KirbyDome89

See middle paragraph above. Not every negative life aspect can be attributed solely to race. Sorry, but not all arrests/unemployment/lowing paying jobs/ect are because of gender/race/ethnicity. Some are, but like I said above, they're all lumped into the same group. There is no critical thinking on an individual basis, all the cases are shoved into a single broad category and all anybody sees is the end result that shows racial disparity. Its an extremely superficial view of an issue that is much more layered. Next from the end result racial disparity it is determined that racial bias must be the only cause. Then because straight white men are at the top of the totem pole (if we're using SES metrics I'm not sure if that still true) they must all hold a negative racial bias which is oppressing all other groups and keeping them down. Lastly, because that group holds a specific bias they are indicted for racism when they say something regarding a race that isn't their own. There is just too much generalization/assuming/uncertainty for me to get on board with that flow.

Yeah...14 starts....as a rookie..... Rather than build off of that he is back in AAA, a level he has beaten up, and we're watching Hughes throw bp and Tyler Duffey getting shot number 3 at the rotation. If "sucked last year," was grounds for demotion then Ervin would be the only one standing....

I didn't say bias doesn't exist. Yes I realize the importance of it and I understand what it is. If you guys want to have discussion on the evolutionary advantages it infers I'm more than game. Again, there is a difference between having a bias in favor of something like tacos after a night out (a personal favorite) or cultural music and having bias (prejudice) against a group of people. Of course we all carry bias, but that doesn't mean everybody necessarily carries the same one, or has a prejudice towards a particular race/ethnicity. That is where you're losing me. The issue I have is the application of bad science. All cases are painted over as the same thing, none of them are examined on an individual basis. By that I mean the examination is superficial at best. They're run through a machine (metaphorical) and what we're left with is a collection of data. The numbers show racial disparity. Is that a viable option? Absolutely. Is it the only explanation? Certainly not. That is where we are at odds. You cannot control for (or honestly since we're dealing with the subconscious here, account for) all variables. This means you can't rule out contributing factors. Yet that seems to be what everybody is doing. I have an issue with not only how the conclusion is reached, but then the use of that conclusion to indict others (Kinsler) or dismiss opposing points of view as illogical. I've never argued that we live in some post racial paradise, I simply don't agree with the jump in logic that is used to convict and absolve individuals. You said it best yourself, you can't presume to know everybody's life situation/experiences. I don't know how it is then that you can say they carry an implicit negative bias for other races and call that evidence of racism. Those two statements run so opposite each other I'm not sure how they can be reconciled.

What you're calling pushing him into a role I would characterize as granting him an opportunity. AAA is nothing but biding time for him. Most teams with promising young arms that have dominated the highest levels of the minor leagues look to promote them to the major league team, especially when they have an awful staff to begin with. The handling of prospects by this team is anything but normal...

Easiest? Yes. Likeliest? I doubt it. Vanimal said it perfectly earlier; if Santiago can get stretched out to be the 3-4 starter why can't Berrios do the same thing to be the 5? I don't agree that its a run of the mill decision for a team to option their only above average pitching prospect back to AAA where he has dominated for 2 years before he throws a single pitch in camp. Add to that the state of pitching staff and it does feel a lot like an excuse to dodge some criticism.

Or he never was an option and the Twins used the WBC as a convenient excuse (copyright Vanimal) to avoid taking too much heat from sending him back to a level he has dominated for 2 years.

I'll grant you the concern about Ks and defense. Personally I wouldn't be too worried until a couple months in and he looks like last season, but it isn't crazy to be a little worried. I've gone off regarding the "weight issue," in past threads. To me it was just a cheap way to scapegoat what was a horrible decision by the organization and the fact that people are still beating that drum bothers me.

"Okay, so you went down that road." I know right; its crazy to think people would want to defend themselves from being stigmatized as a collective. "That's not hypocrisy, that's just reality." That is exactly what I meant by "my truth." You can paint with the same broad brush and speak about race/ethnicity in an arguably more divisive tone than Kinsler but what you say is apparently acceptable "because you claim it is true," yet what he said is racist even though it is unarguably true. Sorry that is hypocritical. "Therefore, we white men need to listen from time to time because, sometimes, we don't see the experiences of different people and their day-to-day lives." No, nobody sees the experiences of anybody other than themselves. That is why I take issue with you making generalizations. "It's unbelievable to me that so many white men don't realize that their inability to comprehend that different people have different life experiences is part of their in-built bias." This is the real point of contention. Do you realize the magnitude of the claim you're making when you state that all white people carry and implicit bias towards every other race/gender/ethnicity? Can you show this subconscious prejudice in any way? I mean actually show it, not say that their is a possibility it exists. Its the equivalent of saying "you can't prove it isn't there so it must be true" and then using that as the launch point for the generalization and stigmatization of a race/gender. Its insanely fallacious and ridiculous but like I said earlier, its considered "progress," now, and socially acceptable so carry on. I also think its hilarious that "different people have different life experiences," is being used as support when it so clearly runs counter to your narrative that all whites have an implicit bias and therefore can be generalized. You're treating whites as a collective and then arguing that all others need to seen as individuals. Why can't everybody be seen as an individual and treated as such? I suppose that would poke massive holes in the rationale being used to indict others though. "Or that I don't know everything experienced by every other human being on the planet." See this is what I don't understand. I totally agree with the statement. What I can't comprehend is how you can finish with a statement like this yet still believe that everything you're talking about above holds true. If we can't know experiences of others, how can we say that they hold implicit biases? If they don't hold these biases individually how can they be grouped as a collective race that does? If the collective narrative is fictional then would it not be wrong to generalize and stigmatize regardless of race/gender?

