TheLeviathan

Yeah, so much this. I'm so sick of hearing what Europe does well. They exported all their BS hundreds of years ago and now have a largely white, homogenous society and they are the model for the future? Screw that noise. I'm so tired of that talking point from the left. There are things we can learn from them for sure, but the adoration for them is so overblown. As for the work issue, it's hard to plan for what technology will bring. I don't have a problem with centering life around what we do as work. I'd suggest, if that's a fear of yours, perhaps says more about you and your career than others. I love going to work every day. I grew up on a farm and my father got up every day thrilled to do that. So I think the oversimplification about work is a mistake. It gives purpose and fulfillment to many people. For many it doesn't as well, I get that, but it's not a simple issue. Plus, I really don't know if you can "plan" for technological innovation and the changing job landscape. The rate of change in the field makes that incredibly difficult. I worry if you just embrace the idea that "welp, we don't need jobs any more!", we'll make the movie Wall-E look like Nostradamus.

There's another angle I'm partial to as well in this discussion. We need leftist ideas, they are what drive us forward in genuinely positive ways. The weakness, however, seems to be in the execution. Many well meaning leftist policies have caused tremendous damage to society. From low income housing, to the student loan program, social programs often keep people from working full time jobs, etc. We need a sane end of the spectrum that supports fiscal conservative to keep these good ideas focused on actually working rather than just making us feel good. In that respect both parties are failing us. Leftists continue to spout well meaning ideas with terrible plans to enact them (See: Sanders, Bernie) and the right continues to stand for basically nothing. They can't even manage to be on top of fiscal conservatism anymore. They're just running around shouting "argh!" at things hoping enough voters feel "argh!" as well and vote for them. From my perspective, that's a harsh double whammy.

I have a lot of Chicago friends that are Cubs fans, I'm happy for them today. It was a great game 7.

Yeah, they really couldn't do much more at that point. They had to gamble on him not executing. Either way, I think it was a bad call. A sac fly gets it done there, you don't have to bunt with two strikes.

Go watch basketball. Clearly you don't love the game. Also, why are we listening to weather terrorists about a storm that looked a significant distance away?

Well, that probably ends Chapman's night.

Was it though? Even the announcers were all over the possibility.

Buck...just say "We've never had a walk off homerun to end a game" For the love of god keep it succinct or it sounds overcooked.

Not many shortstops make that play on Fowler. Wow.

Meanwhile, Joe Buck tries to add to the tension with stats like this: "We just witnessed the first home run hit in the eighth inning of a game, by a Cleveland Indian, in Game 7, by a man named Rajai, whose favorite food is tacos, while the temperature is 49 degrees" Just....save it Joe. If you have to add that many damn caveats it's no longer something that adds to it.

There's the drama. There are some choices Maddon made that are coming back to bite him.

Here's something.....would you trade Ervin Santana for Holland and Profar? Maybe with another prospect from Texas in it?

Clinton is fairly centered. Its impossible for a candidate to hit on 3/4 of a large swath of voters, especially those of moderate views. So while I'd like to see more moderate candidates in general, Hillary is the closest in awhile. (Romney could have been, but chose to go whacko)

Absolutely. Part of the advantage of being comfortable talking in generalizations is you can also point out the positive flip side of such a thing. It can both be true that many of the problems in our country stem from the beliefs and actions of white men and that many of our solutions will come through changes in white men. I think we'd have more productive political conversations if both sides were more willing to see the strengths of generalizing rather than constantly getting stuck in the weeds. Conservatives are quick to tell people of color to pull themselves up by the boot straps, but they throw a tizzy when you generalize about the oppression faced by those same people. Liberals are quick to play the same game about religion. Both sides can't figure out how they are completely broken on generalizations about the issues of race and policing. We like to use those sorts of generalizations to get our own crowd to say "rabble rabble", but as soon as the same tactic gets flipped we cry foul. We may want to reach out and see the truth that goes both ways. For me, Chi is right to be frustrated by white men and there are generalizations to be made there that are critical and constructive. Likewise, she (like the rest of us) falls into many groups that deserve some of the same criticism. I just wonder how many of us are willing to play by those rules both ways. It sure doesn't seem like many of us do. (Speaking, of course, generally. Not of the posters in this particular thread. Most here do, though there are other threads on this forum where we start to see those tolerances for generalizations suddenly evaporate)

