Rethinking Barstool?

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
3,612
Seacoast NH
I'm sure that particular nuanced loophole occurred to him in the heat of the moment when he instinctively yelled that out.
Looking at his Twitter account he’s a Philly fan so I think there’s a 100% chance he knows where Joel was from. Hell I don’t follow the NBA in any significant way and I was pretty certain Embiid was not from the US.

Hahaha, wait...wtf? You really think that telling someone of color to go back to Africa isn't automatically racist?
#BlackenWasRight
It sure sounds racist which at the end of the day is all that matters. Anytime anyone prefaces something with “go back to...” it isn’t a good thing.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,385
Hahaha, wait...wtf? You really think that telling someone of color to go back to Africa isn't automatically racist?

#BlackenWasRight
I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Barstool guy but you are invoking a poster who may be the most hateful, facist, close-minded person on this entire board. He doesn't exactly bolster your efforts to try to engage with people and change hearts and minds - something I give you a lot of credit for given your nuanced approach.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
9,396
South Boston
I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Barstool guy but you are invoking a poster who may be the most hateful, facist, close-minded person on this entire board. He doesn't exactly bolster your efforts to try to engage with people and change hearts and minds - something I give you a lot of credit for given your nuanced approach.
Hate it all you want. But, fuck it... If you aren't on our side, fuck off.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
Hahaha, wait...wtf? You really think that telling someone of color to go back to Africa isn't automatically racist?

#BlackenWasRight
Not smart, certainly derogatory in at least a nationalistic sense (I belong here and you don't). Could it be racist? Sure it could be. Or it may just be a shitty thing to say that is somewhat demeaning of a person's place of birth, and I'm sure he knew where Embiid is from given his story is pretty widely known (I knew it and I don't follow the NBA) and he speaks with a pretty distinct accent.

I know anything Barstool probably hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. As I said before, it certainly has poor optics and is at least worthy of his apology.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
35,415
These things don’t exist in a vacuum. It’s like blackface. I can’t go as Luke Cage for Halloween with blackface on not because it’s inherently racist, but because of the associated history.

Same with telling a black person to go back to Africa. Watching what you say isn’t just about what’s in your heart, but the affect on the listener.
 
May 14, 2015
114
Hate it all you want. But, fuck it... If you aren't on our side, fuck off.
Do you really think that’s the best way to get people to respond to your viewpoint? If you don’t think it’s possibly to change someone’s mind - and you seem to indicate that not only is it not possible, you don’t even want them to - then what is the point of a conversation?

When was the last time you had your mind changed by someone who told you to fuck off? I would wager never
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,385
Hate it all you want. But, fuck it... If you aren't on our side, fuck off.

Wow. I didn't expect this from you.

I agree with you that the Barstool guy's comment is inappropriate and racist. That said, if you are on Blacken's "side" whatever that is, your response is entirely appropriate. This is how he does business - he insults anyone with even a slightly nuanced difference of opinion than him, he refuses to engage in honest discussion and is polarizing, rather than engaging as a result.

The irony is that he (and I guess you by extension) would probably not like/get along with those whom he claims to defend. People are complicated and demanding that everyone agree with everything you think is not tolerant at all. Its facist-like or, at the very least, the behavior of a petulant child.
 
Last edited:

Spelunker

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,692
Yes. The people decrying rascism and rascist remarks are the real fascists.

Let's make sure to find the nuance to defend their complicated viewpoints.
 
May 14, 2015
114
Yes. The people decrying rascism and rascist remarks are the real fascists.

Let's make sure to find the nuance to defend their complicated viewpoints.
What is the benefit to being principled if no one wants to listen to you? How does one advance an argument by telling others their opinion is invalid?

No one here supports racism or inequality. The complaints are about the heavy-handed method of argumentation that serves no purpose beyond advertising the poster’s virtue.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,385
Yes. The people decrying rascism and rascist remarks are the real fascists.

Let's make sure to find the nuance to defend their complicated viewpoints.
That is not at all what I am saying so I clearly failed at making my point.

