Stand or Nah?

DMwf6bPXUAEaCRo.jpg:large


DMxvt4gW4AACj4s.jpg:large


DMxKESiX4AAphKD.jpg:large


DMwfJXkX0AArQWt.jpg:large
 
The Giants (1-6) Eli's
The Dolphins (4-2) Jay Cutler's
The 49ers ( 0-7) no idea any players name
The Browns ( 0-7) Bernie Kosar = just kidding

5-22

no wonder no one is there
 
NFL the past few years just sucks. To many teams and not enough quality coaches or players to go around..
So many of the games are unwatchable. No flow

Thursday night's game is Miami and Baltimore. Your kids soccer game might draw more people

Tonight the Skins and Eagles will draw.
Steelers- Bengals drew
Pats-Falcons drew
 
Agreed. I think Sav said earlier in this thread that there is just too much NFL available now, and I think that with the concussion stuff had already weakened the brand. The anthem stuff has definitely added to that.
I am genuinely fascinated to see how this plays out. The NFL can't make the players stand without risking a player revolt. They can't win the publicity war outright regardless of which way they turn, as one side or the other will be angry either way. I still think they have to just ride it out and hope it goes away or someone else solves the problem for them.
 
Jaw said:
Agreed. I think Sav said earlier in this thread that there is just too much NFL available now, and I think that with the concussion stuff had already weakened the brand. The anthem stuff has definitely added to that.
I am genuinely fascinated to see how this plays out. The NFL can't make the players stand without risking a player revolt. They can't win the publicity war outright regardless of which way they turn, as one side or the other will be angry either way. I still think they have to just ride it out and hope it goes away or someone else solves the problem for them.
Click to expand...

Cant they just go back to players not on the field?
 
jpx7 said:
This is a little bit of that incredulity I mentioned.

De-fanging the VRA is not "slow forward movement", but back-sliding, making a lot of its protection unenforceable. Small forward-movement would be rewriting those coverage formulae to be Constitutionally enforceable, even in the eyes of this decidedly right-leaning Court.

On a related note, passing more restrictions on early- and remote-voting (options which tend to be used in much greater proportion by the working-poor—which is a group, in turn, that tends to include a greater proportion of ethnic minorities) is likewise a step back, not "slow forward movement". Same story with so many voter-identification laws. Opening up better and more efficient access to the ballot-box—that would constitute some forward movement, and needn't be reckless or impulsive.

Prohibitions against gerrymandering would constitute another potential "incremental" fix, with the convenient drawing in and out of racial groups not necessarily back-sliding, but certainly a side-stepping.

And, of course, the what he said with cajun's responses. Generally ending private-prisons, too, would hardly be a reckless step, and would certainly help gradually improve the lot of our nation's marginalized.

So yea: incrementalism can still be argued for. But you can't argue there hasn't been any back-sliding. And, while incrementalism and gradualism are, indeed, "by nature forward moving", it's a lot more dubious to claim conservatism is "by nature forward moving"—unless you just mean it is in that way in which all things, by Nature, move forward.
Click to expand...

Progressivism is an American democratic sociopolitical constant. Forward motion is, generally speaking, a modern inevitability. Have there been moments where government/policy/cultural mores strafed laterally? Certainly. Has there been regression? If we're talking about truly dubious claims, I find that inference more difficult to substantiate (but it's something that, on a case-by-case basis, would be a fascinating study).

1) Your characterization of the Voting Rights Act being "de-fanged" is pretty alarmist. Nevertheless, what you've advocated for here ("rewriting coverage formulae" ... "opening up better and more efficient access to the ballot-box" ... "prohibitions against gerrymandering") - just to be completely clear - are incrementalist/gradualist approaches (which upthread was pawned off as "dark ages" thinking). And they are precisely the type of changes that I'm confident our judicial/electoral systems will remedy or, at very least, address over time.

Of all of the things you mentioned, ending private prisons (with the stroke of a pen or by some sort of democratic measurement) would be the most "impulsive" step (and I would agree, the idea if and of itself is not necessarily reckless [or feckless]).

2) I completely disagree with your assertion that I "can't" argue that there hasn't been any back-sliding on race relations in the United States. I'm happy to make that argument all day. But it's an argument that's made on balance - not on a selective, line-item basis.

3) What I'm interested in is seeing some truly forward-thinking, liberal ideas that go beyond tweaking the system. What significant measures could we take up to place racial incongruity squarely in the cross-hairs?
 
Julio3000 said:
You seem, in general, pretty amenable to big, bold, outside-the-box ideas. I know you've expressed a preference for single-payer healthcare. You notably supported Bush-era sprinkling of democracy pixie dust over the middle east, which, whatever one thinks of its efficacy, was a massive and experimental process. Your early support for Trump was couched in terms of blowing up a creaky system and figuratively knocking all the pieces off the board. You've mused about a nuclear first strike on NK. Hell, you've raised more than once the idea that liberal democracy itself is outmoded and should be replaced with some kind of benevolent fascism.

None of those things are particularly cautious, small-c conservative, or incrementalist. I think it's fair to say that some of them could be characterized as "recklessly impulsive," but certainly not indicative of timidity. ;-)

While I do think that the gradualist/conservative approach to race relations in America has not distinguished itself, I'm not arguing the merits here, just noting that you seem like an unlikely person to be planting that flag.
Click to expand...

I'm not ideologically bound when it comes to issues (and I feel sorry for those that are - obsessing over personal/party politics is, for lack of a better word, lame). If anything, these various stances of mine that you've listed (some of which you've ever so slightly [a little predictably] mis-characterized for effect) illustrate that I'm amenable to compromise. And that amenability grows in light of how important I view an issue to be.