It's a good post, one hopeful item i have out of this election is that it's possible one party gets routed thoroughly enough that they really look within and see what they can do to improve. Both parties are to blame, but the Republicans hold a significant edge in that category. Most of what is wrong stems from how badly that side has lost their way. The realist in me believes they will only go deeper down the wrong path.

I am totally ok with this. I agree completely. Where it gets hard for me is to hear someone with left-leaning ideology say something like this. Because if that sort of generalization is used in a way your ideology isn't comfortable with, then the conversation goes full scale nuclear. So it starts to become a tad irksome to hear the same kind of argument used when it would otherwise not be accepted. I think that's the problem, it's a "it's good for the goose, but not the gander" Personally, I'm always good with it. Generalizing is something we sort of have to do. And this generalization is not false, IMO.

I sympathize with that view. Though I might argue thingss are getting worse on divisive language I think. You don't need to apologize, I get where you were going and I get that we're all at a heightened state of angst over all this. Less than a week and then we can move on to a new list of things to be pissed about.

Doesn't that work in reverse? The same people who bitch about not generalizing are the first ones to do it and think it's perfectly ok? Look, rich white men have done lots of a-hole things for a long time. We can all agree on that. But everyone wants to play by their own rules. The Alt-right, cry baby liberal Millenials, etc. The problem is getting worse becaue of this, not better.

I'm sure we all have ways we can relate to groups of people differently than each other. I've been in environments no one here would wish upon their worst enemy for no other reason than I enjoy helping people. So let's not do that. Are my arguments often dismissive? Yup, they are. It's a fault of mine for sure. I am just fully aware of it and i don't pretend otherwise. I know it isn't particularly helpful either. But it is part of the problem and something I do try to work at. I don't pretend otherwise. You seem to be wrapping yourself in it without realizing it.

No you did. You've made it clear I'm not going to get anywhere. Maybe that's on me for not being clear, i don't know. But you aren't seeing - at all - what I'm saying. You're doubling and tripling down on the opposite.

So is Bill Maher when he bashes Trump voters and then, a few minutes later, asks "Why can't we win these 20 states that always go red?" Why? Why can't we bridge those gaps? Close some of that divide that is causing your frustration? Because we're content to say "I'm sick of X. They're the problem" As if that ends the conversation. Well, it does do that. You make it clear whoever X is should shut up and agree with you and that's the end of the discussion. But ending the conversation shouldn't be the goal.

There can be truth in those statements and they can still be unhelpful. Ruralites can say it's all about urbanites. Blacks can drop the "men" from your comment and say the same. Poor can say it about rich. Rich about poor. It's deliberately divisive language meant to exclude yourself from the problem and put it on other people. Which is one of the central tenants of that "win win win" phenomenon you were talking about. ("It's not MY side, we got this! It's THOSE guys") And that's coming from someone that doesn't mind generalizing. I think it's necessary much to the chagrin of the left. But I'd just suggest that your comment is more reflective of the problem than a course to a solution.

He seems particularly adept at taking hard, contested long range shots. Another huge plus for this team.

The other angle with social media is that it's much easier to find someone that says what you want to hear. In those days your news sources and opinions were pretty narrow. Now you can find just about any whack job you want. I would think that would lead to more division. People are no longer seeking out a range of ideas, but only to confirm their own.

Humility like this about one's own ideological group is sorely lacking. Thank you. It'd go a long way to bridging these gaps.