I think decrying racism is necessary and laudable. The problem arises when people feel it necessary to insult others simply because they don't precisely agree on more complex issues. Saying "fuck you if you aren't on our side" whatever that means isn't exactly progressive and its not really how social change occurs.

And I get it that there is a limit to how much you can reason with people who have entrenched, prejudiced views. However I would argue that the vast majority of active posters on this site are fairly open minded. The proof is in the tone and content here versus a decade ago. That didn't happen because people said "you are either with us or against us" but because some patient posters with different perspectives shared their views in a persuasive, thoughtful manner. Not because they simply dismissed others as not worth it right off the bat.

Anyhow, I've derailed this thread enough. The Barstool blogger was wrong period regardless of the context. It seems like he, at least, acknowledged as much so maybe there is hope for him if not for Barstool.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
Jesus dude, grow a spine. What are you even saying? "Complex issues"? "Nuance"? You're calling for civility for someone trying to argue that "go back to Africa" as a response to losing a video game might not be racist? Here, read my newsletter about why water isn't wet. Holy hell.

You should be embarrassed about that stuff re: @Blacken, man.
 
May 14, 2015
114
Jesus dude, grow a spine. What are you even saying? "Complex issues"? "Nuance"? You're calling for civility for someone trying to argue that "go back to Africa" as a response to losing a video game might not be racist? Here, read my newsletter about why water isn't wet. Holy hell.

You should be embarrassed about that stuff re: @Blacken, man.
Every single person in this discussion has described the comments as stupid and wrong and deserving of an apology. So what is wrong with taking the apology at face value?

Can someone in the “our opinion is 100% right and there’s no other opinion” crowd please explain what what this person would need to do to demonstrate he’s not racist after saying this stupid joke? How does one apologize after saying something really stupid in public? If there is no coming back from that in your eyes, then what does that say?

Forget about civility, it’s a question of pragmatism. You’re diving into quicksand if your problem is with people who actually find the need to apologize for saying stupid, retrograde bullshit.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
19,867
Every single person in this discussion has described the comments as stupid and wrong and deserving of an apology. So what is wrong with taking the apology at face value?
Because at least once a month, Barstool has to apologize for something. Whether it's racist, homophobic, misogynist, or all of the above. And if it's really bad, they trot out Big Cat or PFT to write an apology and/or explain that the person who said/did the thing is "really a good guy, but he (it's always a he) lost his head or was misconstrued or really didn't mean it".

And after awhile it's like, how many apologies do you need before you realize that these guys suck and are assholes? I don't know. If Deadspin had to apologize every month for something that it wrote, then I probably wouldn't read Deadspin any more. And when AJ Daulerio was there, aside from Drew Magary, I rarely went to the site. Because AJ Daulerio was/is a fuck, who thought that good journalism was "offending" people. It's not, it's dumb.

So in a day or two this will blow over and a few weeks after that another Barstool personality will say or do something stupid and this moribund thread (which is never updated based on Barstool content) will start up again with the same people tearing Barstool down and the same people building the site back up.
 
May 14, 2015
114
So if this person worked for Deadspin and a poster questioned the nature of his awful joke, the response would be different? Not being rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious if that’s your belief.

I don’t read barstool and I’m, like, not even wanting to support what they do. I just don’t see the point of jumping down a poster’s throat with this “us vs. them” rhetoric when they try to have a generous interpretation of someone else’s words.

Edit: changed hyperbolic to rhetorical because I’m a dumb dumb who posted before reading.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
19,867
So if this person worked for Deadspin and a poster questioned the nature of his awful joke, the response would be different? Not being rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious if that’s your belief.
This is a good question. And the answer is, it depends. Like I said, when AJ Daulerio was the EiC of Deadspin, it was a cesspool. It wasn't funny, it wasn't informative, it was clickbait for the sake of clickbait; which is boring, uninformative and provides no benefit to anyone. The only clever thing that I thought that Daulerio ever did was once he dropped acid and played MLB The Show to see if he could throw a no-hitter like Dock Ellis.

