Red Sox accept White House invitation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
It's basically a photo-op for the President. Not really even something celebrating the winning team.
It’s a really cool thing for a lot of overworked career civil service type folks who serve in nonpartisan roles in the Two Executive Office Buildings and Treasury too.

A friend of mine was working in the Council of Economic Advisors when the Sox won in 2007 (or maybe 2013). He was jazzed.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,498
Boston, MA
Weren't you the guy who vaguely came at JBJ for his "character" issues? Character was, in your experience, of huge importance, something like that.

Forget the Red Sox abhorrent use of their powers of state to censor an individual for a moment. If saying and posting those things isn't a character issue, what is?
If you think hard about some differences between Schilling and JBJ that might color his perception of them, you might find the answer to your question.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
This thread would not have even existed under Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan or however far back this tradition goes. But it does now.
In V&N on SoSH, Bush 43 was regularly referred to as Bushitler!

Plus ca change, Plus ca la meme chose.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
Last edited:

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
12,803
The past 3-1/2 years encompass exactly none of Bush 43’s presidency, and many of the posters, including V&N’s own 9/11 truther, have left.
I can only search what's available to me, but I'm fairly confident that "regularly referred to" implies something that no search would uncover.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
If you think hard about some differences between Schilling and JBJ that might color his perception of them, you might find the answer to your question.
Did you honestly think I needed this explained to me? Second question, did you honestly think I needed this explained to me like a condescending dickhead?

Read what I wrote again, maybe slower this time?
 
Last edited:

BoSoxLady

Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2003
3,343
In the era of FAKE NEWS is it important to understand sources. The source of the above is Red Sox spokeswoman Zineb Curran. As you know, her job is to communicate the Red Sox official position to the media in a way that protects the company first and reveals the truth second if at all.

A better explanation would come from someone in Red Sox leadership making an on-the-record public statement as part of an interview. That would provide context and enable understanding of Schilling non participation.

Absent that, the quote is simply the Red Sox distancing themselves from the issue in order to move on to other business.
Keith Foulke and Alan Embree were the only players from the 2004 team who were not already at Fenway due to broadcast media obligations. Tek of course, is with the club.

Foulke lives in the area and Embree was attending the game. The guys still communicate and when the two non-media players heard about the pre-game ceremony, they asked to be included.

This is not Red Sox spin. This is exactly what happened. Schilling makes everything about him. Personally, I’m happy Schill wasn’t there. There’s an excellent chance he’d be booed because he’s an ass. Who wants negativity during the World Series?
 

uncannymanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
6,039
Boston --> NYC --> LA --> NYC
The Eagles and Warriors did it. Smiling and shaking that guy's hand for a photo op as an organizational decision doesn't sit right with me.
Did those declined invitations affect any positive change in society or do you think they should’ve declined solely on principle? If the owner of the Warriors told John Henry they saw a 10% drop in season ticket sales, would that change your perspective on the decision?

Neither of those teams play in MLB. It’s possible the league headed this decision off at the pass and gave the team “guidance” on the decision.

This is not to say I agree with accepting. I’m really on the fence about how I feel about it. Have any reporters asked them about it yet?
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
I think that was more of a jab at Hawk68, not you.
I got that, just an odd choice of response in saying what I'd already said in the post he was responding to. Not a huge deal.

Did those declined invitations affect any positive change in society or do you think they should’ve declined solely on principle? If the owner of the Warriors told John Henry they saw a 10% drop in season ticket sales, would that change your perspective on the decision?
Solely on principle. I think somewhere on the spectrum of behavior there exists a line, past which you shouldn't accept an invitation to yuk it up and stand for a photo-op, at least in part out of respect for the office, not a lack thereof.

If there's societal benefit it may be in making people otherwise used to things humming along as usual notice that some are refusing to just go along, but who knows what gets through to people at this point.

And fair question but no I wouldn't care about ticket sales personally.
 
Last edited:

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,051
Needham, MA
In V&N on SoSH, Bush 43 was regularly referred to as Bushitler!

Plus ca change, Plus ca la meme chose.
The Patriots won three Super Bowls while Bush 43 was President and I don't recall any suggestion that they should skip the ceremony nor any threads in BBTL about the topic.

Edit: Duh, and of course the Sox won twice during his Presidency, I don't recall any threads on the topic here.
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
12,803
The Patriots won three Super Bowls while Bush 43 was President and I don't recall any suggestion that they should skip the ceremony nor any threads in BBTL about the topic.

