PseudoSABR

Arranging one's activities so that you are never alone in a room with a woman, certainly seems like an imposition on women, generally. It's not as if Pence jumps out a window, should a woman enter a room he is; almost certainly his staff manages that aspect for him. Even if we concede that Pence's behavior is somehow an island onto itself, there's nothing noble about that behavior. The whole premise--removing temptation (a person) because of lack of self-restraint--is problematic. It would only be weakness if that temptation were chocolate, but when that temptation is gendered person--well when treat a gendered-person as an object, we call that sexism. (It's okay to admit that some parts of Christian marital traditions may indeed be rooted in sexism and not nobility).

I'm sure Muslims frame the origin and necessity of the burka with similarly honorable intentions. If the way one acknowledges one's weakness and honors their marriage is by treating an entire gender as sin-magnets, those intentions are not just misplaced but perpetuate many of the harmful conservative narratives about women. I mean, I'd get if Pence wouldn't go to the strip club or the GOP dance party, but the-keep-the-woman-out-of-the-room is unjustifiable nonsense that's rooted in sexism.

Oh okay. I hate this false equivalency. The Republicans have been far, far more obstructionist than the Dems. And to be fair, I'm glad the DNC and Hillary were dealt a loss in spite of their stacking the deck. But as a matter of course, while there is dirty play on both sides, in both type and degree the GOP overwhelmingly wins the day. (But her emails!)

It's maddening the extent that the GOP, esp. its leaders, are willing to sacrifice legislative rules and precedence to gain political victory, and yet cry foul when the Democrats won't let them have their victory within the rules. I think its this supreme court pick that will be the only enduring legacy of the Trump's election. A stolen court seat, and perhaps a stolen election. What true American Patriots.

Nunes steps down from Russia probe. GOP goes nuclear over Gorsuch nomination.

Keeping women out of the room to honor one's wife is akin to asking women to keep covered up or else they're asking for it.

The game was 3 to 1 when Santiago was taken out. It was not a blow out when the decision was made. When you have a 13 man pitching staff, might as well make use of them.

Drummed up proof of nothing. It's overkill from the analytical perspective--how useful could a pitch-by-pitch break down of a single game ever be? It just seems like wasted effort in breaking down what is likely to be anecdotal evidence.

This feels like overkill to me. For whatever reason (or for a variety of reasons) Buxton is already divisive.

Potentially big story: Blackwater founder (and brother to Sec. Ed. Devos) evidently went to a remote Island in the Indian ocean to set up a Trump-Putin back channel in January.

MRI results to be revealed in 24 hours? Book it?

To be fair to mikecgrimes I wondered 'out-loud' several pages back if it wouldn't be best for the Dems to string this thing along and keep Trump in office. Would they actually conspire to do so? I doubt it. I still think the most likely scenario of any alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign results with Trump having plausible deniability, and thus Trump himself evades any criminal liability (though perhaps not impeachment).

I wonder if this really might be a case where a sloppy cover-up leads to more legal liability than the supposed crimes themselves.

Gorsuch is very right wing. I don't know where you heard he is moderate but that's not true at all. He goes out of his way to rule in favor of corporations and conservative interests. That dissent in that Trucker case is some ice-chilling stuff, and really very problematic legal reasoning. He'd be another Scalia/Alito/Thomas. He's no near as moderate as Kennedy, and doesn't seem as reasonable as Roberts. The Dems need to block, because they can't be the only party who plays fair. Not only does the Garland situation act as a motivating force, Trump lost the popular vote, and there's questions about his legitimacy. It's not clear that the reasons for blocking Garland (will of the people) favor Gorsuch.

Might not mean as much as we hope.

I started it, and played about 5 or so hours. It's really a pretty game, and well-written, and strange and atmospheric; there was very little combat so far, but it's a neat game that I'll get back to when I have more time. Since it requires so much reading, it doesn't itch that videogame twitch spot for me when I'm winding down. But on free weekend day, sometime soon, I hope to immerse myself, as its more interactive sci-fi novel than game.

I did bring up the recently released spiritual successor earlier in the thread I think (Torment Tides of Numera); worth checking out if you like heavy-text old school rpgs.

Actually not everybody views their culture as the best. There's plenty about American culture I find disgusting. I'm sure you do too. Often, when people make value judgments of other cultures they pick and choose which parts of their own culture they like and deem that their culture, while ignoring the uglier parts. I think there are aspects of cultures/religions/countries that deserve condemnation (as you mention), but what will make that observation/advocacy racist(or whatever -ism) is when you say something like no children should be raised Muslim because of what happens in Saudi Arabia. Because the reality is not all Muslim people treat women with such disregard (and more there are plenty of elements within Islam that advocate for the rights of woman, they just don't get much publicity). Moreover, it's not as if Kinsler was advocating for women's rights...he was bothered by how emotional the other team/culture was--if it wasn't for his judgment of the other team, he never would have promoted the values of his own culture. Look, plenty of what Christians or Texans or climate-change deniers* seems backwards to me, but upon meeting any one person from any of those group, I do my best to not to generalize my observations of the group to that individual person. And I sure as heck never speak about how any one group should raise their children. (Can you imagine how offended people would be if I said we should never rear children with Texas or Christian values? Oh boy.) *well I might judge this group more harshly because it isn't something they were born into (or perhaps it is). I think you can celebrate your own culture without inviting comparisons to other cultures or bringing kids into it. Fair?

