KirbyDome89

Because the beginning of April might be the only time we see them near .500....and listening to the games is another excuse to grab a sixer and tinker in the garage.

The phrase two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind... If Haley really isn't ready then he shouldn't be taking up a roster spot, and Boston can take him back. If the FO is that adamant that he stay on the 25 man then Molitor needs to get over it and use him as the long reliever. Having 13 pitchers at the expense of another bench player (HELLO PARK AT DH!) to start the season is bad enough but when you're carrying 2 long relievers because the manager refuses to throw one of them, its f$%#ing ridiculous. Molitor can't be trusted at this point to play younger guys and it pisses me off to no end. However, in this instance I would've rather they just granted him another burn out bullpen piece if it meant Park actually started the season in Minnesota. I see both the decision to force Haley onto the 25 man, and bringing on another long reliever as decisions that hurt the team overall. I can't understand how the Twins can fine with the conclusion. Seriously.....

If we're hoping for a start like last season then it isn't a big deal. But, at least they have "depth," now....

So the pages of back and forth where it was claimed that "everybody holds particular shared biases," and the subsequent use of that assumed knowledge say with certainty what Kinsler said was racist is now a strawman? I said it earlier, we're full circle. We don't agree on whether what was said was racist, or how that conclusion was reached. The end.

C'mon man didn't you drink the Kool-Aid yet? The bullpen saviors are coming.....

MY GOD! That is the point I've made this whole time, yet somehow you are able to assess Kinsler's and ascertain racism. I'm asking you not to be mind police, which is exactly what you're doing when you said that you knew Kinsler has a particular bias and used that as justification for calling him a racist (which you did) or claimed what he said is racist (which you're now doing.) Spare me the psychoanalysis here. Can you do that?

Sure we all have some number of negative biases. Particular is important in this case; is also happens to be the stalemate.

There are also peer review articles in social science journals claim there is no disparity. I would say I fall in between that and your view, but the inconsistency amongst studies in these journals is linked to inappropriate aggregation, which is exactly the criticism I have made. I'm not interested in trading scholarly articles back and forth. Maybe my issue is with social science more than you but IMO if your feelings are allowed to determine fact then we've reached an impasse. If the end results aren't transparent they shouldn't be regarded as such. There is a lot of conflicting data and evidence even in the journals, so to say that I'm just ignoring fact is simply untrue. We can agree that there are issues. What I can't agree with is that inconsistencies go overlooked. If you're glossing over important detail in order to leap to a conclusion thats an issue. It compounds when previous jumps are used to support future leaps.

I arguing that if you're only interested in end result inequality regardless of how you arrive at it we have an issue. That shouldn't even be debatable.

Your argument hinges on the belief everybody holds a particular negative bias. I disagree. This can't move forward.

Except it isn't a 98% vs 100% scenario like you seem to be making it. These instances that are categorized aren't as similar as you're making them out to be. Take your arrest example regarding whites and blacks from earlier, the ONLY thing that is shared is skin color. Like I said before there is no consideration of any of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. You compare the number of white vs. black arrests and see inequality of outcome and the conclusion is it must be racism because one color is arrested more often. What you're dismissing as minutiae is actually extremely important. When you remove all the lawful arrests or account for the other "minutiae" in different categories and see significant disparity then absolutely lets discuss societal issues and do so honestly. This same issue comes up in the difference in incarceration rate amongst the sexes. Men are disproportionally incarcerated compared to women. If you look at only violent crime the difference becomes laughable. I don't hear anybody claiming sexism though. "Men just commit more crime," is the narrative. But following the logic above it would have to be sexism or women somehow oppressing men right? I've looked at the outcome, there is definite equality so the justice system must work against men. Certainly don't believe that. If all we're going to do is look at the outcome and ignore all the variables that might explain how that outcome was achieved then IMO we're doing lazy analysis. I can agree that there are societal issues regarding race and gender and still disagree with the way in which some people reach that conclusion. I'm sorry, but this isn't an "all or nothing," issue. As another low hanging fruit example, take Trump. I cannot stand his stance on anything that involves science and therefore couldn't stomach voting for him. I know lots of others who didn't vote for him as well but its because "he is a nazi." To me that is nonsense and I totally disagree with how they reached the conclusion to abstain from voting for him, but on a basal level we agree.

I agree, I'm not railing against statistical analysis. Where I have pause is when generalizations from the aggregate data are used to indict individuals.

Instances are individual Mike. The examples of arrest/conviction/unemployment were given much earlier in the thread. The arrests/convictions/cases of unemployment aren't identical but they're grouped as such. I've talked through that in a few earlier posts.