The Daulerio-led Deadspin, for me, had a track record of being shitty. Barstool, for me, has a track record of being shitty. Shitty people writing or broadcasting shitty things. So yeah, if you have that track record, I'm less likely to give you a pass. It's not even surprising that someone from Barstool made this "joke", I expect it. And maybe the guy didn't mean it, I don't know, I don't know the person. But when you add this to the other stuff that Barstool has said said/written in the last few years, I don't know what you want.

Put it this way, if Bill Simmons (for example) said something like this; I'd be very surprised but I've read enough of Bill Simmons and Grantland and the Ringer to know that if he said that, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't think that he would mean it. But with Barstool, I can't give the latitude because they've proven time and again that they're assholes. If you (royal you, not specifically you MC) want to defend it, that's fine (you don't need my permission) but you also should know that if you defend an asshole or an asshole organization long enough, people will start to think that you're an asshole too.
 
May 14, 2015
114
That’s reasonable. I understand context and background and obviously I’m less inclined to believe someone who has a lengthy track record of questionable things. But we’re also in a moment where college kids are shamed online for bad costumes, or rapping along with songs that have bad lyrics on a bus, or people who post bad jokes on twitter. Track records don’t matter in those situations - we didn’t even know these people existed until they went viral and yet many pile on. Any defense of their bad taste (like “kids make mistakes”) or willingness to give them a second chance is met with similar vitriol. So I don’t know that it really matters who said this stupid joke. If the Timlin8th explored an alternative interpretation of it, regardless of who said it, PC Drunken Friar would still respond with “if you don’t agree with me, fuck off”.

If you disagree with that hypothetical, it’s understandable. I just feel like this argument is far too common. And look, I feel like you, I feel frustrated and concerned by the bigotry in our society and abroad. It feels like almost an impossible mountain to climb. But I also just have not seen any evidence in the past ten years that calling people racist and that they’re assholes is effective in any way. If anything, it just widens the gap because there’s no room for forgiveness in a lot of cases.

I don’t much care for Barstool, but I do care about this board and the way people post on it. It’s the main way I get my sports news and opinions because the posters think carefully about the subject at hand and try to think about things outside the box. It’s a bit frustrating, then, for this topic to become binary. You can very much hate racism and have a different opinion about how to deal with it (recognizing that you’re not saying that, speaking to the broader discussion here).
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
19,867
I think that I misunderstood your original question, MC. Are you asking whether I agree with PCDF's answer to Timlin's response? If that's the question, then no I don't agree with it. And to be frank, I was a bit surprised to see PCDF respond that way.

I think that you're correct that we need to be a little bit more humane in the way we speak to each other, even if we are frustrated.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
Every single person in this discussion has described the comments as stupid and wrong and deserving of an apology. So what is wrong with taking the apology at face value?
I wasn't talking about the person saying "go back to Africa," I was talking about the Sosh members wondering if, since Embiid was really from Africa if it was technically racist even though, you know, of course, it is awful and racism is awful and decrying it is valorous and grand.

Can someone in the “our opinion is 100% right and there’s no other opinion” crowd please explain what what this person would need to do to demonstrate he’s not racist after saying this stupid joke?
Build a time machine? In all honestly I do not and have not ever cared if some person is or isn't a racist. It isn't relevant. What he said was racist, he apparently acknowledged that, good on him. Stroking your chin and pointing out that Embiid is actually from Africa is absolutely embarrassing. Throwing him the "this stupid joke" lifeline is embarrassing. [edited to add some clarity]

The "our opinion is 100% right" crowd, that is rich. Jesus if that's not racism does racism even exist?
 
Last edited:
May 14, 2015
114
I think that I misunderstood your original question, MC. Are you asking whether I agree with PCDF's answer to Timlin's response? If that's the question, then no I don't agree with it. And to be frank, I was a bit surprised to see PCDF respond that way.

I think that you're correct that we need to be a little bit more humane in the way we speak to each other, even if we are frustrated.
That is my question. I appreciate your responses and the way you respectfully approach a discussion like this and i agree that we could all do with a little more respect in these kinds of conversations.
 
