PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
Amen.
-
It also doesn't mean that the solutions can't be unalike. I think what really rubs me the wrong way is the notion that people-like-us-never-do-these things. (Not that you're suggesting that.) I think as individuals we too easily divorce ourselves from global problems, and shrug off any shared responsibility in the conditions which beget violence. I think if we did a lot better job both domestically and abroad of giving a crap about the people on the margins, we might have less seemingly irrational violence. There's a kind of willful ignorance, in that we refuse to acknowledge the conditions that foster terror far away and allow gun violence to continue to take so many lives right around the corner. I know not everyone agrees, but I think both result from a social disease. The more the conversation goes towards how crazy these people are, the less we seem to do about what goes to address or curb the phenomenon (of terrorism or gun violence).
-
Thanks for acknowledging that it's reasonable for people to read your post in a negative light. (For my part, I couldn't understand why you're defending the white race as a whole, I thought you might be suggesting something like ala Ben Carson, but here that it would be white people who would be more likely to literally take out a shooter than some other people. Go reread your post (# 788), you just weren't very clear). The post you replied to mentioned that it's white citizens who are doing the school shooting (Dave's post # 785))--not to suggest that the White Race is more likely to commit mass murder, but rather that the Republican fear of Syrians is NOT really based in a rational fear of violence, but in something else. The point being, if you're not afraid of your heavily armed neighbors (white or not), you have no business being afraid of impoverished refugees. So the barring of Syrian refugees has a lot more to do with xenophobia (or racism as some might say) than actual security from harm.
-
You've had plenty of opportunity to clarify your comment as not limited to the White race, yet you haven't. (That's all you had to do. The implication that non-whites are not against school shootings has been disagreed with time and again in this thread). Honestly, I don't care whether you are or are not racist; I don't care whether your beliefs rise to the standard of racism. I'll continue to assert that supporting policy that insulates white privilege has the same result. Republicans may evade the racist label, but hardly makes their policies any better for the poor and non-white. My point is NOT to call you racist. My point is stop complaining when what you say invites that implication. If you (or anyone) think Syrian refugees are so dangerous that we should condemn them to homelessness or pass the burden to some other country or state, expect some backlash.
-
Honestly I don't care about their rationale. It's a cowardly vote, no matter the party. Opportune pandering.
-
No I'm not. I'm going on record, and saying all people of all races are against school shootings. Jesus Christ.
-
I know this really doesn't apply to many here. But I think it's appropriate nonetheless.
-
It's a right wing issue. There's plenty of Democrats that have to pull right in order to continue to get elected in right leaning districts.
-
Distinctions made because of race--even against the white race--are racists. Whether it's based in reason or experience, it's still racist. It's when you take that limited experience and those reasons and apply it to the next person of that race that makes it racists. (e.g. using the incident in France, to bar Syrian refugees, letting some braver, more decent State take the burden.) As to the merit of what you said, I'm sure many disagreed, but hardly thought it was a productive conversation to have. (I mean how do you argue with made up statistics.) And for the record, you implied that White people would go further than other people to stop school shootings. If Republicans want to stop being called racist, quit promoting policy that discriminates non-whites and protects white privilege.
-
That doesn't change the implication of what you said.
-
Dude, by suggesting that the white race would act differently than other races you invite the label all on your own.
-
Berardino: Vargas Drawing Interest In Asia
PseudoSABR replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
It would have to be a significant amount of cash to sway me this is a good idea. Until Vargas is out of options, he should be kept as injury insurance in AAA, with the hope of either reestablishing trade value stateside or being a meaningful part time player in the offense. This route seems more logical for an Arcia or a Santana, who must be rostered in order to be retained. -
Whether it should be included in the article isn't really the point. If you don't want to acknowledge the similarities between the two phenomena, that's your loss. Again, I think ISIS has less to do with religion and more to do with radicalization. The radical violence of individual Americans may be sourced in a common diaspora and meaninglessness, that perhaps when shared from generation to generation may lay the seeds of this sort of radical terrorism.
-
It's funny how we dismiss the former and the familiar. Of course, I remember learning this, or rather, being taught this, as it felt so obviously true that it was hardly of note; and now, it's so obviously true, it's painful to say.
