PseudoSABR

Is passive aggressive wisdom, still wisdom? When we implore others to be nice, isn't our criticism implicit? (No need to answer, I'm just being difficult.)

If a person doesn't have an actual factual basis for criticisms that go to a player's character or intelligence that person opens themselves up to valid criticism. We can't just call a person lazy or stupid without having specific facts that go beyond what we've all observed within the lines and not expect some flak. Assumptious and speculative criticisms that go to a person's character is worthy of being knocked down. Now does that necessarily open up a person to criticism about racial sensitivity, perhaps not; but it certainly doesn't preclude it. Sure, it might be that they are cynical or arrogant or just largely assumptious about nature of other people's effort and intelligence; it might not be racism, but whatever it is, it's not founded with facts. And more, when those criticisms in the aggregate get applied disproportionately to players of color, well, it'd be crazy not to at least ask the question. And really, are we such special snowflakes that asking people to consider if they might have implicit biases is some how offensive and accusatory? Honestly, there's no greater proof of privilege than finding offense in the mere questioning of implicit attitudes. (And the whole "I criticize Mauer too" angle uses the same logic that "I have Black friend" narrative does. The comparison makes me cringe, and again, focuses too much on the notion that any one person is being accused of anything, when people are going out of there way to say it's not the case.) And yes, all lives matters.

I wonder what actual legal services Cohen provided Hannity. I doubt it was estate planning. Is the reason they wanted to hide this is to keep up the myth of Hannity's disinterestedness?

What kind of evidence of racism would satisfy those looking for it? No one is suggesting there's some overt hate letter, a smoking gun, a burning cross in Sano's front yard. In fact, many have gone out of their way to suggest that racism of this sort is latent, an implicit bias, systemic in operation, only detectable on the aggregate. There's unfortunately no direct evidence to provide (at least here on Twins Daily), but we can look at general trends, and disparate treatment between like players. Of course, we can't know with certainty whether the criticism levied at Sano or Rosario is tainted with an implicit bias, but it's not wrong (nor accusatory) to ask the question. I'd also like to point out, that while I can understand that it's insulting to suggest that one's criticism of a player may be, in part, tinged with racism. It's equally insulting to suggest one's notion of social justice is predicated on the nice feelings of righteousness one alleged gets from using the word racist. Indeed, a conversation like this, among largely white-males, maybe enacts some of that privilege.

Especially on the internet, I think condescension is easy to lapse into. This article reminded me of David Foster Wallace's Commencement speech at Kenyon years ago, a fantastic, important read if you haven't come across it before.

Deserved BABIP? Some stats are jumping the shark. I'd like to see how this metric is calculated...

Ryan could have reined in Nunes and his becoming part of the thing he was suppose to be investigating; so he was complicit with whatever power Trump presidency gave the republicans. I recall reading that his democratic opponent(s) have done very well in fundraising. Also I wouldn't doubt there's some dirt on Ryan that wouldn't play well in an election. The RNC was also hacked, but none of that information was made public, suggesting it still could be... I don't know that it will be a Democratic windfall in November, but more news like this certainly suggests Republican enthusiasm will be muted.

Need to practice hitting homeruns around the leftfield foul pole. Come on. Basic.

I think it's a lot easier to argue about defining terms, than actually have the discussion. And even conceding that terms like racism and privilege may not make it easy to discuss the underlying phenomenon whatever substitute we've generated hasn't really created any discussion...