May 14, 2015
114
I wasn't talking about the person saying "go back to Africa," I was talking about the Sosh members wondering if, since Embiid was really from Africa if it was technically racist even though, you know, of course, it is awful and racism is awful and decrying it is valorous and grand.



Build a time machine? In all honestly I do not and have not ever cared if some person is or isn't a racist. It isn't relevant. What he said was racist, he apparently acknowledged that, good on him. Stroking your chin and pointing out that Embiid is actually from Africa is absolutely embarrassing. Throwing him the "this stupid joke" lifeline is embarrassing. [edited to add some clarity]

The "our opinion is 100% right" crowd, that is rich. Jesus if that's not racism does racism even exist?
Hey man, I used to talk about this stuff the same way. I don’t think it’s shown to have a lot of success. Insulting people has just never been a great way of moving the cultural dial.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
9,396
South Boston
That is not at all what I am saying so I clearly failed at making my point.

I think decrying racism is necessary and laudable. The problem arises when people feel it necessary to insult others simply because they don't precisely agree on more complex issues. Saying "fuck you if you aren't on our side" whatever that means isn't exactly progressive and its not really how social change occurs.

And I get it that there is a limit to how much you can reason with people who have entrenched, prejudiced views. However I would argue that the vast majority of active posters on this site are fairly open minded. The proof is in the tone and content here versus a decade ago. That didn't happen because people said "you are either with us or against us" but because some patient posters with different perspectives shared their views in a persuasive, thoughtful manner. Not because they simply dismissed others as not worth it right off the bat.

Anyhow, I've derailed this thread enough. The Barstool blogger was wrong period regardless of the context. It seems like he, at least, acknowledged as much so maybe there is hope for him if not for Barstool.
So I took a long time to think all this over and have reread the last page or two. I should probably explain my position now, while I am not in the moment, per se. I have a lot of hate towards Barstool, that much is obvious. JohnTheBaptist did a good job explaining why above. Barstool exists for the cheap, low blow joke. Or for shock value. The crowd that it caters to are very likely to be the same ones that will drop racist jokes, one-liners or have racist views. That is disheartening. The blogger dropped a classic racist line, one that has been around forever. And to even lightly hint that he may have been using the line literally is appalling. His and Barstool readers will continue to be casually and not-so-casually racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.

A day doesn't go by that there is another story about racism affecting individuals. Obviously many, many more go one everyday that are not publicized. Since Trump took office, how many children have been threatened by bullies and racists that they were going to be "sent home" or whatever. This type of behavior has become normalized and fuck it if I won't call it out when I see it. Now, I understand that no one here is OK with the comment. But my problem lies with the fact that these same good, honest non-racists don't like confrontation. Sure, I don't expect posting on a message board to really do anything to change reality, but I see nothing wrong with confronting the notion that we should "pick our battles". Yes, change comes. SoSH has changed for the better over the last 10 years or so. I would venture to say though, that the "persuasive, thoughtful manner" that was done years ago would not be so thoughtful today. I am not saying that the "100% with me or 100% against me" is an approach that will win converts to my side. But, if every one of the "good guys" were to use that approach when combating racist statements, racist actions, etc...that might just fucking work. I am reminded by John Lewis' speech, the speech given on the March on Washington right before MLK's I Have a Dream speech. His own organization censored it, an he hates that he gave in to that. Still, his words echo some of what I am trying to say.