Race relations is a place where I feel like a traditionally conservative approach fits, primarily because it's slow and it's delicate and should as deliberate and roundly intentioned as humanly possible.

But let's not confuse conservatism with contemporary Republicanism.

I'm advocating for incrementalism because I don't see an alternative that isn't completely laced with stark risks. It's easy to support 'outside-the-box' thinking on healthcare or gay marriage or drug legalization ... because even if those ideas flop in a profound way, the fiber of the nation isn't exactly compromised.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not ideologically bound when it comes to issues (and I feel sorry for those that are - obsessing over personal/party politics is, for lack of a better word, lame). If anything, these various stances of mine that you've listed (some of which you've ever so slightly [a little predictably] mis-characterized for effect) illustrate that I'm amenable to compromise. And that amenability grows in light of how important I view an issue to be.

Race relations is a place where I feel like a traditionally conservative approach fits, primarily because it's slow and it's delicate and should as deliberate and roundly intentioned as humanly possible.

But let's not confuse conservatism with contemporary Republicanism.

I'm advocating for incrementalism because I don't see an alternative that isn't completely laced with stark risks. It's easy to support 'outside-the-box' thinking on healthcare or gay marriage or drug legalization ... because even if those ideas flop in a profound way, the fiber of the nation isn't exactly compromised.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's just worth noting what the conservative approach to civil rights has been . . . I dunno, a little lacking. In the 60s, the conservative approach to civil rights was to blame Watts, etc., on the actual Civil Rights movement. Shutting out the people who are calling for change in favor of those who stand athwart history crying "Stop!" has not exactly had the most distinguished track record, right?

But what is outside of the box, in today's context? Where is the box?

Also, off-topic, what have I mischaracterized?
 
Julio3000 said:
Fair enough. It's just worth noting what the conservative approach to civil rights has been . . . I dunno, a little lacking. In the 60s, the conservative approach to civil rights was to blame Watts, etc., on the actual Civil Rights movement. Shutting out the people who are calling for change in favor of those who stand athwart history crying "Stop!" has not exactly had the most distinguished track record, right?

But what is outside of the box, in today's context? Where is the box?

Also, off-topic, what have I mischaracterized?
Click to expand...

I don't know, you tell me. I've asked now, across multiple threads, for examples of where you think there is an existing, obvious, festering divide. I mean, I might surmise that law enforcement/criminality (broadly) is one area. But you made a point to intervene and call my 'sentiment' "bull****" when I questioned whether or not the issue of equal representation in the mass media might be a little overstated, so that might be a good place to start; where do you see clear inequality and what steps do you suggest we endeavor upon to squash it? Keep in mind that I'm looking for ideas (concurrently proposed or purely theoretical) that are most decidedly not "incrementalist" ... because 'that is 1950s thinking'.

As for what you mis-characterized:

- "Muse" is not the word I'd use to describe a discussion about military options in NK, especially given the context.
- My support for the Bush doctrine had nothing to do with nation building. I think it was an interesting idea, but I'm a pragmatist.
- I've suggested that a more Utopian breed of fascism could be realized. That's not an obscure perspective, and it's also not one that I'm pining for.
 
I'd submit that that is, yeah, an extremely obscure perspective, and one that you were pretty up front about. No?
 
Hawk said:
Progressivism is an American democratic sociopolitical constant. Forward motion is, generally speaking, a modern inevitability. Have there been moments where government/policy/cultural mores strafed laterally? Certainly. Has there been regression? If we're talking about truly dubious claims, I find that inference more difficult to substantiate (but it's something that, on a case-by-case basis, would be a fascinating study).

1) Your characterization of the Voting Rights Act being "de-fanged" is pretty alarmist. Nevertheless, what you've advocated for here ("rewriting coverage formulae" ... "opening up better and more efficient access to the ballot-box" ... "prohibitions against gerrymandering") - just to be completely clear - are incrementalist/gradualist approaches (which upthread was pawned off as "dark ages" thinking). And they are precisely the type of changes that I'm confident our judicial/electoral systems will remedy or, at very least, address over time.

Of all of the things you mentioned, ending private prisons (with the stroke of a pen or by some sort of democratic measurement) would be the most "impulsive" step (and I would agree, the idea if and of itself is not necessarily reckless [or feckless]).

2) I completely disagree with your assertion that I "can't" argue that there hasn't been any back-sliding on race relations in the United States. I'm happy to make that argument all day. But it's an argument that's made on balance - not on a selective, line-item basis.

3) What I'm interested in is seeing some truly forward-thinking, liberal ideas that go beyond tweaking the system. What significant measures could we take up to place racial incongruity squarely in the cross-hairs?
Click to expand...

1) I know they are "incrementalist/gradualist approaches", which is why I put them forward against what I perceive as back-sliding, and why I kept reiterating that those approaches would constitute "slow forward movement". But they are approaches currently not being practically explored in our government, and I have less confidence "our judicial/electoral systems will remedy or, at very least, address over" a time that is sufficiently on the horizon.

2) Here we're simply using different goal-post. I'm more interested in the selective, line-item bases of discussion, because—while "on balance" progress on race relations is nice—I think looking at or arguing for purely "on balance" metrics obscures the many instances of on-going failure. I'm also wary of back-sliding, which is why I focus on the "line-item".

3) I'm not sure there are good answers, under our current economic ordering, beyond "liberal tweaking". The socialist would argue this is precisely the reason that an upending of our capitalist economic ordering is necessary.
 
@Julio

It's really not though. Especially when you take it back to Nietzsche, like I did.

I also linked scholarly articles on the issue.

Hypothesizing about something is not the same thing as advocating for it. I could do the same for communism.

Maybe this kind of stuff isn't weird or obscure to me because I wasted a decade of my life studying PS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top