There is, in some instances. But when you divide your way of doing things and other ways of doing things along racial and cultural lines and inflict value judgments based on those differences, well, that makes you a racist. Preference and prejudice are sides of the same coin (the net value bestowed between your group and the other group is same, no matter how you frame it).

This is kind of awesome: https://searchinternethistory.com/

There's a difference between generalizing along racial/cultural lines (i.e. what Kinsler did), and pointing out that the generalization itself is systemic within a given institution (i.e. suggesting that Kinsler's opinion isn't so much his own as it is something institutionalized within the culture of baseball). If you can't see the difference, you're not trying to.

Finally finished this show. I really dug it. It's a dark comedy/drama about a spy who is in way over his head and sings factual folk songs to cope. Not for everyone, but it was for me.

Very late to the party (I'd like a PM for future controversial threads, thank you). Sometimes debates suffer from a lack of defining terms (or agreement upon those definitions). Racism, Racists are incendiary terms that are sometimes weaponized to dismiss worthy opinions. Sometimes. But racism is nothing more than holding generalized judgement over a group of people united by their race or culture (there needs not be any hate--the statement Asians are good at math is racist). Racism can be conscious (what we typically understand it to be), but it also can be latent (or unconscious) and even more invisible, systemic (part of a cultural or institutional fabric). As many have already said, the question isn't whether or not Kinsler, himself, is racist, rather the question is did his statement show shades of racism, whether conscious, latent or systemic. Many may not want such an expansive definition of racism, but I think it's pretty clear OP invited a broad definition and not the narrow hater-of-race definition (Levi correct me if I'm wrong). If we accept this broad definition, it's difficult to see how Kinsler's statement evades being captured within that definition. Not only did he generalize how specific Latin cultures play the game, he expressed his disapproval, and added that he wished children (not necessarily only American) would affirm his culture's method of play. That seems pretty problematic to me. Further, as others have noted, America is hardly homogenized (at least at the outset); Kinsler might well believe he plays the game the American way, but it begs the question is there even is an American way or just a Dominant or Majoritarian way of playing the game(?). Even further, and more troubling, are the terms with which Kinsler and others seem to define this American (Majoritarian) way of playing the game. Too often in our recent and long history have reverence to decorum, polite society, and respect been used to characterize an American fabric, which in specific terms means: sit down, shut up, and do only your job in the most limited, least diverse way possible. The so-called American way does not allow for diversity of experience or methods. Indeed, respect often means just shut-up. Women know this all too well. This is not the courtroom, the office, or place of worship. This is a stadium, where fans cheer, buy beers and hot dogs, and watch mascots race around the diamond. What is the value of polite decorum or respectful reverence in game meant to entertain, yes, children (as well as adults). Whether it's Kinsler and the American WBC team's thinskin in regard to other's showing emotion (they might not be showing you up) or white American, heterosexual men in regards to the racist (people aren't saying you want to kill people of another race), I think this controversy and this discussion do show a lack of empathy. The majority is quick to worry that their feelings have been dismissed, but don't go very far in imagining what precisely non-majority's experience might be. Can you purchase a band-aid in your own skin color? Have you ever been asked to speak for your race or culture? Have you ever been the only member of your race or culture in a room (esp. professionally or educationally)? Is Kinsler a racist? Well I wouldn't use that term; at most his opinion is latent, likely a symptom of a systemic racist belief (something KLAW seemed to indicate). But IMHO, his rhetoric seems like base, good-old-boy club enforcement (indeed, haven't these arguments been used to counter ever inclusive/diversifying policy the game (or our society) has faced?). That he prefaces (or rather postscripts) his comments with "Not to offend anyone, but..." or "It's all about celebrating diversity" yet doesn't walk back his actual comments about raising children, I think indicates which statements are puffery and which might give shade to something earnest and ugly--pervading not just baseball but our American culture in general. (I think this topic is especially salient (and thus touchy) given the current climate in US politics. Professional athletes shouldn't be immune from considering the greater context with which they place their comments). Like others have said, the best defense against racism is self-awareness. We all have our biases. And we must be especially wary of that affirmation we think we sense when confirmation-bias echoes inside our head.

I just don't see any viable alternative to single-payer. Get rid of the insurance companies, the for-profit hospitals, and disconnect healthcare from employment. What's your beef with single-payer?

Sure. Even if there is substantial evidence of collusion, Trump's diehard supporters will claim that his political circle acted without his knowledge. If his campaign was smart, Trump would have plausible deniability--insulated from any criminal liability. I wonder if the smart play for Democrats is not to support impeachment, but take advantage of the plausible deniability, and let the guy serve his term, hitching the Republicans to Trump's illegitimacy and incompetence. (The alternative is Mike Pence or Paul Ryan, who might capably gut the federal government. (why wouldn't that be their plan all along...)).