To those who have said, “Be patient and wait,” we have long said that we cannot be patient. We do not want our freedom gradually, but we want to be free now! We are tired. We are tired of being beaten by policemen. We are tired of seeing our people locked up in jail over and over again. And then you holler, “Be patient.” How long can we be patient? We want our freedom and we want it now.
Here is some of the original

To those who have said, “Be patient and wait,” we must say that “patience” is a dirty and nasty word. We cannot be patient, we do not want to be free gradually. We want our freedom, and we want it now...We won’t stop now. All of the forces of Eastland, Bamett, Wallace and Thurmond won’t stop this revolution. The time will come when we will not confine our marching to Washington. We will march through the South, through the heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own scorched earth policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground — nonviolently. We shall fragment the South into a thousand pieces and put them back together in the image of democracy. We will make the action of the past few months look petty.
There is doing the right thing. Then there is passively standing around hoping things get better later on. I don't see the problem with trying to get people to bully racists. And to invoke Blacken is embarrassing shows me that you haven't been paying attention...or more likely, haven't needed to pay attention to all the shit that has happened the last 2 years. It hurts me to see how little we have come as a civil society...and maybe to see how far we have actually fallen.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
Hey man, I used to talk about this stuff the same way. I don’t think it’s shown to have a lot of success. Insulting people has just never been a great way of moving the cultural dial.
It is not my job to hold the hand of someone trying to tell me that "go back to Africa" maybe isn't racist and that that's a conversation we should all sit here and take seriously by discussing. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm responding to the idea in the manner it deserves.

How would you expect a thread on, say, the value of eugenics to go? Should we entertain that thought? Its honestly embarrassing to read.

How bad would the comment have to be for you to not call it just a stupid joke and finally call the water wet? What is the value of your benefit of the doubt for the guy that said "go back to Africa" because he lost a video game? He apologized, great. He should have.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,385
So I took a long time to think all this over and have reread the last page or two. I should probably explain my position now, while I am not in the moment, per se.
First, I appreciate you coming back and clarifying your response.

I also want to add that you and JMOH are entirely justified in not giving anyone from Barstool the benefit of the doubt. They clearly haven't earned it. I only listen to PMT and I find their content stands apart from the rest of the brand but I understand if others refuse to listen because they are associated with a brand that is unquestionably offensive.

Some people might argue that there is a distinction to be made between the Barstool blogger in question, who made a racist comment but isn't an active, frothing hate-filled person and, say, a member of The Proud Boys or a neo-Nazi group. However, I don't fault others if they don't believe there is a fundamental difference between the two.

With regard to the speed of social change, I get that you and others are frustrated with how long it takes. Furthermore, its non-linear and the real victims of "isms" are justified in being frustrated at the two-steps forward, two-steps back dynamic that often occurs.

Finally, I don't want to invoke those who aren't parties to this discussion anymore because its inappropriate - they aren't here to defend their viewpoint. That said, with a few exceptions, the members of this board have proven to be generally decent and open minded. As such, I don't think its fair to go in on them every time there is a perceived difference of opinion. However some posters think scorched earth is the only way to go and it has the net effect, for me at least, of forcing me to fight through my dislike of the poster's approach/demeanor while still generally agreeing with their viewpoint. In short, its a crappy way to persuade hearts and minds who might otherwise be sympathetic or open to a different way of looking at things.

I know its easy to paint everyone who appears to disagree with you as something evil but its a horrible approach if you really desire change and not simply virtue signaling as MC notes upthread.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
35,415
First, I appreciate you coming back and clarifying your response.

I also want to add that you and JMOH are entirely justified in not giving anyone from Barstool the benefit of the doubt. They clearly haven't earned it. I only listen to PMT and I find their content stands apart from the rest of the brand but I understand if others refuse to listen because they are associated with a brand that is unquestionably offensive.

Some people might argue that there is a distinction to be made between the Barstool blogger in question, who made a racist comment but isn't an active, frothing hate-filled person and, say, a member of The Proud Boys or a neo-Nazi group. However, I don't fault others if they don't believe there is a fundamental difference between the two.

With regard to the speed of social change, I get that you and others are frustrated with how long it takes. Furthermore, its non-linear and the real victims of "isms" are justified in being frustrated at the two-steps forward, two-steps back dynamic that often occurs.

Finally, I don't want to invoke those who aren't parties to this discussion anymore because its inappropriate - they aren't here to defend their viewpoint. That said, with a few exceptions, the members of this board have proven to be generally decent and open minded. As such, I don't think its fair to go in on them every time there is a perceived difference of opinion. However some posters think scorched earth is the only way to go and it has the net effect, for me at least, of forcing me to fight through my dislike of the poster's approach/demeanor while still generally agreeing with their viewpoint. In short, its a crappy way to persuade hearts and minds who might otherwise be sympathetic or open to a different way of looking at things.

