TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
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 TheLeviathan
-
Shane and I settled that misunderstanding awhile back....where were you? That has little to nothing to do with things. You've continually attacked every notion of conversation as akin to "sitting down at the table with the KKK". That's the problem. If you want to know why I still have a problem, it's because you spin the argument as that or "bigot coddling". Yeah, it's quite strange why I have a problem with those sorts of butchered interpretations. I don't have to revise anything, your comments speak for themselves. The way your tone and responses have been interpreted by multiple other people expressing the same thoughts vindicate that as well. Insult away, I've read my thoughts - other than taking some potshots at liberals (which, yeah, was unnecessary) - they are advocating reason and compassion from start to finish. I've multiple times made clear points that it in no way defend's Hunter's dumbass comments. Your twisting is all over this thread in reply to multiple posters. I would suggest you'd take a few of your remarks and look in the mirror and leave it at that.
-
I explained what Brock said and how I was illustrating that it is easy to fall into the same trap. I referenced only Dave as bordering on that. Go back and read, we had this exchange and it was explained. I had the page a minute ago but accidently closed it, I believe it was in the 8-10 range. I don't, I remember someone posting it but I looked back through the thread and it looks to have been deleted. I remember Brock attacking that post effectively enough that I left it at that. If someone else did, then I didn't read their post.
-
I thought the BCS title game was outstanding. Georgia almost pulled it out!
-
Constantly berating the use of reason and compassion as tools in the discussion is certainly bordering on militant. If you have a better term for it - aggressive perhaps? - it amounts to the same distinction but I'll certainly change the term. My comments about hate speech you continue to skew, I've explained that context already, at least try to be fair enough to include it rather than using it as a tool to demonize. Please, when did I say it wasn't offensive? If we're talking about the same post, several other very intelligent, respectable posters attacked that stupidity and slammed it for what it is. While piling on to it was certainly tempting, I chose to address people I didn't think had idiotic points of view. Using upbringing as an excuse for bigotry is offensive, I just didn't pile on. I am baffled about where I said it wasn't offensive....care to share when that happened or are you once again twisting things to justify this need to be offended? (I continue to find that odd considering, at heart, we don't disagree. This should be a civil discussion about tact rather than you slanting everything said that disagrees with your perspective on that as akin to the bigotry Hunter said publically)
-
No, for the umpteenth time (comprehension!) it's about it being incomplete. Hollow if not followed up with more meaningful gestures. You continue to skew my perspective, making it akin to MLK sitting down with the KKK. (Seriously, talk about being a d!ck. Read what you quoted last post and didn't read than then try and make that comparison again) I don't have to seize the higher ground, you're giving it to me with asshat interpretations like that. Nowhere has anything akin to that been said. If you stop trying to be offended and listened to what is being said you might find that there isn't much disagreement, you're just emphasizing the initial reaction and some of the rest of us are emphasizing the much more difficult, more lasting, more effective work that has to be done after it.
-
Message board personas are always different plus discourse here has snark and a variety of other factors that totally change the context of a discussion. It's true of any message board or comment section in existence. Reason is incredibly valid as a tool in real discourse but it is much less effective here. Shooting the messenger in this case hardly matters - I'm making a serious argument about something that matters in my life too. You and Psuedo have been falling all over yourselves to be offended rather than have a conversation. None of the points being made by me, riverbrian, or richard are offensive. You can certainly disagree but in this case the argument was not spun out by me, I've been trying like hell to keep it on the tracks. In essence, the exchange between howeda and I could've summed up the whole thing.
-
Article: Would a Six-Man Rotation Make Sense?
TheLeviathan replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I think someone should do a follow-up to this entitled "Would playing three of our middle infielders every day make sense?" Same principle, -
Um my point of view was just reiterated in what you quoted....seriously...read what you are responding to in context! And your own responses several posts ago suggested that what no one disagrees with" is bigot coddling! Which sounds a lot like disagreement to me.
-
I don't know what happened to your reading comprehension lately but I won't dignify that confused, twisted post with a direct reply. I never said shame can't be part of it. Back up and remember the course of the discussion. Howeda made some strong claims that I asked him to clarify (which he did and I totally agree with) you wedged into that and interjected "shame" as the answer. I called out how ineffective shame is to accomplish what howeda posted and now you are generalizing further. Friggin follow along or stop, good god. Shame is perfectly fine if combined with a genuine effcort to change someone's mind. Shame and then celebrating a half-ass non apology as a victory is stupid. Many reasonable, well stated attempts have been madxe to try and show you howtruly effective, lasting change is best accomplished through reason, building new relationships, and exposing bigotry through thoughtful dedication. Essentially - what MLK did. You have taken a more militant position which has not historicaly been very effective at lasting change. Bigotry is best used as a weapon against itself, exposed by reasonable people for what it is. If you insist on being obtuse and hacking up this point again with a seemingly deliberate atempt to fail at comprehending - go nuts. Otherwise howeda answered my question without skewing or slanting it.
-
Yeah, I miss it. Glad to see it back.