No one is suggesting that White people should feel guilty for their privilege (though white guilt is another phenomenon, not so dissimilar, still discrete from what we are talking about here). Rather, I think the use of privilege is to evoke a feeling of being lucky, or feeling of gratitude for circumstances one did not earn. As opposed to just asserting some base-line of this is how it should always be, and thereby, something we can easily take for granted. Some of the problem is that white privilege does indeed depend on others detriment. That the equally-qualified candidate of color did not get the job/(or opportunity, educational experience, etc.) is certainly an unearned boon for you and me. Equality in this respect may indeed ask white people to give up something, something they may not have asked for, but they have benefited from any way. (This is scary, and I think this is a big reason why someone like Trump has so much traction. Especially among the white poor, who may feel they have so little, if there was any advantage, must they give that up, too?) Language does matter. But let's be real, in this instance we're talking about the effect of language on the already dominant group of people, and we're talking about changing our language to make that dominant group more comfortable with a difficult conversation that should implicate their dominance. There's more than a bit of irony there/here. For instance, there is no one making (or advocating for making) accommodations to our language and speech so that more women or people of color are willing to engage in this discussion. (After seeing the past several pages of posts, do you think we've created a welcoming venue to invite such voices? I don't. Again, this isn't about blame or guilt, it's observing a phenomenon, and being honest about its effect.) I'm far more interested in bringing in those voices then I am with making certain that white guys don't feel unfairly subsumed by what is obviously a generalization, as it is a phenomenon happening in the aggregate, and not necessarily an indictment of individuals. I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I understand your point, but it's one that derails the conversation we should be having, and further marginalizing the very interests of the people this conversation ought to bring to light.

The aggregate. The collective. Or if you prefer, a bunch of people not posting in this thread, whose added weight pull the treatment/criticism towards the problematic in the aggregate of which we end up being a part.

Save for the fact that we're not really talking about race, but talking about how to talk about race. Again, this effect is aggregate, and not really any one person's doing. But again, we've jumped the actual substance of the conversation and are in some kind of meta-discussion.

I think there's a problem when we try to find the right words to get white men* to join the conversation. If others have a detriment, you have a privilege. (Even if it's on the basis of human rights; if the nomenclature makes you uncomfortable, well, good. ). Racism, even though over charged, is still the grammatically correct word to refer to the effect of race coloring judgment. Don't like it? Do something about it. I look forward to the day when people stop demanding to have this difficult conversation on their terms. *Look, I really adore all the posters in this thread, but I am disappointed by the defensiveness and thin-skinedness.

Racism is such a charged word that sometimes it doesn't allow us to capture the real phenomenon being criticized, especially when the phenomenon tends to coalesce in the aggregate and not so much with the will of any one person/poster. Maybe implicit bias is a better term. We all have tendencies to find patterns, and sometimes those patterns align with our preconceived notions of race. How often we apply the word "hustle" and "gritty" to white players as opposed to players of other races (for instance). I also think it's a bit of snowflake-itus to believe that speculating about the general phenomenon that criticism of Rosario might be related to his race was somehow an attack on individual posters who choose to criticize Rosario. If you as a poster are aware of your own implicit bias, and level your criticism with equal force to all players, the speculation was not about you; no one is calling you a racist, and if it bothers you that some might think racism is at work, call out those who's motive may not be so pure, rather than calling the person who notices the phenomenon. Again, in the aggregate, it's fair to wonder if enough marginal implicit biases build up to something problematic, though not any one of us is guilty of racism.

Glad to see Shohei Ohtani get his first HR, and I'm also glad the unwritten rule to ignore him was in effect as he came back to the dugout.

I'm not really sure how upset the Twins are, given that Dozier said he felt he didn't need to say something to Sisco even though he was on secondbase and given the chance to talk smack. I imagine the Twins players are just responding to a line of questioning (reporters looking for a story...), rather than voicing their own feelings about the unwritten rules of baseball. I think it's a non-story.

Why do we burn Dozier in the same manner then? If the leadoff spot doesn't make sense for Buxton than it makes less sense for Dozier, unless we believe Buxton is going to be a low OBP guy indefinitely.

This NY Post writer picks the Twins to lose to the Nats in the WS.

It's just a bummer to waste a start like that out of Odorizzi.

I've actually started watching Longmire, which I've enjoyed quite a bit.

After the initial seasons of Jessica Jones and Daredevil, the whole endeavor felt rushed; the writing, characterization just wasn't there. I couldn't make it very far into Daredevil season 2, and haven't tried the others, though I've been considering giving JJ S2 a chance.

Try a different browser.

Rosario walked, so...

Not about this game. But the Astro's are getting shifty:

Not sliced bacon sounds inedible.