I know its easy to paint everyone who appears to disagree with you as something evil but its a horrible approach if you really desire change and not simply virtue signaling as MC notes upthread.
To pick up on something you say that goes to my frustration, this is the first time in my life that progress hasn’t been linear, that people and laws and politicians are more racist, more hateful, more venal. That’s at least why I have less patience and less willingness to debate.
 

Spelunker

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,692
To pick up on something you say that goes to my frustration, this is the first time in my life that progress hasn’t been linear, that people and laws and politicians are more racist, more hateful, more venal. That’s at least why I have less patience and less willingness to debate.
I think we could probably examine that first sentence. It may be that it only *appeared* linear before this. If things had been going as well as people thought, they wouldn't consistently be surprised by the things they're seeing the past few years. Things that, I believe, were always there and now are just getting more exposure.

As always, Trump is symptom, not disease.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
35,415
I think we could probably examine that first sentence. It may be that it only *appeared* linear before this. If things had been going as well as people thought, they wouldn't consistently be surprised by the things they're seeing the past few years. Things that, I believe, were always there and now are just getting more exposure.

As always, Trump is symptom, not disease.
I’d think the fact that these views are getting more exposure, i.e. being allowed and voiced in the open, is itself a sign of regression.
 

Spelunker

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,692
I’d think the fact that these views are getting more exposure, i.e. being allowed and voiced in the open, is itself a sign of regression.
Agreed on that count. That said, it might be the only thing to save us: racists are digging in with either overt racism or doubling down on racism not really existing, but otherwise well meaning white people that thought we licked this problem are being forced to pull their heads out of the sand a bit and start to acknowledge the deeper structural issues.
 
Last edited:
May 14, 2015
114
It is not my job to hold the hand of someone trying to tell me that "go back to Africa" maybe isn't racist and that that's a conversation we should all sit here and take seriously by discussing. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm responding to the idea in the manner it deserves.

How would you expect a thread on, say, the value of eugenics to go? Should we entertain that thought? Its honestly embarrassing to read.

How bad would the comment have to be for you to not call it just a stupid joke and finally call the water wet? What is the value of your benefit of the doubt for the guy that said "go back to Africa" because he lost a video game? He apologized, great. He should have.
It’s fairly insulting for you to call it embarrassing.

I don’t know how I would feel about a thread about eugenics because it’s not a super simple subject in 2018 due to gene therapy. The fact that we are on the verge of modifying genes and essentially breeding superheroes is a scary topic. It’s something that would be only available to the super wealthy, and unfortunately in our culture the super wealthy tend to look the same, among other issues. That’s not a good thing. But then again we could unlock truly, remarkably brilliant people who solve many of the world’s problems. That would be a positive benefit. But what if our government inserted itself into the process? What if the technology got into the wrong hands? What safeguards have we put in place? The ethics of this will be incredibly difficult to untangle and it will be fraught with cultural implications. I have little faith we’ll be able to do it if we take the least charitable impressions of other people’s arguments and throw them back in their face.

I admire your fervor and your principles. I’ll end my response there.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
I don’t know how I would feel about a thread about eugenics because it’s not a super simple subject in 2018 due to gene therapy. The fact that we are on the verge of modifying genes and essentially breeding superheroes is a scary topic. It’s something that would be only available to the super wealthy, and unfortunately in our culture the super wealthy tend to look the same, among other issues. That’s not a good thing. But then again we could unlock truly, remarkably brilliant people who solve many of the world’s problems. That would be a positive benefit. But what if our government inserted itself into the process? What if the technology got into the wrong hands? What safeguards have we put in place? The ethics of this will be incredibly difficult to untangle and it will be fraught with cultural implications. I have little faith we’ll be able to do it if we take the least charitable impressions of other people’s arguments and throw them back in their face.
Wow. Just to my point, how many words do you think anyone reading this thread got through before bailing on this paragraph? Would you do a flat-earth theory one next or can you maybe use some of that very productive grace and admit this is stupid?

