Race and Rosario

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Although curiously, people seem more bent on claiming indictment of themselves than actually being indicted.

Why is that, do you think? Will sufficient amounts of righteous indignation make the problem go away?

Yes. Are we more interested in the problem or making ourselves feel good?

 

Because that's what this argument about the argument boils down to: I'm okay with acknowledging the problem exists but god forbid that you even imply that I might be involved in said problem, even indirectly. Don't do that; I only want to talk about this at such an abstract level that it ceases to even have meaning, much less resolution.

[Craig Arko]

Yes. Are we more interested in the problem or making ourselves feel good?

 

Because that's what this argument about the argument boils down to: I'm okay with acknowledging the problem exists but god forbid that you even imply that I might be involved in said problem, even indirectly. Don't do that; I only want to talk about this at such an abstract level that it ceases to even have meaning, much less resolution.

I don’t even care so much who’s involved in the problem; what matters is who is involved in working for a solution. It seems like a pretty small team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don’t even care so much who’s involved in the problem; what matters is who is involved in working for a solution. It seems like a pretty small team.

Yep. Which is why I usually try to stick to discussions about the system. I honestly don't care about the individual and their potential issues, I just want to fix the ****ing problem. I'm not here to make myself feel good, I want resolution.

 

Which is why I just take it on the chin when someone calls me out for my bull****. It hurts, sure, but once I get past the initial negative reaction, I remember why I care about this in the first place.

 

And I've been called out in the past. Hard, and embarrassingly. The kind of stuff that sticks with you for decades and makes you wonder why your friends still speak to you.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What tangent is it that you think I'm on? That's an honest question. 

 

We agree that it's possible to speak in general terms without indicting everyone, but the issue is that these general terms seem to morph into an indictment of everyone. 

 

Yay to the bolded part!  Let's do that!

 

To answer your first question...the part in italics.  That's the tangent.  That isn't happening but for people feeling like they are being indicted and your arguments that enable it.  Let's do that bolded part.  Please?

[Mike Sixel]

I don’t even care so much who’s involved in the problem; what matters is who is involved in working for a solution. It seems like a pretty small team.

I call bull on this. Millions, billions? of people are trying to fix the world, even the people on this thread pointing out that asking the question is an implication. Maybe, just maybe, one can feel like a finger is being pointed at them, and still be working on fixing the problems we have. That kind of hurts, actually. I can't fix racist jerks, but saying I'm not trying? Oh boy.

[Craig Arko]

I call bull on this. Millions, billions? of people are trying to fix the world, even the people on this thread pointing out that asking the question is an implication. Maybe, just maybe, one can feel like a finger is being pointed at them, and still be working on fixing the problems we have. That kind of hurts, actually. I can't fix racist jerks, but saying I'm not trying? Oh boy.

Okay, my patience has run thin. Time to take a break.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yay to the bolded part!  Let's do that!

 

To answer your first question...the part in italics.  That's the tangent.  That isn't happening but for people feeling like they are being indicted and your arguments that enable it.  Let's do that bolded part.  Please?

We (you and I) or those involved in this thread can certainly agree that generalizations are just that, and they aren't applicable at an individual level, but I'm also not going to pretend like these generalizations are harmless/not abused.

 

Individuals are never told to "check their privilege?" A liberal professor of biology and his wife who held a similar position weren't recently forced out of a university for their "racism," after objecting to the idea of a day where whites were unwelcome on the campus? We're at the point where the white director of "3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri," (great movie btw) is being accused of "racism," because the racist cop he wrote into the movie wasn't "racist," enough, i.e. he had the audacity to render the officer redeeming qualities. This stuff isn't fabricated. It stems from an inability to understand what these generalizations actually are and unfortunately the mischaracterizations, purposeful or not, are used to indict at both a group and individual level. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

How can an accusation be implicit? Because if it is, wouldn't simply wondering about it on some level imply that some wrong doing by someone is happening? So then wondering wouldn't be fine, because it would imply an accusation? 

 

(I think part of the substance of an accusation is that it is direct and isn't made through implication).