-
The arm strength is there - the instincts and accuracy are not. He's not an NFL-caliber QB and a bad choice as a backup on a team with a QB who has a history of injury problems. That said, I think Musgrave was trying too hard to loosen up the Packers defense for Adrian. Way too many 2 and short play action calls, especially in the second quarter. People are ragging on the defense but they were on the field for 11 and a half minutes in the second quarter plus almost all of the last 6 minutes of the first quarters. That's basically 17 minutes out of 21 that the defense was out there thanks to some of the play-calling. I chalk that up as much as anything for the loss last night. The d was playing ok up until that brutal stretch.
-
Well in that much I totally agree. We can certainly limit how much we listen or pay attention to these people and encourage the media to do the same. I didn't get that tone from your post though.
-
Yeah, what was MLK thinking using reason and compassion. What a coddler! I guess I aim higher than half-ass non-apologies. But to each their own.
-
So, you're happy your strategy achieved a half-hearted, save-face retraction? I guess if that's your aim, congrats.
-
"Sending a message" does not take the platform away nor marginalize his perspective as I indicated in response to you the first time.
-
Jesus christ dude. I never said it was offensive to me, I said it comes with heavy confrontational overtones that makes dialogue difficult. What's offensive is your constant need to be offended and twist what I'm saying to make it that way. You have every right to use strong language, but there are consequences to the productivity of the dialogue if you do so. Jim Cricket's article is very reasonable and a much better guide to how to respond to this issue than what you are suggesting IMO. You're absolutely right that most of the people impeding gay rights know they shouldn't hate gay people. In fact, it's actively a part of many of the political movements that are suppressing gay rights. (Think: "I don't hate gays, I just want to protect marriage") If you're content with people faking it out of one corner of their mouth while they actively suppress gay rights out of the other, fine. I'm not. I'd much rather we have lasting change through changed minds.
-
That language isn't very constructive, it's confrontational. "Bigot" has some strong associations. I wouldn't call it inaccurate, but it's certainly not constructive. The problem for gay rights is that you do need to win hearts and minds and non-constructive dialogue hurts that. As Richard said well - it's far more powerful to expose a bigot with reason than it is to get into a shouting match.
-
The problem with the kind of emotions you're emphasizing (aggressive, shaming, etc.) are they they don't effect change. If anything, they'll get people to dig in deeper. I don't deny the emotions, I'm focusing on the need to keep those emotions in check to result in meaningful change. Which, ultimately, is the goal. It might make you feel better now to lash out at people like Hunter, but long-term you're hurting things that matter much, much more.
-
No, but that's why shame isn't a go-to tactic. Shaming over and over and over again isn't going to change anyone. In fact, I'd argue at some point it becomes counter-productive. All the shame tactic does is give them an initial shock, the meat of changing a deeply held view/behavior comes in what has been said by Richard, myself, and others in this thread. I think that's the disconnect here. Shaming only goes so far (as in: not very).
-
Brandon Inge and Yuniesky Betancourt
TheLeviathan replied to twins4121's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Hey! These are some guys! ....... -
But he didn't change his mind. He's still "uncomfortable" with it and disapproving of homosexuals. All he did was soften the perception of how he'd react based on those feelings, his feelings didn't change at all.
-
We all agree that what we want is for bigotry against homosexuals to end and for them to have equal rights....correct? That is a practical objective, so let's talk practical. Shaming Torii Hunter does not keep the microphone out of his face. If that was the case, no one would have asked him this question after he was shamed for his racist comments a few years ago. I assure you, this won't be the last time someone asks him a question on this topic no matter how much shame you pile on. As for marginalizing, the only people who agree that his opinion is marginalized by shaming him are the people already sympathetic towards gay rights. You aren't marginalizing it with anyone else by shaming him. They have to care that the opinion is wrong before shame accomplishes that. Maybe this analogy will help, maybe it won't. Bigotry is a very stupid, childish thought. When a child does or says something wrong, shaming them is a response you can have, but as the go-to it is highly ineffective for altering behavior. We are, in this case, truly trying to alter behavior. Shaming, no matter what spiffy titles we put on it to make our rejection of his comments empowering, will not change anyone's behavior. All you're doing is preaching to the choir. Note: That doesn't mean shaming can't be part of the process, but it isn't the central thrust because it has no real power without more effective practices being employed with it. (Like....reason, positive relationships, etc.)
-
You achieve that how exactly? Force? Threats? Please explain "taking away" and "marginalizing" in a way that isn't a good sound bite.
-
Yeah, but he's not a very good lefty and he's the third lefty in the pen, I'd gladly keep him in AAA as a injury replace for a guy who has actually been a good MLB reliever.
-
Frasor has plenty of upside. He's been a good reliever in his career and would be a fine upgrade over someone like Robertson. Also, my brain just cramped with the idea that we shouldn't sign scrap heap, crappy pitchers....but should sign Sean West. West certainly has upside as a gamble, but so does Frasor. The difference is, Frasor has actually been a capable to good MLB player. Which makes him a much better, albeit more expensive, gamble.