Thanks for admiring my principles, ManicCompression.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
It’s fairly insulting for you to call it embarrassing.

I don’t know how I would feel about a thread about eugenics because it’s not a super simple subject in 2018 due to gene therapy. The fact that we are on the verge of modifying genes and essentially breeding superheroes is a scary topic. It’s something that would be only available to the super wealthy, and unfortunately in our culture the super wealthy tend to look the same, among other issues. That’s not a good thing. But then again we could unlock truly, remarkably brilliant people who solve many of the world’s problems. That would be a positive benefit. But what if our government inserted itself into the process? What if the technology got into the wrong hands? What safeguards have we put in place? The ethics of this will be incredibly difficult to untangle and it will be fraught with cultural implications. I have little faith we’ll be able to do it if we take the least charitable impressions of other people’s arguments and throw them back in their face.

Really wanted out of this conversation, but here are just two items that come up after a simple google search:

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/crispr-dna-editing-2/

www.wired.com/story/ideas-jason-pontin-genetic-engineering-for-mars/amp

I don’t think it’s stupid, I think it could be a major issue in the coming decades, one that encompasses the race divide, the wealth divide, the intelligence divide, etc.
The problem with your approach is that words sometimes have meaning beyond the literal meaning. One of your linked stories doesn't use the word "eugenics." The other does: "The case for a race of astronauts is that they would not really be the products of eugenics as the word is ordinarily used: No one with undesired habits or traits would be coerced to have fewer children; no captive populations would be sterilized or worse."

Gene therapy is not eugenics. Telling a black man to "go back to Africa" is not a geography tutorial.
 
May 14, 2015
114
Understandable. To me, it’s a distinction without a difference and I’m not sure how you could have any discussion of eugenics in 2018 without talking about these far-reaching scientific advancements.

I am by no means defending what the guy said. It was a dumb thing to say. I’ll leave it there as this is probably a discussion better suited to somewhere that’s not a messageboard.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
Who defended what he said? Outside of the one person? Your making up an argument to fit your end.
"It was a dumb thing to say" was all I was ever saying, and that was theretofore too insulting or said with too much fervor and principle or something. The conversation being embarrassing to have in the way it legitimizes something absurd.

To reiterate, "he" for me has always been someone that wanted to drill down on "go back to Africa" based on where Embiid was from, not original Barstool dumbshit that apologized.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,576
Tuukka's refugee camp
That’s not what MC drilled down at all. He more drilled down into the hard lined rhetorical techniques exposed by some in the thread.

And holy hell, pronouns pal.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
That’s not what MC drilled down at all.
I am aware of that. Someone else drilled down, others called bullshit, MC and I are debating whether to call bullshit or entertain it because civility. Our entire exchange is on the page in this thread, you can see what our discussion is about up there.

My issue was (1) with the "go back to Africa" not being so bad because Embiid is from Africa theory (timlin8th it looks like), and (2) the subsequent call for civility and an earnest discussion of it instead of calling that embarrassing bullshit. It was a dumb thing to say. It is not constructive to entertain and discuss dumb things. I was told I was being insulting describing it as "embarrassing," and the poster I was discussing it with ultimately described it as a dumb thing to say. So we're all in agreement.

I just read it all again, I think I was pretty clear so it's there to clarify without me repeating myself more than that.

And holy hell, pronouns pal.
Huh?
 
