Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:27 pm Sorry, just don't agree with that line of thinking/angle.
I personally am not in 'power' anymore than someone else here in the US.
Just think people are overly sensitive to words.

But it's OK to think differently - we just differ.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 7:04 am

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:27 pm Sorry, just don't agree with that line of thinking/angle.
I personally am not in 'power' anymore than someone else here in the US.
Just think people are overly sensitive to words.

But it's OK to think differently - we just differ.

I think the issue is that people generally like you (which would also be people generally like me, and like most people here), simply can't grasp how different things are for people not like us.

That isn't to say people generally like us don't have or can't have sympathy (because we're generally good people) or even empathy (because white men face adversity also of course). But it does sort of mean, I think, that we should err on the side of listening more than we speak on matters like this.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:17 am Don't be a dick to people. Treat them as you'd want to be treated. We don't need to complicate things.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:17 am I've done the implicit bias training.
I thought it incredibly subjective ( i.e. just someone's random idea of what works without much actual proof ) - and also flawed.
Instead of treating someone like a normal person when you are around them, you now need to identify what they look like and specifically act differently around them.

It's discrimination at the thought level.

Don't be a dick to people. Treat them as you'd want to be treated. We don't need to complicate things.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:28 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:17 am I've done the implicit bias training.
I thought it incredibly subjective ( i.e. just someone's random idea of what works without much actual proof ) - and also flawed.
Instead of treating someone like a normal person when you are around them, you now need to identify what they look like and specifically act differently around them.

It's discrimination at the thought level.

Don't be a dick to people. Treat them as you'd want to be treated. We don't need to complicate things.

"It's discrimination at the thought level" is sort of going down the road of grievance.

"Treat them as you'd want to be treated" is the type of self-centered error that implicit bias training is intended to correct; you can't just put other people in your shoes. That's the point.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:17 am Don't be a dick to people. Treat them as you'd want to be treated. We don't need to complicate things.

a bit tone deaf given your previous comments, but whatever

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:36 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:17 am Don't be a dick to people. Treat them as you'd want to be treated. We don't need to complicate things.

a bit tone deaf given your previous comments, but whatever

Having a baseball team with the name of Indians that has been that way for 100 years is not being a dick to people.
Intent matters.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:58 am Treat people how you would want to be treated.
I don't care if some team decides to have a football program called Dumb Ass White Male Chauvinists. Or the Fighting Polacks.
Goes back to these two comments - with a LOT of emphasis ( and i mean so so much emphasis because some people on the progressive side just simply cannot comprehend it ) on the second comment:

"Just think people are overly sensitive to words.
But it's OK to think differently - we just differ."

You certainly don't need to try to prove to me that your thinking is the correct way of thinking - because of course, it's so very subjective.

So it's OK to think differently.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:11 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:58 am Treat people how you would want to be treated.
I don't care if some team decides to have a football program called Dumb Ass White Male Chauvinists. Or the Fighting Polacks.
Goes back to these two comments - with a LOT of emphasis ( and i mean so so much emphasis because some people on the progressive side just simply cannot comprehend it ) on the second comment:

"Just think people are overly sensitive to words.
But it's OK to think differently - we just differ."

You certainly don't need to try to prove to me that your thinking is the correct way of thinking - because of course, it's so very subjective.

So it's OK to think differently.

you said “just don’t be a dick”

who is the arbiter? do you get to decide whether or not you’re being a dick?

or, is the person/peoples on the other side of the interaction that get to decide?

The Padres have tried and failed in enough ways in recent memory—through importing stars via trade and free agency, through creating entire goateed rosters in the grit-and-gumption image of Eric Owens, through sudden brute-force overhauls and long-range rebuilds—that they have become easy to forget about. There was even a period in which Becoming Easy To Forget About appeared to be the organizational strategy, although in retrospect the team’s owner was just taking time to focus on his divorce.

As the team’s most recent long-run rebuild has lately started to pay off, the Padres began, in a development that is only contextually shocking, to do the sorts of things teams are supposed to do around that point in a competitive cycle. One of those is paying (and, if necessary, overpaying) veteran stars they believe will be both productive on the field and useful in developing the young talent coming up through the system. Another is cashing in prospects that might be worth more to cheap teams like Tampa or Cleveland in exchange for stars those teams decide they can no longer afford; those trades have lately brought Snell and Mike Clevinger to San Diego. A third is taking advantage of teams like the Cubs that have convinced themselves that the best tactical maneuver at this junction is to be taken advantage of. If done correctly over a suitably long period of time, all this trying-to-win tends to add up to winning.