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e0/e0a9a3d82274827346dad8eea5339e6517244be9b44299fd6a5d5da2372e2a96.jpg Can they play actual baseball games before the "he is overweight and doesn't care," chatter starts up again? No? Ok then....

Its cool to generalize and speak dismissively about a race as long as its a specific skin color. Hypocrisy be damned right? That kind of "progress," is what says it all...

Craig's first paragraph above took the words out of my mouth.

We'll just say we're vehemently opposed on this one.

Isn't there a big issue here? Wasn't one of the main criticisms of Kinsler's comments that he painted with a broad brush and showed prejudice towards a people of a different ethnicity? Personally I disagree with the assessment, but how is the statement that whites or any other group are inherently racist any different? This seems like a "my truth," situation. Preference is different from bias. Possibility for a racial component isn't evidence there is one. The fact all people have the capacity to be racist doesn't mean that they are. I feel like these terms are being fused when in fact there is a clear cut difference.

1. I had to look up what WASP meant. 2. I'll just disagree that whites have a monopoly on "Us vs Them."

Meh, there is a big difference between trying to paint corners with a 4 pitch mix and throwing your two plus pitches out of the pen. Like I said, check some former Twins relievers, namely Joe Nathan's K/BB during his minor league career. He isn't throwing max velocity as a starter. No pitcher has the stamina to pitch that way over the course of a game. Moving to the pen would add mph to his fastball.

So the argument is that racism comes from a position of power right?

Kind of has to be one or the other.

Just to clarify are we talking only white people or is this applicable to all individuals in the US?

So this offseason they fail to sign any impact arm to aid what was one of the worst bullpens in baseball, and now they've decided to send the only impact pitcher they potentially have down to AAA. I'm not sure which scenario is more discouraging; Molitor once again showing no interest in getting the younger guys innings, or the new FO taking what seems to be a very familiar approach.... Don't get me started on the "he adds depth," angle. The pitcher taking his spot can be that depth. Depth isn't an excuse for a lesser pitcher starting the season in the bullpen.

Thrylos clarified and I answered above.

I agree there are differences in culture depending on the region in the US. Obviously there is influx of different different culture that influences the the country overall. Culture isn't static. America today isn't America of 1800. Because American culture can't be attributed to a single group (as no current culture can) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In short, yes, there is an "American Culture."

I'm not sure what the post is driving at. All first world countries deal with an influx of culture. Immigration isn't unique to the US. Look no further than southern or eastern Europe. Points for mentioning IA though.

Whoa...talk about coming out of left field. Not sure how you made the jump from defining culture to saying that I'm advocating for a completely darwinist society as a norm but OK..... And FWIW everything I stated about culture is true. Take for example 2 different foods. You may the first disgusting and prefer the second. However, the second is a delicacy in another culture and would be favored by a different group. Why did you choose the first food? You believe it to be the better alternative of the two and in the culture in which you live has influenced that. Is one objectively better than the other? No, its a subjective decision. I'm not sure why there is such staunch denial regarding this reality. It certainly doesn't mean I'm advocating for, or claiming the existence of, a completely darwinist society.

Maybe you're misunderstanding "Us vs. Them." It isn't about inclusion, acceptance, winning, or losing. Its about thinking the way you do things is the best way. As Americans we are culturally different than other parts of the world. Why do we continue to act in a different manner than other countries? Because we enjoy the different aspects of our culture and we obviously believe it to be a better alternative. Is there a tangible way to measure whether it actually is better? In most cases probably not. Culture is evolutionarily advantageous. Its a method of passing down information across generations. It creates a sense of loyalty and allegiance within the group. I'm sorry but it absolutely does create a sense of "Us and Them."

1. There is the potential for a racial component in the comments made 2. If there is potential then the comments must involve race 3. If the comments involve race then the speaker is a racist I agree with #1. I couldn't agree less with the logic of #2 and #3 yet that seems to be how we've arrived at Ian Kinsler being a racist. It has been stated before but to get from 1-2 and 2-3 you need to take massive leaps. The fact that there is a potential for a racial component doesn't mean there is one. I've seen a decent chunk of the discussion circle around the "My way is right yours if wrong," impression for the comments. I agree, I do think that is what he is saying. It also isn't surprising. Every culture creates a sense of "us vs. them." I said it above but everybody views the way they do things as the best way to do them, so naturally he views his way of playing as a better option. Does that mean he thinks he is superior to latin players on a human level? (racist) No.