 

I'm not sure I agree. Wondering quietly, sure... we all do that. But I was responding to wondering aloud, which has been done in this thread far too many times. It's nothing more than a passive aggressive form of making an accusation, and plenty of people read it that way. It doesn't contribute to any solution, and if anything it closes off said conversation. You can wonder quietly and pay attention to data points to see if your assumption has merit, or you can wonder aloud while passively saying someone else is a racist. You personally may not see a problem with this, but many read that as an accusation, and way too many are tired of effectively being called racist for having a different opinion on how to solve a problem, which more often than not is what is really going on.

 

As well, in this case, I was referring to a tendency to make inferences off of one data point. In the case of Buxton, you have one person mention that he doesn't thing Byron is intelligent enough to hit a ML curve ball. It's a poor choice of words for sure, but hardly proof of racism. I said something similar to Gunnar earlier in this thread, in regards to his question on whether or not the title of Tom's post would have changed had Eddie been a white guy. I can tell you personally that we get plenty of reports in regards to this type of behavior, and I can also vouch that I know plenty of people, myself included, who see that as nothing more than a form of moral superiority based on nothing. More often than not, it's easier to make passive aggressive accusations such as this than it is to actually have the conversation. And that is a big reason why said conversation never gets had.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

Imagine how it must feel from the other side. We get offended, they get arrested.

 

This Brock, is a classic form of deflection.

 

Everyone here agrees that the criminal justice system has unfairly targeted the poor in particular, and that without question affects blacks more than whites. It has been said repeatedly in this thread. There's plenty of low hanging fruit here (the 3 strikes law is a really good example). You aren't going to fix that problem by simply calling people racist. The arrest problem you're referring to is most certainly not a bunch of Jim Crow thugs running around and arresting blacks because they are black... and you know it.

 

You want to know why so many people won't have a conversation.... Your quoted line is a good example. They would say the same thing about you after reading that line... and probably add a thing or two about your moral superiority, arrogance, etc. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Yes. Are we more interested in the problem or making ourselves feel good?

 

Because that's what this argument about the argument boils down to: I'm okay with acknowledging the problem exists but god forbid that you even imply that I might be involved in said problem, even indirectly. Don't do that; I only want to talk about this at such an abstract level that it ceases to even have meaning, much less resolution.

 

No one is saying the problem doesn't exist. No one is saying that they want to pretend it doesn't exist. No one is saying they aren't interested in the problem. Don't go there. You aren't going to get anywhere by implying that this is the case.

 

And I know plenty that would argue that your indictment of yourself is nothing more than making yourself feel good at the expense of others for no other reason than that they do not share your definition of racism. You're doing the exact same thing that you've accused others of doing.

 

I can guarantee you this, it won't get you that resolution you claim to seek. So tell me again what you're trying to accomplish?

[USAFChief]

 

Okay, my patience has run thin. Time to take a break.

YOUR patience has run thin?

 

You call out people on a baseball board as racist because they question a baseball player--but not you, Chief, not you, other guy, not anyone actually--and YOUR patience is running thin?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

YOUR patience has run thin?

 

You call out people on a baseball board as racist because they question a baseball player--but not you, Chief, not you, other guy, not anyone actually--and YOUR patience is running thin?

 

exactly... perhaps the small number of people participating in this thread have something to do with the  environment. 

 

or perhaps they aren't the type to put themselves out there in this way and are just reading and trying to understand.

 

There's literally a million reasons why participation in this thread is small, very few of which have to do with the racial motivations of people not posting.

[USAFChief]

 

Yes.  You can reach those conclusions without being racist or without a racial component, known or unknown to you.  You can criticize Sano and Rosario and have nothing racist or racial in your argument.  Bookmark that.  Highlight it.  Tattoo it to the conversation.  It should no longer be necessary to repeat.  

 

However, (and this is what we're talking about) you might also reach those conclusions because you're racist or your thinking has a known or unknown racial component.  All anyone is doing in this thread is suggesting that the frequency with which non-white players have baseless (as you acknowledge) criticisms leveled against them might suggest a racial component.  

 

Considering there is a significant undercurrent of Latin criticism in baseball, I think it's worthy to consider.  Frankly, the bulk of your post is aimed at a vein of this conversation that is a strawman.  A strawman all too common and unfortunate.

 

oh, the irony.

 

[TheLeviathan]

How is the undercurrent of criticism for Latin players a strawman relative to this discussion?

[USAFChief]

 

How is the undercurrent of criticism for Latin players a strawman relative to this discussion?