-
The radicalism to which they aspire may have quite a bit in common. I also think there's also a shared meaninglessness at the root of both's radicalism. There's certainly a similarity in the radical violence and the targeting of seemingly innocent people.
-
I'd think of their poverty as a spiritual poverty as much as very real one. Diaspora doesn't quite describe the phenomenon, as it refers to loss of cultural identity among dominant culture. But there's a diaspora of sorts at work in their own country. Where the lack of spiritual-meaningful opportunities gets filled by this penchant for radicalism. I don't want to invoke Godwin's law; but German Christians were swept up by radical aryansim after WWI for perhaps many of the same reasons.
-
Why can't it be both? In order for that religious message to have affect, there must be conditions that make such a message compelling. I don't think the phenomenon is unique to Islam, though it's recent history might make a better vessel than any number of other ideologies.
-
I'd say that the cancerous interpretation of Islam is the vehicle used to occupy the available niche. The niche, I think, has been created and sustained by global, esp. Western, political and economic policy regarding land and resources in the Middle East since WWII. It hardly matters what religion such people are beholden, rather that there is some means to reify such people's need for radicalism. It could easily be nationalism or some other ideology (like communism) that provides the basis of uniting radically-motivated people. My point is that we can't eliminate the phenomenon of terrorism until we really accept what conditions allow for radicalism to breed. And we might find that those conditions have been created as result of policies that benefit the West at the expense of local people. All that said, I'm not sure what we can really do it about in the short term. In the long term, allowing local people to better benefit from local resources would go a long way to closing that niche for radicalism. (I'll take a look at the Atlantic article when/if I get a chance.)
-
While we're at it, we should probably wipe out any one who has the potential to become a member of ISIS too. Genocide is really the only way to get the job done. Even if every member of ISIS were eliminated, some other group would emerge to fill that niche. The question should be is how do we eliminate the niche...
-
The Front Office and Settling For Mediocrity
PseudoSABR replied to DaveW's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
No he hasn't signed yet. I misspoke. -
The Front Office and Settling For Mediocrity
PseudoSABR replied to DaveW's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
So basically TR either has to spend more than 100 million on a free agent or trade for an MVP-caliber or Cy Young-caliber player. Gotcha. That's not a measure of 'aggressiveness,' that's measure of how much the owners are willing to spend, and how much the team can actually rake in. There's plenty of aggressive, smart baseball moves between "settling for mediocrity" and "bringing in a game changer." I think you're framing the argument a bit disingenuously by creating that false choice. -
It's easy to say this when they aren't our prospects. Margot was ranked at 25 by MLB at midseason, with Guerra at 76. That's nearly the equivalent of giving up Berrios (19), Polanco (75) and others. While I generally agree giving up low-level specs for a known commodity is a good thing. But, in this case, giving up so many highly rated specs for 60 innings over two seasons, seems foolish. If they got back 200 innings, or 600 at bats, I'd find your argument more justifiable.
-
The Front Office and Settling For Mediocrity
PseudoSABR replied to DaveW's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Truly aggressive? What does that even mean? If signing the homerun champ out the KBO doesn't qualify, nothing will meet your silly standard. Your problem with Terry Ryan isn't about aggressiveness; it's about player evaluation. Tactically, trading Hicks for a young, league-average catcher makes plenty of sense--you just don't like the catcher. What's frustrating is your turning a matter of differing opinion into a criticism on strategy. Just because the Twins didn't trade for concussed Lucroy or sign the unavailable Weiters, doesn't mean that they the alternative is settling on mediocrity. In fact, the Twins unwillingness to stick with Arcia, Vargas (or Sano) at the DH situations, seems to suggest that they aren't settling--they are being bold. Whether you like Parks or Murphy or Palka, it's hardly the strategy that warrants criticism. Suzuki and Hermann behind the plate next year is your mediocrity. Hicks in CF and Buxton at AAA is your mediocrity. Vargas at DH is your mediocrity. The Twins didn't settle in any of those situations. -
If Murphy doesn't work out, and Suzuki coming off the books, the Twins would be in a position, perhaps a better position to go after him. As for Weiters, he gets to rebuild value in pursuit of a big money deal he seemed destined for. As others have pointed out, the AAV of QO is nothing to sneeze at.
-
They'll only acquire a vet outfielder (beyond Sugar Ray) if they trade Plouffe. I think Milone is the next likely to be traded.