Last edited:

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,576
Tuukka's refugee camp
It’s a reference to a wrestling podcast. When talking about different people and the different arguments they make specific pronoybs help alleviate confusion. And I don’t agree in the slightest on the ultimately conclusion you reached but this is no longer a productive discussion.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
Oh "we" meant MC and I in agreement, at least in theory, I caught the drift of your disagreement already and was just addressing your being confused. I'm admittedly behind on my wrestling podcasts, I was responding to a flow of conversation that, again, by my read seems pretty clear but I will keep that in mind next time.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,893
I’d think the fact that these views are getting more exposure, i.e. being allowed and voiced in the open, is itself a sign of regression.
We've voiced this particular disagreement before, but as you know I take an optimistic spin on it: these things are now getting attention whereas before they would have passed without comment or uproar. The fraction of people who are no longer willing to just let it roll right off their backs, and instead will say "hey this is bad and you should feel bad", is going steadily up - which is precisely why we're talking about far more of these incidents.

If there's one thing my black friends have beaten into me these past 24 months, it's "this shit was always this bad, or worse - you just didn't read about it because no one cares and it wasn't considered newsworthy. But remember, we have to live it every day". Some people, including me, see that increased exposure and think "Great, now more people are being told this shit is unacceptable by the Official Media Voice they're listening to, maybe some of them will start to think before they say shit like this". Others, perhaps including you, see that exposure and think "they're just putting it in the minds of people who wouldn't otherwise have had it there, which means they're inciting a greater frequency of this shit just out of mimicry". On the former point of view is the evidence of the civil rights movement, which turned specifically on the national public seeing video of e.g. dogs getting turned loose to maul nonviolent protesters. On the latter point of view is the huge surge in reported hate crimes these past two years (Though that itself may be a matter of selection bias / reporting bias). There's no obvious conclusion, but there are certainly reasons for optimism.

In Barstool's case, you'd like to think that all these apologies would eventually amount to a greater sense of empathy in the writers, and an understanding of why shit they didn't think was hurtful or obnoxious actually is. That is, if the CEO they ran out there isn't just decorative, and can knock some heads. Current returns aren't great, to say the least.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,755
Carmine's closet
Kate is hilarious. Makes my think I'm missing a lot by not listening to her podcast with Chaps. They're missing on a lot of new signings, but if they get enough Kates, Big Cats, Larges, and Chaps types they pirate ship will be unsinkable even if Pres or Big Cat retired.
 

Koji’s Slider

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2018
1,166
Wow, Big Cat and ARod are coming out with a 7 part podcast, called The Corp. It all drops Thursday, so you can binge listen. The guests are all business people/media/sports. The biggest get they have is Kobe, which is going to be a must listen.

I know SOSH is pretty split on Barstool, but I have thought since day one that Big Cat was going to be the stand out, he’s amazing.
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
17,295
A-Rod’s interview on today’s PMT was fascinating too. It took him about 15 mins to get comfortable and into a groove but when he started talking about his Yankee years I found it honest and fascinating. Great stuff.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,755
Carmine's closet
Yeah I'm interested in that. I'm so backed up on podcasts but these seem like they'll be more timeless than most sports podcasts
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
8,082
A-Rod’s interview on today’s PMT was fascinating too. It took him about 15 mins to get comfortable and into a groove but when he started talking about his Yankee years I found it honest and fascinating. Great stuff.
Agreed but Arod sounds like such a dork. I am not sure if it's how he sounds, what he says, or both.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,385
A-Rod’s interview on today’s PMT was fascinating too. It took him about 15 mins to get comfortable and into a groove but when he started talking about his Yankee years I found it honest and fascinating. Great stuff.
One of their best interviews ever. ARod came off as sincere and relatable which is amazing to me. Furthermore, their somewhat irreverent approach worked for him whereas it hasn't always for other athletes (to be fair, their best interviews tend to be with established types versus those in the midst of a career). His stuff on the Sox non-deal as well as his relationship with Varitek was great.

Its very funny that a guy like Rodriguez comes off as far more likable than some of the Sox players who were responsible for defeating ARod's Yankees en route to a historic championship.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,324
Rotten Apple
A-Rod’s interview on today’s PMT was fascinating too. It took him about 15 mins to get comfortable and into a groove but when he started talking about his Yankee years I found it honest and fascinating. Great stuff.
Totally agreed. I still hate him but that was a great interview. He even laughed off the mirror photo and centaur stuff. Much more self effacing than I expected. That is a must listen.