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
-
No apology, needed. My point is that this forum, for whatever it is, is more on board with what you're laying down than you might realize.
-
Congratulations. You passed.
-
I didn't suggest you had insulted anyone. Merely, implicit in your posts was that we don't understand how limited and controlled our discourse is by all kinds of out-sized influences; many of us do understand, and attempt to do the best with what we've got.
-
You're assuming that many of us don't already know this, but yet we still live among the people we do in the times we are in, and so even between those bull**** margins, we invest in those things that matter and we have some notion to practically effect. To tell another story, I recall debating determinism and quantum theory late one night with a buddy in college, and at the end I said something declaratory and arrogant like 'at least we realize that free will doesn't exist' to which he said, 'now what/', to which i didn't have an answer. Like I said, it is hard work to make meaningful discussion in these times, being critical about the meta-discussion, without some skin in the game, remains willfully blind to how difficult the endeavor is--engaging other humans meaningfully with authentic content no less.
-
I think you're underselling our collective and individual intelligence. I hope this doesn't come off patronizing and you may not be coming from this perspective, but I recall as a young English grad student reading Baudrillard, Foucault, Adorno, seeing clear the shallow discourse all around, that indeed we lived within the simulacra, that knowledge was produced/manufactured, that we should be having an entirely different discussion--not dissimilar to what you are saying. But putting that discussion in action among strangers is hard work, and takes boldness to push forward in the mere hope that people are interested, esp. without something like an academic frame work. I don't think it's fair to expect such a community to exist aprori--esp. in this random corner of the internet. You have to make that community. This is all to say, I encourage you to contribute. Make a thread on a topic we should be talking about. Maybe no one cares, maybe we continue the same narrative, or maybe we have a cool discussion.
-
Of course it's entertainment; there's a pettiness and narrowness in bringing up the topics of the day. But we've also had meaningful discussion about Modern Monetization Theory, Basic Income, the market effects of AI and automation. We have threads on dogs, books, personal stories. As much as we might be unwittingly operating in this admittedly hegemonic discourse, there's real human values here, and a genuine effort to have a meaningful conversation, not just a fun one where we score internet points.
-
I'm going to quibble with semantics and I think I'd prefer the term paradigm rather narrative--the latter implying a cohesive story. But otherwise I agree we too often limit ourselves and our discussion to that which ready available through highly controlled interfaces/consumer touchpoints. I'm reminded of the Noam Chomsky quote making the rounds since being evoked by Tucker Carlson of all people--'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.' And I think the people around here are tolerant of outside the box ideas and modes of having discourse. At some point, you'll have to broach a topic or suggest another way of analyzing a problem to see how people really respond. I mean if we're all operating within the same paradigm/narrative, without some outside influence to suggest an alternative, we'll be unwittingly blind.
-
Nazi is just a problematic term. Nationalism can be problematic when the symbols of the state matter more than its values or people. The irony for Americans is that we are a nation of immigrants, so national purity has always been muddy, drawing the line now seems arbitrary...
-
The way you had put it seemed like the kkk/slave thing wasn't so bad. But even painting your skin to look like your hero with black face is willfully blind to the history of the use of black face--that white actors would play black characters for who knows how long, to keep black actors from playing their own people. Sure there's a distinction between the various incidents, but they show a lot of tone deafness that should be unacceptable in a politician.
-
That would be better said in a PM/to a mod, considering the intent seems to be to contribute and promote a subscription. -
I didn't consider this, but that's also probably a reason why people find it prohibitive to contribute. And thanks for not discounting everyone else due to my posts.
-
Nazi was a bad choice of words, not my words, but I think he means fascist, a fair criticism as I noted above, and of course you didn't even address it. But that doesn't forgive trying to draw a connection between the overtly racist Democrats of seventy years ago to the current party--no one disputes the dems ugly past. As much as you're allegedly trying to make this place more inclusive, you're guilty of making some incendiary arguments. Btw, the Nazi statement was made months ago, in specific context to what was happening politically; i think it was fair for LaBombo to ask the question again, but doing so invited Godwin's law back into the coversation.
-
You've already discussed your political test and not voting for Trump, I don't see how that's relevant; in fact, the whole Black conservative trend thing gives me pause about your alleged neutrality. Narrative implies there's a cohesive story we are trying to tell, and when someone gets off script they are pushed out of the discussion. That does not happen. That there are few conservative voices is a shame, and contributes to the notion that there are only liberals here, but that doesn't mean there's some liberal narrative we all stick to. Whether it is Levi or Brock or Mike, I've had numerous disagreements with each and they have with eachother as well. Threads don't get this long through agreement and sticking to the narrative. The reason there are few conservatives is mostly self-selection, which is reasonable, because they don't see their values being affirmed or valued. But the notion that anyone here has sought to exclude conservative voices is a falsehood. With a lack of conservatives contributing, of course the board would seem a bit more left, but that's not because we are all sticking to some script/narrative.