See, I don't think there IS a "significant undercurrent of Latin criticism in baseball."

 

I also note how you subtly changed the language in the post above, relative to the claim you stated originally.

[gunnarthor]

As to posters feelings, I don't really care. I think if we point out that using racially coded language (Buxton isn't smart, Sano is lazy, Rosario won't hustle) we might piss off some people but I also think some people won't post that stuff anymore as well. It's not a one-way street where if our side isn't polite the other side won't come around. No one wants to be associated with racism (except the Richard Spencers of the world) so even if you think it's bull****, you'll see less of these offensive postings. Even if you didn't think your posting was offensive.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

See, I don't think there IS a "significant undercurrent of Latin criticism in baseball."

 

I also note how you subtly changed the language in the post above, relative to the claim you stated originally.

 

So you don't think latin players are more prone to criticism in baseball right now?  (They're also more prone to retaliation)

 

I'll have to dig up the Kinsler thread when he made his asinine comments, there were several links with a wide range of information suggesting that there is.  I won't have time to do that for awhile, but I'll find them sometime today.  (If some other poor soul wants to dig for that thread I'd appreciate it)

 

I think that issue is very relevant to this one.  

[TheLeviathan]

And here is one link.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not sure I agree. Wondering quietly, sure... we all do that. But I was responding to wondering aloud, which has been done in this thread far too many times. It's nothing more than a passive aggressive form of making an accusation, and plenty of people read it that way. It doesn't contribute to any solution, and if anything it closes off said conversation.

Oh it closes off the conversation that we'd be having if I wondered quietly to myself?  Give me a break.  Basically you're saying shut up.  It would be impossible to have any conversation about any social phenomenon that might be systemic or latent if all we can do is wonder about it fear of offending some white dudes.

[Mike Sixel]

An observation....a group on this thread is still participating, even though they feel like they are being called racist, or were. But I feel, feel, that another group is not listening when we say that you are implying it stating we are racist. Why is that?

 

And yes, Latin players face a ton of racism imo.

 

Edit, that's a terrible sentence, but using my phone for longer posts isn't working g great sorry

[USAFChief]

 

And here is one link.

Talk about an article in search of a phenomenon...in a sport where EVERY team consists of both Latino and non-Latino players, "brawls" between opposing teams usually involve Latinos and non-Latinos.

 

Got it.

 

"Brawls involve uniforms of differing color!!" screamed a subsequent USA Today investigative piece.

[PseudoSABR]

 

YOUR patience has run thin?

 

You call out people on a baseball board as racist because they question a baseball player--but not you, Chief, not you, other guy, not anyone actually--and YOUR patience is running thin?

If people here can feel accused wit out actually directly being accused, imagine how people of color might feel about systemic biases that don't manifest in direct "quotable" racism.  Again, you don't get to demand direct proof of racism when the basis of your supposed offense is totally indirect and implicit.  There's some irony for you. 

 

It's literally impossible to know what motivates each individual (to see inside someone's head and heart, to know whether they are truly racially motivated, even subconsciously)--so asking us to name to names and point figures is totally futile.  Yet, what remains is a social phenomenon where specific derogatory language and criticism are levied disproportionately at people of certain races.  Sure, it may be frustrating that we can't solve the systemic problem by calling out individuals--but it's totally pollyanneish to believe that a systemic problem can be solved by weeding out the real baddies.  Part of the point some of us are making is that we may all be part of the problem (which Craig and Brock have willing implicated themselves).   Why don't people of color post here? Why don't women post here?  I couldn't possibly have anything to do it with it.  Not me.  And because I'm so innocent, I'll just ignore the obvious feature this very conversation has much less its subject matter. 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

An observation....a group on this thread is still participating, even though they feel like they are being called racist, or were. But I feel, feel, that another group is not listening when we say that you are implying it stating we are racist. Why is that?

And yes, Latin players face a ton of racism imo.

Edit, that's a terrible sentence, but using my phone for longer posts isn't working g great sorry

They aren't participating on the merits.  They are meta-discussing it; and centering on their own perceived offense.  That's not worthy of praise.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Talk about an article in search of a phenomenon...in a sport where EVERY team consists of both Latino and non-Latino players, "brawls" between opposing teams usually involve Latinos and non-Latinos.

