.

The question in regard to gender identity questions is simple. Do we require that the individual define themselves as demanded by the majority (i.e. "this is your biological junk, this is how society expects you to perform/behave due to the dint of your biology, so suck it up and be what we tell you to be") or do we require society to acknowledge the internal identity of the person and accommodate that internalized individual self above the social conventions associated with brute biology?

I know TGF's answer to this. As a neo-reactionary, he will defer to the authoritarian solution of the former. But folks like Ray, who at least toy about the edges of libertarian thought and hue heavily to concepts of individual freedom and individual identity above the "mob" when it suits them (mostly in economic discussions) should not share TGF's Putinism if they are being principled on the matter of individualism. As such, Ray's demand that we call internal gender displacement a "mental illness" is at odds with his economic libertarianism.
   4381. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4698796)
And you offered no counter to my points about preferences in school admissions and hiring/firing decisions for minorities in modern American Society.


That's because the "preferences" you cite don't make it better to be non-white, non-male; they just make it less bad to be so. You confuse closing the gaps created by privilege with privileging the other.
   4382. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4698798)
There's a tendency here among the progressives to think that nothing in the last 50 years, much less the last 150 years, has changed when it comes to race. That the many private ombudsman organizations don't exist, that private don't exist, that laws on race aren't what they are now, and that the courts remain closed wrt all this. Come out of the time warp.


Do you have any evidence for this bizarre assertion? Because I have heard no liberal state this in any forum ever. In fact I have heard no one state this ever, liberal, conservative or other.


Liberals pay lip service to admitting "progress" when it comes to race relations. But every other word and action from them belies that. Every comment from them on social issues or social policy has at its core that straight white males are still oppressing minorities. They ignore the vast social changes that have been made when discussing things like "privilege." They applaud when a black person (Doug Glanville) writes a column falsely claiming that he was a victim of "shoveling while black." They ignore minority preferences in hiring and firing decisions, minority preferences in school admissions. They claim that affirmative action is a core necessity -- while simultaneously claiming that no minority anywhere, ever, has ever benefitted from it.
   4383. Joey B. Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4698802)
By the way, it's May, and therefore officially time for a new Red Diaper Baby Thread.

Perhaps the extra web hit provided by the new thread entry will help to boost our pathetic 0.1% GDP growth economy.
   4384. Shredder Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4698803)
It's a sad day for gun rights when a judge and jury say you aren't allowed to set a trap for burglars in your home, wait in the basement with guns, water, energy bars, and a tarp for cleaning up, and shoot two teenagers in cold blood. What's this country coming to when setting up a deer stand and hunting teenagers is no longer legal? Fortunately, pending a trial in Montana, there may still be some states where going after "the most dangerous game" is still allowed.
   4385. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4698804)
Perhaps the extra web hit provided by the new thread entry will help to boost our pathetic 0.1% GDP growth economy.


The Dow Jones hit a new high this week, that's all the economy important people like me care about.
   4386. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4698805)
Much depends on the definition of "delusional." I've had conversations with people who assured me there were voices in their house at night telling them to hurt themselves, or that the government's conspiracy to flouridate water was giving them chronic backaches. We call these "delusions" because they're highly idiosyncratic, as well as objectively refutable.

Transgender identity isn't like that. A lot of people experience it, in more-or-less similar ways, and it's not objectively refutable: you can't just hold a mirror up to someone and show them they're wrong about it, like you can with the guy who insist's he's Bishop Tutu. You can demean them for whatever hurtful motives you hold important, but you can't just wave away their existence.
   4387. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4698806)
I know TGF's answer to this. As a neo-reactionary, he will defer to the authoritarian solution of the former.


While the former of your options is my solution, there's nothing "authoritarian" about it, nor does it equate to "Putinism" (like that's even a thing). It's simply the way human societies have worked for pretty much all of human history. Society, almost always through a majority, determines what is "normal". And people either toe that line or deal with the consequences. Your issue, and the issue of the left here in general, is that you're at war with the historical concept of normality itself.
   4388. Shredder Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4698807)
They ignore the vast social changes that have been made when discussing things like "privilege."
Right, Ray. It's liberals who say that African Americans have it no better, and maybe even worse today than they did under slavery. Liberals practically can't stop making that claim.
They ignore minority preferences in hiring and firing decisions, minority preferences in school admissions.
While you ignore things like nepotism, cronyism, preference for legacies in admissions...
while simultaneously claiming that no minority anywhere, ever, has ever benefitted from it.
This is a flat out lie.
   4389. Joey B. Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4698808)
The Dow Jones hit a new high this week, that's all the economy important people like me care about.