Edit: Duh, and of course the Sox won twice during his Presidency, I don't recall any threads on the topic here.
This is a great point. And it's worth pointing out that the Bruins had a goalie who boycotted the White House championship ceremony. Those damned liberals! Oh, wait...
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Keith Foulke and Alan Embree were the only players from the 2004 team who were not already at Fenway due to broadcast media obligations. Tek of course, is with the club.

Foulke lives in the area and Embree was attending the game. The guys still communicate and when the two non-media players heard about the pre-game ceremony, they asked to be included.

This is not Red Sox spin. This is exactly what happened. Schilling makes everything about him. Personally, I’m happy Schill wasn’t there. There’s an excellent chance he’d be booed because he’s an ass. Who wants negativity during the World Series?
Thanks for the info. Do you know if Foulke still works for the Sox? I know he was hired in 2016 and he was still working for them in 2017 but in my admittedly quick seach, I wasn’t sure if he was still working for them.
 

uncannymanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
6,039
Boston --> NYC --> LA --> NYC
Solely on principle. I think somewhere on the spectrum of behavior there exists a line, past which you shouldn't accept an invitation to yuk it up and stand for a photo-op, at least in part out of respect for the office, not a lack thereof.

If there's societal benefit it may be in making people otherwise used to things humming along as usual notice that some are refusing to just go along, but who knows what gets through to people at this point.

And fair question but no I wouldn't care about ticket sales personally.
I think paragraph 2 here is what I was getting at, particularly the second part about getting through to people; does refusal by a sports team to go to the WH have any real positive effect across society?

With regards to the sales, perhaps I should've framed it as "if you were JH". I don't think it's cut and dry that it's a net positive for the team's business to refuse, see the NFL and ESPN's caving to conservative voices.

I do agree that in a vacuum I would personally refuse/not attend, but it's just not that simple.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
This is a great point. And it's worth pointing out that the Bruins had a goalie who boycotted the White House championship ceremony. Those damned liberals! Oh, wait...
And I criticized him for not going. This isn’t about the President or the team, really. It’s really about the fans and the sport, as others who’ve said something to the effect of, “any chance to see this great team together again is great!”
 

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,156
Brasil
No matter what you think about him, it's difficult to argue that Obama wasn't within the limits of a normal presidency.

Can you say the same about Trump?
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,396,498
NY
If a player refused to go to the WH when Bush was president because he disagreed with the tax cut or the Iraq war I would've said he's being a little ridiculous. If a player refused to go to the WH when Obama was president because he disagreed with the ACA or the legalization of gay marriage I would've said the same thing. This is different. It's not about political views. It's about decency. The right thing to do would be to refuse the invitation based solely on the fact that Trump hasn't come close to acting like a decent human being.
 

ricopetro6

lurker
Oct 25, 2013
1,551
people disappointed with the Sox accepting an offer to the White House? My gosh people, get over it. Some pathetic comments here...
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
Thankfully, John Henry and Dave Dombrowski and Alex Cora are all capable of recognizing when the moment and stage is bigger and more important than the interim host. Hopefully, most of the Red Sox players are too.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,385
South Boston
Thankfully, John Henry and Dave Dombrowski and Alex Cora are all capable of recognizing when the moment and stage is bigger and more important than the interim host. Hopefully, most of the Red Sox players are too.
None of the three of them are that dumb. Literally no championship that has ever been won between chalk lines (and especially not belated congratulations for it) is bigger or more important than the person who occupies the office of the presidency of the United States of America.

Accepting the invitation may be the right thing to do. But not for this simultaneously hackneyed and warped view of the world as it exists anywhere but in the cosmically comfortable chrysalis in which this statement gestated.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,190
Concord, NH
If a player refused to go to the WH when Bush was president because he disagreed with the tax cut or the Iraq war I would've said he's being a little ridiculous. If a player refused to go to the WH when Obama was president because he disagreed with the ACA or the legalization of gay marriage I would've said the same thing. This is different. It's not about political views. It's about decency. The right thing to do would be to refuse the invitation based solely on the fact that Trump hasn't come close to acting like a decent human being.
It's 100% about political views.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
NFL players were in somewhat different situation, as the protesting started there, and Trump specifically called them out as un-American sons of bitches who were "lucky" to be playing football. (I guess he thinks *everybody* inherits stuff).