Agreed, we've established everybody holds their own biases. Which biases individuals hold is another story. In the OP you did make that accusation but you've since withdrawn a little, which I think is a good thing. Ok, we'll just disagree on where he stepped.

That isn't what I said... The instances that are labeled as racism happen independent of each other, ie occur at different times, in different places, under different circumstances. Yes group think exists, it doesn't undermine what I said above.

Kernels games are a good time, if you can make it to one its definitely worth the trip. As a native Iowan (insert joke here) I would strongly recommend staying in Iowa City if you're traveling there for a game. Sorry if there are any CR residents on here but you'll have a much better time in IC and you won't have to constantly smell that nasty a$$ Quaker Oates factory like you would in CR.

Meh agreed for the most part. People do pick and choose. There is an overarching "American Culture," that does encompass both the good and bad. There are obvious exceptions but for the most part I do believe that most Americans prefer the culture here. I look at it this way; there are aspects of other countries that I wish were commonplace in America. However, as a complete package, I wouldn't trade my way of life here for there. I guess you changed the definition and that was kind of my point. I wasn't trying to make the conversation be about Islam; it was just the lowest hanging fruit in terms examples. I was getting at the way you defined racism because according to it my denouncement of the the way women are viewed and treated was in fact racist. If I were to discriminate against Saudis or hold a prejudice against all of them due to that negative aspect of their culture then the argument could be made that I was being racist. I think that is an important distinction from being critical of an aspect of another culture and/or championing an aspect of your own. I couldn't agree more on the take concerning the ideology of some Christians. I haven't spent enough time with native Texans to really have an opinion, but I do enjoy Austin. Don't even get me started on the climate change deniers, this thread has been exhausting enough.... Certainly you can celebrate your own culture without comparing it to others. If that bothers people I can understand it. The disagreement was over whether or not racism transpired as a result of the comparison.

By assigning him particular biases or prejudices you are presuming to have that knowledge though. If you're not claiming that then Idk what some of the previous posts were getting at. If the argument is that you're only comparing what he said to what somebody who would hold that particular bias against Latin players would say then we've come full circle. In your OP you claimed he was slightly racist, and my initial objection was in regards to people arriving at that conclusion with such certainty. You see similarity to bias against Latin players; I see a strong preference for what he believes the best way to play the game is. I see no need to repeat the first few pages if this is the case.

I said the same thing earlier. Everybody views their culture (their way of life) as the best way. By your definition everybody is racist. Don't conflate preference and prejudice. How do you feel about the subhuman treatment of women in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia? It certainly is part of that culture. Its also disgusting. That is a value judgement, I deem that aspect of their culture to be lesser than my own. Does that make me a racist?

There is a difference between preferring your way of doing things and showing a prejudice against another way because it involves a different race. If you can't see that difference, you're not trying....

"But even in those unique actions there can be shared thoughts, trends, instincts, biases,prejudices, etc. Talking about those shared parts is not to make each person or action "indistinguishable" from one another, but to avoid getting stuck in the weeds." Speaking of injecting! Apparently its acceptable to presume to know the nature of said thoughts, trends, biases, and prejudices but skepticism of such is "misunderstanding." Makes sense... "Data" (audible laugh) I don't know why this is hard to understand. When you play the role of mind police and pretend to know the bias/prejudice/instincts/thoughts of individuals that is an issue. It doesn't get you out of the weeds, it bastardizes reality. You're literally saying "You're guilty because I say so." But, now that you've created a similarity where there isn't any, you skew the outcome. Those final numbers are the only thing you're using to compare race X with race Y. Alone equality of outcome isn't strong enough to claim outright racism/sexism/oppression, but on top of it the data used is manipulated. Can you see why somebody might have problem with that? You keep attacking posts stating that they're "incoherent," and full of "misunderstanding," every time I point out the gaps in reasoning that you so conveniently fill in or jump over but please, continue to educate me lest I dress up anything else as logic....

Let me spell it out differently for you... All instances happen independent of each other yet they're considered to be the same. They're treated as as indistinguishable and categorized as such . Then the data pulled from these groups is used to typify (a synonym of characterize) an entire race/gender. This method clearly eschews nuance. You've shown support for this method yet it's apparently me who has no interest in examination of anything below surface level. I think that it is the other way around. Better? I applaud your confidence in your opinion....

Lost it reading this one....well done sir

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/you-keep-using-those-words.jpg

No offense but I believe that statement is quite backwards. When you're more concerned with analyzing individual instances as a homogenous collective and then use that data to characterize entire races/genders you show no concern for nuance. "But anything of this complexity is going to have generalization and uncertainty." Yet we're all certain what he said was racist. So pointing out a serious flaw in the reasoning that is being used is ducking out? I had no idea....