Yep, the rainmakers at the Federal Reserve can certainly print virtually unlimited numbers of dollars for the benefit of the banking and investment industries.

Unfortunately, printing money isn't how true wealth and economic growth is generated.
   4390. tshipman Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4698809)
No business or company of any size worries about how many straight white males it has on its roster; no business or company of any size worries what will happen if it gives a job to a minority over a white male -- in fact, they actively seek to give jobs to minorities over white males. Companies DO shy away from hiring white males over minority candidates. The larger corporations in particular actively shut out white males so that their diversity numbers are in order.


They ignore minority preferences in hiring and firing decisions, minority preferences in school admissions.


So Ray, it's your position that there is structural bias against white people and for minorities. The numerous studies showing this not to be the case, and that there is still a structural bias against minorities. How do you square your opinion with the vast amount of evidence to the contrary?

(Disclaimer: some links are PDFs)
   4391. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4698810)
They ignore minority preferences in hiring and firing decisions, minority preferences in school admissions. They claim that affirmative action is a core necessity -- while simultaneously claiming that no minority anywhere, ever, has ever benefitted from it

Talk to the guy standing over there between the woodman and the lion, please :)

Ray, I think personal experience governs a lot of opinions on such subjects, and I'll respect yours. You've experienced, or at least closely observed, reverse discrimination in your line of work. I haven't in my own, despite or perhaps because of the fact that academia is very welcoming of diversity and committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity. Context is everything. I'm a white male; the last time I was on the job market, I applied for a senior position, made the finalist pool, and lost to another white male. My boss is a white male chosen last year from a pool of three white males, etc. I don't see what you describe, but I'll allow that you see it and find it unjust.
   4392. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4698811)
Liberals pay lip service to admitting "progress" when it comes to race relations. But every other word and action from them belies that. Every comment from them on social issues or social policy has at its core that straight white males are still oppressing minorities. They ignore the vast social changes that have been made when discussing things like "privilege." They applaud when a black person (Doug Glanville) writes a column falsely claiming that he was a victim of "shoveling while black." They ignore minority preferences in hiring and firing decisions, minority preferences in school admissions. They claim that affirmative action is a core necessity -- while simultaneously claiming that no minority anywhere, ever, has ever benefitted from it.


You're projecting things you hear on the Upper West Side onto this board, Ray.

On the question of race relations, no liberal or left-libertarian here has denied significant progress since 1964. The fact that we support the continued progress of civil rights, for many different slices of minorities, in no way indicates a failure to recognize progress made in the last 50 years. You are simply wrong on the arguments and arguing with straw on this point.

On the question of hiring/entrance standards, the left here acknowledges that progress have been made (due to Affirmative Action type programs, which you refuse to acknowledge as the driver for the changes over the last 50 years by the way) but do not accept the reactionary claim that "white men are the new oppressed class." Even then, pretty much every left-liberal in this forum acknowledges that we are to a point where we should consider modifications to those processes, while again, not falling prey to your "if we have any preferences in place to combat historical privilege, then the white man is now the real victim" canard.

On the specific question of Glanville, I don't have a user-by-user count, but I personally was on the side of "Glanville was not profiled in this specific incident." YMMV with responses from others, but your shown tendency to ignore what's actually argued and insert your preferred Manhattan-liberalite straw talking point instead gives me pause as to what was actually said.

On the question of Affirmative Action, again, most of the liberals and left-libertarians here have come down on the "we should modify AA to be socio-economic rather than race based" the many times we've had that conversation.

Pay attention to actual arguments.
   4393. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4698812)
Transgender identity isn't like that. A lot of people experience it, in more-or-less similar ways, and it's not objectively refutable: you can't just hold a mirror up to someone and show them they're wrong about it, like you can with the guy who insist's he's Bishop Tutu.


Actually you can. Insisting you're a woman doesn't make you a woman, any more than insisting you're a kangaroo makes you a kangaroo.