I'm repeating myself, and I'll stop, but Trump wants the Sox not to go. That's what he feeds on. Just like the weak coward bully who hopes like hell that you are too scared to take him on will wet his pants if you even sneer at him. Every player can wear an American flag lapel pin. Ones from other countries should also wear their countries' flags. And Cora should make some acceptance remarks in Spanish. I understand skipping it. But I think going "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" on his ass makes the Sox the bigger people and illustrates that it's not *his* house.

And, as others have said, its cool to see the White House; and its cool for the lower-level staffers to see the Sox.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,190
Concord, NH
It depends on your definition of "politcal."
It's really not, though. And again, I want to make it clear I am 100% against Trump and everything he stands for. So, don't take this as a defense of him. But this is 10000000000% political. One political party frames absolutely everything the other party does in the worst possible way. The other political party does exactly the same thing back. Both sides use social media propaganda to scare more and more people into thinking the other side represents Nazi's coming to take everything the hold dear, and Trump is either the devil himself or the hero that's saving them from those Nazis. I assure you, both sides think they're the good guys and even if you believe the other side is 100% objectively wrong about that, it's still political. The divide is extremely clearly along party lines.

In other words, whether or not someone things Trump is "decent" still comes down 100% to which political party they subscribe to, were born into, their news tells them to, etc. Taking a stance as an organization is absolutely not taking a stance for or against decency. It's making a political choice, and it's not their choice to make.

And furthermore, someone like Cora can do a hell of a lot more with this opportunity than he could by sitting on his couch at home.
 

YTF

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
NFL players were in somewhat different situation, as the protesting started there, and Trump specifically called them out as un-American sons of bitches who were "lucky" to be playing football. (I guess he thinks *everybody* inherits stuff).

I'm repeating myself, and I'll stop, but Trump wants the Sox not to go. That's what he feeds on. Just like the weak coward bully who hopes like hell that you are too scared to take him on will wet his pants if you even sneer at him. Every player can wear an American flag lapel pin. Ones from other countries should also wear their countries' flags. And Cora should make some acceptance remarks in Spanish. I understand skipping it. But I think going "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" on his ass makes the Sox the bigger people and illustrates that it's not *his* house.

And, as others have said, its cool to see the White House; and its cool for the lower-level staffers to see the Sox.
Great post and I like your take on the NFL angle.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
NFL players were in somewhat different situation, as the protesting started there, and Trump specifically called them out as un-American sons of bitches who were "lucky" to be playing football. (I guess he thinks *everybody* inherits stuff).

I'm repeating myself, and I'll stop, but Trump wants the Sox not to go. That's what he feeds on. Just like the weak coward bully who hopes like hell that you are too scared to take him on will wet his pants if you even sneer at him. Every player can wear an American flag lapel pin. Ones from other countries should also wear their countries' flags. And Cora should make some acceptance remarks in Spanish. I understand skipping it. But I think going "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" on his ass makes the Sox the bigger people and illustrates that it's not *his* house.

And, as others have said, its cool to see the White House; and its cool for the lower-level staffers to see the Sox.
Yours have been really great posts and you've nearly changed my mind on it. Great points, made me feel better about the whole thing.
 

sittingstill

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,488
Bay State Road
Thanks for the info. Do you know if Foulke still works for the Sox? I know he was hired in 2016 and he was still working for them in 2017 but in my admittedly quick seach, I wasn’t sure if he was still working for them.
He was definitely in Pawtucket and Portland this year. I think since he's a "consultant" rather than a "special assistant" it's a little harder to track his employment status.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,498
Boston, MA
It's really not, though. And again, I want to make it clear I am 100% against Trump and everything he stands for. So, don't take this as a defense of him. But this is 10000000000% political. One political party frames absolutely everything the other party does in the worst possible way. The other political party does exactly the same thing back. Both sides use social media propaganda to scare more and more people into thinking the other side represents Nazi's coming to take everything the hold dear, and Trump is either the devil himself or the hero that's saving them from those Nazis. I assure you, both sides think they're the good guys and even if you believe the other side is 100% objectively wrong about that, it's still political. The divide is extremely clearly along party lines.

In other words, whether or not someone things Trump is "decent" still comes down 100% to which political party they subscribe to, were born into, their news tells them to, etc. Taking a stance as an organization is absolutely not taking a stance for or against decency. It's making a political choice, and it's not their choice to make.