 

Got it.

 

"Brawls involve uniforms of differing color!!" screamed a subsequent USA Today investigative piece.

 

You managed to completely miss the point of that article and the data it was presenting.

 

 That is becoming a sad refrain in this thread.  I don't think I want to say more than that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

An observation....a group on this thread is still participating, even though they feel like they are being called racist, or were. But I feel, feel, that another group is not listening when we say that you are implying it stating we are racist. Why is that?

 

What other way would you suggest we remove that implication?  I feel like Brock and I have made explicit that we don't want that implication in the conversation and I've used analogies to demonstrate that.

 

Is there some other way to come at this?  I'm genuinely asking, though my confidence there is a way decreases by the page in this thread.

[Mike Sixel]

They aren't participating on the merits. They are meta-discussing it; and centering on their own perceived offense. That's not worthy of praise.

Still not listening.... Guess I'm out.

 

No place did I ask for praise. Read again. Or don't.

[Mike Sixel]

What other way would you suggest we remove that implication? I feel like Brock and I have made explicit that we don't want that implication in the conversation and I've used analogies to demonstrate that.

 

Is there some other way to come at this? I'm genuinely asking, though my confidence there is a way decreases by the page in this thread.

I'm not sure you are listening. Whether you mean it or not isn't the point. It's how it is being received. That's kind of the point, you aren't meaning to say it, but that's how it is being heard. It just is. How we get past that is an interesting question, actually. But not everyone agrees.

 

I'm not sure there is a good way, but acknowledging the other sides' feelings would be a good start.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not sure you are listening. Whether you mean it or not isn't the point. It's how it is being received. That's kind of the point, you aren't meaning to say it, but that's how it is being heard. It just is. How we get past that is an interesting question, actually. But not everyone agrees.

I'm not sure there is a good way, but acknowledging the other sides' feelings would be a good start.

 

I guess I feel like I did acknowledge that fear and tried to reassure several posters that I wasn't accusing them.  My criminal justice analogy was meant to do exactly that.  Maybe it wasn't effective, that's fair.

 

But I think that's a two way street also.  I can't avoid making someone feel attacked if they want to feel attacked.

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Still not listening.... Guess I'm out.

No place did I ask for praise. Read again. Or don't.

Look, you made an observation that the offended group is still participating in a conversation about race, they certainly are talking about either how we should shut up or about how offended they are and how they are entitled to it.   It certainly seems like you're suggest we should acknowledge that as something good (hence my line about praise).  

 

Now, as far as not listening, that's blatantly not true.  And if there's any truth to it at all, it applies to greater force with those who find offense.  I certainly understand that no one wants to be accused of being a racist (said it many times early in the thread).  But no one is calling any one a racist.  (Listening?)  Maybe there's an implication that some people might have racially informed implicit biases, but that's not accusation, and that implication is nothing that needs to be wondered about quietly.  (Yes, someone actually asserted that we shouldn't even talk about it!)   Again, if people can get offended by implication; they certainly accept the proposition that implicitly people of color may be legitimately offended by a general trend without any direct racism going on. (And hence no proof, no one person to blame.)

 

Sounds like your use of "listening" is code for legitimizing their right to be offended, which I won't.  It's privileged, snow-flakey, and self-important, and worse it refuses to allow even discussion of the issue.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

I guess I feel like I did acknowledge that fear and tried to reassure several posters that I wasn't accusing them.  My criminal justice analogy was meant to do exactly that.  Maybe it wasn't effective, that's fair.

 

But I think that's a two way street also.  I can't avoid making someone feel attacked if they want to feel attacked.

Right. The other side has been acknowledged and assured ad naseum that they aren't being accused, but they refuse to accept it, and it's gotten to the point where the solution they really seek is for there to be no discussion. 

 

I think the tone of the conversation has shifted because conciliatory measures got the discussion no where.  And now we should acknowledge the feelings of those who aren't even accused? Give me a break.  (Imagine if we suggested that we should be thinking about the feelings of Latino players? We'd get laughed off the message board!)

 

And I just want to point out again, how problematic it is, and representative of the very issues we are getting at, when we are told to try to make it easier for white men to participate in the conversation.  When there is literally a dearth of diversity contributing to it, nor is anyone advocating to make it easier for such distinct voices to say how they feel.