You can demean them for whatever hurtful motives you hold important, but you can't just wave away their existence.


Nobody questions the existence of deluded people. I question the insistence that society accept and enable their delusions.
   4394. tshipman Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:02 AM (#4698815)
Also, a really nice employment report today. I know we don't care about these anymore.

The headline number of a drop from 6.7 to 6.3% unemployment is misleading, as it's basically due to a similar size drop in the LFPR. That is the one soft spot of the report, but the rest of it is very good.

288K jobs, with an extra 36K in upward revisions to March/Feb. Very slight gains in hourly wages (but probably not significant).
   4395. Greg K Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4698816)
But they also code "cowboy" and there is some anxiety expressed at times by others over whether one is entitled to them.

One of the quickest ways to have your manhood questioned in the early modern period was to wear the accoutrements of the military without having any actual experience in battle. While serving as Lord Deputy of Ireland, the Earl of Strafford was a pretty formidable force, but he wasn't a military man. When he'd occasionally be required to wear a uniform as part of his office (such as on parade), he'd suddenly become vulnerable to attacks on his legitimacy. Similarly, the Duke of Buckingham served as Lord Admiral during James I's controversial decision to stay out of the Thirty Years War. Him dressing in military garb despite never having fought a battle was treated as perhaps one of the most effeminate things about him (which is saying a lot for Buckingham).

What was fitting for a martial man was dainty and effeminate for an impostor.
   4396. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4698819)
while simultaneously claiming that no minority anywhere, ever, has ever benefitted from it.

This is a flat out lie.


You're right; I neglected to mention Clarence Thomas.

But if it's a lie then please name some specific people who have benefitted from it. Would Barack Obama be one? The world waits.
   4397. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4698820)
Pay attention to actual arguments.

He has been, although unfortunately they're arguments made by Robert Mugabe, and not by anyone on this thread. Ray is continually confusing the United States with Zimbabwe.
   4398. Greg K Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4698821)
But not all plaid skirts are kilts. Did these girls wear sporrans? I think I have to run some Google searches on this, I'll be back in a couple of hours …

Have a good time, see you in time for the Division Series. The history of the kilt as a cultural product is one wild, involved tale.
   4399. Publius Publicola Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4698822)
Unfortunately, printing money isn't how true wealth and economic growth is generated.


Well, how about this tidbit then:
EIA: Tight-oil production pushes up US supply

US tight-oil production averaged 3.22 million b/d in fourth-quarter 2013, pushing overall US crude production to more than 10% of the world's total production, up from 9% in fourth-quarter 2012, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

"The US and Canada are the only major producers of tight oil in the world. In recent years, North American producers have developed technologically advanced drilling and completion processes to produce oil from tight formations," EIA said. Tight oil production in the US represents 91% of all North American tight-oil production; the rest comes from Canada.
   4400. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4698823)
while simultaneously claiming that no minority anywhere, ever, has ever benefitted from it.

This is a flat out lie.


You're right; I neglected to mention Clarence Thomas.

But if it's a lie then please name some specific people who have benefitted from it. Would Barack Obama be one? The world waits.


Exhibit A of what Sam is talking about. As if Shredder were making the claim that no minority has ever benefited from AA, as opposed to denying that liberals have always denied that.
Page 44 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(140 - 4:10pm, Nov 24)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(15 - 4:10pm, Nov 24)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(38 - 4:08pm, Nov 24)
Last: AROM

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4362 - 4:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: JL

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8658 - 4:04pm, Nov 24)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogSources: Kyle Seager nearing $100 million extension with Mariners - Yahoo Sports
(26 - 4:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(149 - 4:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(67 - 4:01pm, Nov 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1027 - 3:57pm, Nov 24)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(130 - 3:48pm, Nov 24)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogWhich Pablo Sandoval Did the Red Sox Buy | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 3:18pm, Nov 24)
Last: zack

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(14 - 3:11pm, Nov 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(10 - 3:10pm, Nov 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSandoval agrees to Red Sox deal, as Boston looks for free agent sweep - CBSSports.com
(21 - 1:53pm, Nov 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(456 - 12:33pm, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

Page rendered in 1.2281 seconds
52 querie(s) executed