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
-
I came across this last night and thought others might find it interesting. I find it too brash and it probably ends up more divisive than it intends. (NSFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43gm3CJePn0
-
First, I want to thank you for engaging on the subject. You're always welcome here. Second, to address your echochamber remark, sure sometimes the people here agree, but there isn't a pervasive echochamber, take a look at the debate on education--there's certainly not some script that we are all reading from. Third, none of the major news organizations, with the exception of MSNBC, orients itself as left-leaning. I know as self-identified liberal, I don't see my views voiced on any the major network news shows or CNN. IMO, their bias is a corporate, profit-driven one, that does tend to chase scandals more than try to earnest journalism. Fourth, Fox News is not simply right leaning. They seem wholesale loyal to a president who in many ways runs counter to classic conservative values. Fifth, if Infowars isn't right-wing, what is it? Is it further right than conservative republicans? Fair enough. Lastly, I don't think Republicans are brainwashed as much as they are fed steady diet of tribalism--that is, that their belief that they are part of the righteous group is constantly reinforced and that there never-ending messages that they are concerted efforts by other groups to discount that righteousness and the people that make up the group. I mean from a values perspective, what is Trumpism, what is the right-wing? I see lots of opposition and anger, but I don't see much cohesive values underpinning what the administration and its supports advocate. I have my assumptions, but I'd rather hear your take.
-
I don't necessarily disagree (but I can't really rebut what one does not say). Part of my assumption is that universities stop admitting all the people who eventually drop out (which is like half of them). It should also drive prices down because there will be hard limits on what the state can pay as opposed to what students can borrow against. I do think Dems need to be wary of the "free stuff" narrative, so label it the The American Investment Act or something.
-
Astute and thorough analysis. It's kind of your shtick, I know, but your glibness lately has been nauseating.
-
I'm open to suggestion. But I think if post-secondary education were paid by the state, state universities could be much more particular about admissions (rather than chasing tuition dollars) and as a result, the market would be less flooded with college grads, the quality should improve, and perhaps, more institutions geared towards vocation might emerge as a viable alternative to those unable to be admitted to the university. I think it would also do wonders for the economy generally not to have young people saddled with insurmountable debt at the beginning of their careers.
-
So an agenda of half-measures is the "good"/good-enough that will win? Again, I think that's what led to Democratic losses throughout the last thirty years. (Obama's brand of hope, identity politics, and mainstreamism not withstanding). I don't necessarily want Democrats to boycott anything but the most progressive policies. But I want them to be authentic, and I want them to stand for something. Yes the Democrats are fractured, but it's time for the moderate Dems to give a little on universal healthcare, universal education, and checks on corporate power and uber-wealth--I think these are issues the vast majority of Americans can get behind, esp. if Democrats can avoid being smug/sanctimonious when campaigning on them. However, I do think it's smart to stay away bringing in incendiary issues like guns, identity politics, abortion, etc. into the agenda, even though I feel passionately about those issues, and in that sense, I hope, liberals are willing to give up the perfect.
-
Not that I am endorsing indignance but I think the left being pragmatic is how you ended up the Clintons, Gores and Kerrys as their candidates. I think the left should be authentic and not bend over backwards trying to appeal to everyone and thereby appealing to no one really. That said, the left should be wary of being righteous; showing authentic disgust with genuinely disgusting behavior I don't think comes off as sanctimonious as some seem to fear.
-
I care. You should care. Let's not make it easy for them by shrugging our shoulders. There's plenty of Trump voters who regret their choice/candidate. Maybe we can't win them over but we can't allow them to assume the moral high ground ever again. Ever again.
-
This whole revised his statement narrative is maddening. Though it's such a non-surprise that he was lying, it's not news at all. We live in the nether world.
-
Game Thread: Twins v Blue Jays, 4/30 @ 7:10pm CT
PseudoSABR replied to Riverbrian's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I just can't... -
Niiice
-
I think Molitor needs to show more willingness to leave his starters out there even if they are giving up runs; we end up burning through the bullpen in games we are already likely to lose and we end up with a depleted bullpen in games we can actually win...
-
It's okay to criticize people who do good things. It's also okay to admire people who sometimes do/say bad things. What's not okay is taking either the criticism/admiration and generalizing it to group of people/political party or personalizing it to a specific poster.
-
I agree. But that said, Paker Posey does play a pretty unlikable character. I still think of her hazing days from Daze and Confused.
-
LMAO.
-
Kinley's Magical Horseshoe Remains Intact
PseudoSABR replied to jud6312's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I don't fault the Twins for wanting to keep Kinley; I fault them for not working a trade, and having to guarantee him a roster spot in order to keep him. -
Non-Twins in-season news, tidbits and transactions
PseudoSABR replied to Monkeypaws's topic in Other Baseball
Alex Cobb has gotten knocked around (and that's putting it lightly) in his first two starts. Did signing late lead, at least in part, to such results? -
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think this is simplification in favor of getting offended or the push back. In my mind, there's a meaningful distinction from "being racist" and having implicit biases that might be racial informed. The former is far more objectionable, and while the latter may be an uncomfortable proposition, it is totally forgivable given the systemic nature of the phenomenon which we're talking about. I think the nuance and the distinction matters, and it's only when we erase that nuance and distinction that the pushback is at all justifiable.
-
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).
-
Aside from being absurd and that racial bias often doesn't emerge as a preference (as opposed to an absence of criticism), it's not materially different. I think it's fine to wonder about what appears to be disproportionate treatment of players, and to ask the question about what might explain that uneven treatment. My point in what you quoted was that your criticism of Mauer has no bearing on the collective treatment of players of color. Again, I assume your criticisms of any player aren't racist because you've always appear to base your opinions on observable facts not on generalities; that said, I do think your stance throughout this thread has shown some snow-flake-white privilege in being offended/asking for evidence/demanding people to name to name names. I mean is it so hard to imagine that some people's (DEFINITELY NOT YOURS) criticism might be tainted by implicit biases that become more significant when viewed in the aggregate?