And furthermore, someone like Cora can do a hell of a lot more with this opportunity than he could by sitting on his couch at home.
So you're both sidesing it? If you look at the history of White House visits from BOTH SIDEZZ, it's obvious something is different with the guy who lives there now. It's not just politics.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,105
Ashburnham, MA
It's really not, though. And again, I want to make it clear I am 100% against Trump and everything he stands for. So, don't take this as a defense of him. But this is 10000000000% political. One political party frames absolutely everything the other party does in the worst possible way. The other political party does exactly the same thing back. Both sides use social media propaganda to scare more and more people into thinking the other side represents Nazi's coming to take everything the hold dear, and Trump is either the devil himself or the hero that's saving them from those Nazis. I assure you, both sides think they're the good guys and even if you believe the other side is 100% objectively wrong about that, it's still political. The divide is extremely clearly along party lines.

In other words, whether or not someone things Trump is "decent" still comes down 100% to which political party they subscribe to, were born into, their news tells them to, etc. Taking a stance as an organization is absolutely not taking a stance for or against decency. It's making a political choice, and it's not their choice to make.

And furthermore, someone like Cora can do a hell of a lot more with this opportunity than he could by sitting on his couch at home.
I find this argument interesting because it seems to leave no room for morals or norms. Do you believe that no one who identified as a republican 4 or 6 or 20 years ago has stopped identifying that way? Assuming you don't believe that, how do you reconcile it with your argument? If everything people do/believe is controlled by "which political party they subscribe to, were born into, their news tells them to" then it should be impossible to have anyone ever leave a party. Polling over the past 2 years has shown a decrease in people self-identifying as Republican (see link below), isn't it safe to assume, based on that, that something is different about Trump versus, say, G.W. Bush? Isn't it likely that that thing isn't political - since these people identified as Republican previously - but rather moral, or ethical?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/politics/fewer-republicans-more-independents-no-parties/index.html

Or

https://www.usnews.com/news/ken-walshs-washington/articles/2017-06-07/fewer-americans-call-themselves-republicans
 
May 14, 2015
113
So you're both sidesing it? If you look at the history of White House visits from BOTH SIDEZZ, it's obvious something is different with the guy who lives there now. It's not just politics.
He’s not doing that at all. He’s empathizing with a viewpoint he opposes. You can tell people all day that they’re immoral for voting for Trump and it’s not going to do a thing. It’s not going to change their mind or open up a conversation. It’s just going to make things worse.

The Obamas shook Trump’s hand today. Should they not have done that? Would they have looked like bigger people if they ignored him?

As someone said above, being divisive is the whole point. You lose more by feeding into it.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,396,498
NY
But this is 10000000000% political.
Just because you say so doesn't make it correct. The facts suggest this isn't about politics. Teams didn't boycott the WH in the past regardless of which party occupied it. Bush was despised by many but teams went for the ceremony. Same with Obama. When presidents from both parties have always extended invitations that were always accepted until now, logic suggests that being a Republican isn't the characteristic that people object to.
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
159
Massachusetts
Weren't you the guy who vaguely came at JBJ for his "character" issues? Character was, in your experience, of huge importance, something like that.

Forget the Red Sox abhorrent use of their powers of state to censor an individual for a moment. If saying and posting those things isn't a character issue, what is?
John,
I fear the whole discussion as gone off point, but your reply makes the most sense to me, so in good faith I'll try one last time.

Character is of upmost importance, and essential element of effective leadership. Personally, I value that attribute over all others. But invitation to participate in a ceremony is not to depend on Mr. Schilling's character, it is to give his fans a chance to see a former favorite in a venue where he once excelled.

Regarding the poster who described Schilling with vulgar judgement and then loaded tweets as supporting evidence... well regardless of individual likes or dislikes, that is Mr. Schillings right to free speech.

I am surprised that a board filled with passionate and intelligent people seems so ready to make the simple complicated.

Respectfully,
Hawk
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
It is his right to free speech. Acting with, to borrow your term, such a vulgar lack of character and decency is certainly his right. It is also the right of the Red Sox organization to engage in speech stating they dont want any part of that associating with their business going forward. Which one day they may or may not do.

I dont think thats too complicated.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
It's really not, though. And again, I want to make it clear I am 100% against Trump and everything he stands for. So, don't take this as a defense of him. But this is 10000000000% political. One political party frames absolutely everything the other party does in the worst possible way. The other political party does exactly the same thing back. Both sides use social media propaganda to scare more and more people into thinking the other side represents Nazi's coming to take everything the hold dear, and Trump is either the devil himself or the hero that's saving them from those Nazis. I assure you, both sides think they're the good guys and even if you believe the other side is 100% objectively wrong about that, it's still political. The divide is extremely clearly along party lines.