[...]

The Padres are very obviously going for it, which is what baseball teams are supposed to do. They are not even doing this in what their peers might sniff is a financially reckless way. No team does that anymore; the last class solidarity in America is the suspicious consensus among MLB owners that spending too much money on MLB players is both wrong and shamefully déclassé. Not every team has good enough prospects to get Snell from the Rays without hurting its long-term health; basically every team could have made the Darvish deal, given what the Cubs accepted in return. But the Padres’ greatest advantage, and the one that made this possible above all others, is that they’re even willing to try.

All of which is to say that the Padres have taken advantage of the signal and single most important inefficiency in baseball at this moment, which is that only a handful of teams are even trying to improve their rosters, let alone compete for a World Series. There are as many mealymouthed excuses for that as there are teams, but only one compelling explanation. The Padres’ efforts over these decisive 24 hours make it clear just how much ground a sufficiently motivated team can gain in this bleak and blatant moment in the sport. For years, now, baseball’s winters have been defined by teams dithering and obviating and qualifying, some tentatively going for it before much more vigorously pulling back, others doing the absolute minimum, and something like a third of the league doing even less than that. It’s not that it’s surprising to see the Padres trying like this; they’ve been building carefully toward this for some time. What makes it stand out, and the real and troubling perversity buried in the surprise, is that they’re the only team doing it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 2:57 pm The Padres Are Doing What Every Other Team Could

https://defector.com/the-padres-are-doi ... eam-could/

The Padres have tried and failed in enough ways in recent memory—through importing stars via trade and free agency, through creating entire goateed rosters in the grit-and-gumption image of Eric Owens, through sudden brute-force overhauls and long-range rebuilds—that they have become easy to forget about. There was even a period in which Becoming Easy To Forget About appeared to be the organizational strategy, although in retrospect the team’s owner was just taking time to focus on his divorce.

As the team’s most recent long-run rebuild has lately started to pay off, the Padres began, in a development that is only contextually shocking, to do the sorts of things teams are supposed to do around that point in a competitive cycle. One of those is paying (and, if necessary, overpaying) veteran stars they believe will be both productive on the field and useful in developing the young talent coming up through the system. Another is cashing in prospects that might be worth more to cheap teams like Tampa or Cleveland in exchange for stars those teams decide they can no longer afford; those trades have lately brought Snell and Mike Clevinger to San Diego. A third is taking advantage of teams like the Cubs that have convinced themselves that the best tactical maneuver at this junction is to be taken advantage of. If done correctly over a suitably long period of time, all this trying-to-win tends to add up to winning.

[...]

The Padres are very obviously going for it, which is what baseball teams are supposed to do. They are not even doing this in what their peers might sniff is a financially reckless way. No team does that anymore; the last class solidarity in America is the suspicious consensus among MLB owners that spending too much money on MLB players is both wrong and shamefully déclassé. Not every team has good enough prospects to get Snell from the Rays without hurting its long-term health; basically every team could have made the Darvish deal, given what the Cubs accepted in return. But the Padres’ greatest advantage, and the one that made this possible above all others, is that they’re even willing to try.

All of which is to say that the Padres have taken advantage of the signal and single most important inefficiency in baseball at this moment, which is that only a handful of teams are even trying to improve their rosters, let alone compete for a World Series. There are as many mealymouthed excuses for that as there are teams, but only one compelling explanation. The Padres’ efforts over these decisive 24 hours make it clear just how much ground a sufficiently motivated team can gain in this bleak and blatant moment in the sport. For years, now, baseball’s winters have been defined by teams dithering and obviating and qualifying, some tentatively going for it before much more vigorously pulling back, others doing the absolute minimum, and something like a third of the league doing even less than that. It’s not that it’s surprising to see the Padres trying like this; they’ve been building carefully toward this for some time. What makes it stand out, and the real and troubling perversity buried in the surprise, is that they’re the only team doing it.