-
Thanks for your thoughts, but I think you're being unfair to the reasonable people who've populated this thread (and others). First, I reject that there's one narrative here; in fact, there's no one preferred candidate, we all differ in terms of priorities, and the discussion is particularly dominated by moderates, beyond myself and a handful others that identify as liberal (and a few conservative lurkers who drop in). Second, I don't think any one of us would tolerate shutting down a discussion simply because we didn't agree with the premise. I think if you look at the discussions members have had recently with Nasu1970, disagreeing with him, but encouraging him to participate and to find common ground as evidence for the opposite of that. Yes, people will demand evidence and facts to support your opinion, and can be pretty harsh when posters don't back up what they say, or rely on obviously faulty evidence. What you won't get here, is a lot of affirmation. As a liberal, I get some affirmation here, but mostly even when people agree, they find nuance to point out, and way to distinguish their own point of view. That's what makes discussion here, I think, pretty rich.
-
That's not being fair at all. To use pre-1960s southern democrats as some how representing what the party believes now is ridiculous, Northam's unforgivable choice for a costume notwithstanding. Nazi isn't particularly helpful term, but Trump certainly has some fascist leanings, what with his authoritarianism and nationalistic tendencies (that the Republicans largely go along with it, seems problematic--only 13 Republicans voted in favor of overturning his national "emergency"). What I see from a lot of Republicans is a Machiavellian rationale, that the ends of tax cuts and supreme court justices justifies what ever the anti-democratic means may be.
-
What do you call a person who believes in mere "socialist characteristics" and not whole scale "socialism"? Why can't these people self-identify as Democratic socialists without offending the dictionary? I think they can. Whether it's a good idea, is something else entirely.
-
I think there is space to distinguish American socialism as distinct from its Marxist, Communist counterparts. I'm not sure there's enough distinction there that the Democrats could bet on it, but in terms of usage "socialism" seems to be closer to Western and Northern Europe hybrids, than what's been going on in Russia or China or even Venezuela.
-
That's a matter of messaging too. How vocational careers, which can pay better and have more employment opportunities than many careers needing a bachelors, became something to ashamed of, I don't quite understand. There's oddly both an anti-intellectual branch of American thinking, and an anti-vocational branch. I think parents would feel the punch of my baby not being college material less if high schools had better vocational tracks...I imagine a system would emerge where if such parents wanted their kids to go to college in spite of their grades, they can take the risk and put their own money on the line...in any case, the private institutions can still admit whomever they'd like.
-
Agreed. We may not agree on this, but I do think publicly funded education would have the byproduct of making vocational schools a viable option, and allow universities to be more choosey over admissions because they won't be chasing those endless federally-borrowed dollars. I do think, as you and Levi seem to point out, that our diverse makeup, esp. given the demographic make-up of the poor, we might see too many minorities be pushed towards vocation and too many whites get into universities perpetuating the same class distinctions.
-
Typically when we are looking to define terms of philosophy, social structure, economic theory, the dictionary isn't the best place to look, because these concepts are mutable and change in usage and conception over time. Again, take my example of the term "conservative" or "liberal" etc. Clearly, Democrats need to reframe what socialism means to Americans, but I don't think most Americans' dislike of socialism has much to do with the dictionary definition as much as it does with cold-war scare tactics.
-
You're projecting the all or nothing proposition into that definition. Advocating for socialistic healthcare, doesn't mean anyone seeks to socialize the production of hamburgers. Allow groups to define themselves. If you're referring to the dictionary as the basis to demonstrate what people believe, your argument is very poor indeed. I wonder what the dictionary definition of "conservative" is? Actually, I don't care at all, because it's irrelevant to what self-identified conservatives actually believe.
-
You say this when the policies that are being advocated are obviously not included in Merriam-Webster's definition.* At some point connotation swallows denotation. Although, I don't think it's incorrect to suggest that Democrats do seek to socialize healthcare and education, even under the dictionary definition. (It seems you might be suggesting that by using the term socialize (instead of nationalize or whatever), the Democrats risk inviting a slippery slope argument, and I suppose that's a fair, if somewhat hyperbolic, criticism). Socialism, even as defined in a dictionary, doesn't mandate an all-or-nothing scheme. *The definition in other sources is largely the same, but Merriam-Webster is the only one to use "goods" where another source broadens the list to include "capital, land etc" and another leaves out the direct object all together.
-
Well, my dad and Thanos would agree with you, that if we stem overpopulation most of our problems would be solved.
-
No, it means they should be replaced by someone who is more efficient in the market. The government should never be in the business of producing goods/widgets. As you point out, there's already plenty of incentive for businesses to take advantage of the low-labor costs and low-regulation environment in other foreign markets. Of course, though, there are obvious economic advantages in producing goods where they are eventually sold. As ideas to keep companies from going overseas, take away their corporate charter, ban their stock from being traded on the American markets, place a tariff on the company's goods (as opposed to the country itself). We have more leverage over these companies then we want to believe. And glad you're consistent on the government intrusion into the market. I often think of regulation as a necessary trade off to corporate protection and limited liability. Our society will allow businesses to socialize some risks, so they are more likely to expand their businesses, but as a trade off, we will need to keep a more watchful eye, as the exploitation of the those risks maybe not be borne out by the people profiting from it.
-
Kimbrel to Nationals about to happen
PseudoSABR replied to ppearson50's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I think the Twins are put in the unenviable position of having 4 starters who slated to make the rotation (none beyond Berrios slated to be top of the rotation), and having 5 or so AAA/AA SPs who need mlb exposure to know what they have. So I understand the wariness of locking in any more starting pitching (even with only Berrios returning). Some of these guys will be pushed to the bullpen (as Romero already has been), but the lack of bullpen help acquired is truly inexplicable.