In other words, whether or not someone things Trump is "decent" still comes down 100% to which political party they subscribe to, were born into, their news tells them to, etc. Taking a stance as an organization is absolutely not taking a stance for or against decency. It's making a political choice, and it's not their choice to make.

And furthermore, someone like Cora can do a hell of a lot more with this opportunity than he could by sitting on his couch at home.
It's not political. I didn't agree with a lot of either Bush's polices and the WH visits weren't an issue.

Similarly, I wouldn't vote for Avenatti - not because of DV allegations but because of the various judgements that have been entered against him - and if he were elected President and attacked the press and judges and everyone else, I'd object to WH visits too I would believe.

The biggest error IMO is when people say it's just "politics". Any group of people have to have a unifying foundation or there will be no group. There are - well should be - boundaries or baselines that go beyond politics.

I'm looking forward to your 2000 word response on why these ideas are contributing to the problem.

If you end it with a TL,DR summary, I'd appreciate it.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,190
Concord, NH
He’s not doing that at all. He’s empathizing with a viewpoint he opposes. You can tell people all day that they’re immoral for voting for Trump and it’s not going to do a thing. It’s not going to change their mind or open up a conversation. It’s just going to make things worse.

The Obamas shook Trump’s hand today. Should they not have done that? Would they have looked like bigger people if they ignored him?

As someone said above, being divisive is the whole point. You lose more by feeding into it.
Well put. Thank you.


So you're both sidesing it? If you look at the history of White House visits from BOTH SIDEZZ, it's obvious something is different with the guy who lives there now. It's not just politics.
Yes. This situation is different. Of course it is. It doesn't mean it's not political. The political tension has never been anywhere near this high in my lifetime at least. I wasn't around in the 60's or 70's, though I see some parallels. The evolution and ubiquitousness of social media and targeted advertising wasn't around back then, so frankly, it seems like we're in uncharted territory. It doesn't mean that everyone who believes in a brighter future believes that administration is the cause.

So, for you, it can absolutely be a morality issue. You're not a "side", you're a person, right? So you can make your choice. But that choice is based on your morality. From someone else's perspective, you could look like the one threatening what values they hold sacred. What's "right" for one person can be completely different from what's "right" for someone else. As individuals, you get to make your choice. As an organization, you're dealing with a much larger set of people, and that's where the generalities matter. Right now, the political climate is kinda binary. A gesture like that, not specifically provoked, would do nothing but add more fodder to the flames.

And you can't separate anything to do with Trump from politics. That is literally his entire existence. If existence is math, Donald Trump would be a 0. Mainly for the property where anything * 0 is 0. Anything * Trump is how you feel about Trump. And trying to understand his motives is like trying to divide by Trump.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,190
Concord, NH
If you end it with a TL,DR summary, I'd appreciate it.
I was honestly ready to respond to your post in good faith until I got to this line. If I write you 2000 words, it's because it takes 2000 words to understand the point I'm making. If you quit early and only react to the first leg of it, that's on you.
 

Murby

lurker
Mar 16, 2006
685
Boston Metro
Interesting arguments on this. I would prefer they not go.

As a person who believes all R POTUS’ in my lifetime have done severe damage to the fabric of our country, I am a partisan. However, it takes a special kind of willful ignorance to not see this is an entirely different administrative scenario and to suggest this is just like other past administrations is folly.

This is a man who fundamentally would like to remove all rules for him and his family to run the country for as long as possible & to take as much money as possible. The signs are clear as a bell.

The worst thing you can do is to treat the behavior as if it’s normal by behaving normally (read: going for this event). Every single time you reward his corruptive behavior towards laws, you provide positive reinforcers to him to keep doing it, while cloaking it in the shroud of everything appearing normal.

Moreover, if you argue that there’s a negligible difference that them not appearing would make, then the inverse must also be true. It’s a photo op. It’s not a policy session, but I hope Cora proves me wrong & knocks this out of the park to make a statement about PR.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jul 18, 2005
596
Maryland
To say this still boils down to "politics," and that we're all driven to divisiveness by the media and political advertising, is a vast oversimplification, and an insult to the intelligence of those who actually think for themselves. And to say that those who disagree with your or my point of view simply have a different set of values or morals is simply engaging in moral relativism. Sorry, but I can't respect the "morals" of anyone who thinks it's ok to separate children from their families, or who denigrates people based on their religion or country of origin, or sexual orientation or gender identity.
 
May 14, 2015
113
Interesting arguments on this. I would prefer they not go.

As a person who believes all R POTUS’ in my lifetime have done severe damage to the fabric of our country, I am a partisan. However, it takes a special kind of willful ignorance to not see this is an entirely different administrative scenario and to suggest this is just like other past administrations is folly.

This is a man who fundamentally would like to remove all rules for him and his family to run the country for as long as possible & to take as much money as possible. The signs are clear as a bell.

The worst thing you can do is to treat the behavior as if it’s normal by behaving normally (read: going for this event). Every single time you reward his corruptive behavior towards laws, you provide positive reinforcers to him to keep doing it, while cloaking it in the shroud of everything appearing normal.

Moreover, if you argue that there’s a negligible difference that them not appearing would make, then the inverse must also be true. It’s a photo op. It’s not a policy session, but I hope Cora proves me wrong & knocks this out of the park to make a statement about PR.
Yes, he’s 100% different. No president has ever spoken like this. No president has shown this kind of disdain for a certain segment of the country - and I’m not even talking about immigrants, I’m talking about liberals on the whole. He’s done a remarkable amount of damage to public discourse and governmental ethics (among other things) since he’s been in office.

But the only way this is going to change (in a good way) is if we vote him out of office. That battle is won through public relations. If you assume that everyone who voted for him and votes for him is a racist, you’re going to lose that battle. If you assume that the people who voted for him don’t have a legitimate gripe against a two party system that has collectively eradicated the middle class, then you’re going to lose that battle. If you think that proving to those voters it’s impossible to be civil to people you find disagreeable, then you’re essentially raising a white flag to them.

If you’re encountering people that think this behavior is normal, then the thing to do is show them what actual normal behavior is. Responding in kind to attacks proves the exact point that they want to make. The greatest thing that could happen to Trump right now is to get a distraction from the Red Sox so he can say “see, I told you these liberal Bostonians are jerks.” That’s all he wants. He’s a troll that we can’t kick off the board.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
... well regardless of individual likes or dislikes, that is Mr. Schillings right to free speech.
However, the potus appears to think that only people who agree with him have the right to free speech, so he probably would label my opinions as fake.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
It's not political.

The biggest error IMO is when people say it's just "politics". Any group of people have to have a unifying foundation or there will be no group. There are - well should be - boundaries or baselines that go beyond politics.
Absolutely not political, pretty obviously so. Alex Cora's angst over the response in Puerto Rico isn't because he's a Democrat, assuming he is, which we shouldn't.

Saying it is just "politics" absolutely is a generalized defense of it all, because it is an act of normalization. The point is that it is a series of affronts outside the bounds of disagreement about any kind of policy.

Making these moral objections into easily-dismissed political stances is part of how otherwise decent people exist in cognitive dissonance and support him.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
It's really not, though. And again, I want to make it clear I am 100% against Trump and everything he stands for. So, don't take this as a defense of him. But this is 10000000000% political. One political party frames absolutely everything the other party does in the worst possible way. The other political party does exactly the same thing back. Both sides use social media propaganda to scare more and more people into thinking the other side represents Nazi's coming to take everything the hold dear, and Trump is either the devil himself or the hero that's saving them from those Nazis. I assure you, both sides think they're the good guys and even if you believe the other side is 100% objectively wrong about that, it's still political. The divide is extremely clearly along party lines.

In other words, whether or not someone things Trump is "decent" still comes down 100% to which political party they subscribe to, were born into, their news tells them to, etc. Taking a stance as an organization is absolutely not taking a stance for or against decency. It's making a political choice, and it's not their choice to make.

And furthermore, someone like Cora can do a hell of a lot more with this opportunity than he could by sitting on his couch at home.
I think your first two paragraphs have the effect of suggesting that there is almost never an objective reality about politically-related things over which people disagree. Often there is. But that's a separate discussion.

And as my posts suggest, I agree with your last sentence. However, in re-reading this thread (my own included) I think its fair to say that both staying home *and* "going and 'doing something with the opportunity'" depend on a somewhat pollyanna-ish hope that either will "send a message." I doubt that happens (and *that's* probably related to your first paragraph). No matter what they do, the "message" will likely be co-opted. But all things considered, I think its more likely that going can send some sort of non-co-optable positive message (inclusion, diversity, whatever you want to call it), without being seen as an endorsement of any sort.

And from an entirely selfish perspective, I think an organizational decision not to go would create a larger tiresome shitstorm that would become virtually unavoidable, and I dont need that shit.(I get that that's a pretty low-brow reason, but an opinion is only as useful as what its based on; and that's part of it for me).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.