Political And Racial Agendas Ruining Sports

[4merper4mer]

19 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm not going to delve too deep here, because I don't want to drag this any further into the mud, but I'll try to neatly walk the line.

 

No, I do not think Malcolm Jenkins was blowing smoke.  What I will suggest is that these outcomes do not exist in a vacuum, and are not driven by institutional racism.  The disparities are usually driven by differences in crimes rates in certain areas which then demand more policing, as you tend to move heavily police areas which have high rates of crime.
 

It's a very complex issue, and while I sympathize with Mr. Jenkins, he's giving a very incomplete reporting.

 

There are dozens and dozens of systemic problems which have led us here, which absolutely include abhorrent racial injustices in our past; and things absolutely do need to change.  However I'm afraid Mr. Jenkins is tilting as the symptoms rather than the disease, and the cancer of racial division can't be cured that way.

Mr. Jenkins is a commie; or at least a commie dupe.

[njbuff]

You can add DSP to the list of players making their stance of not going to the WH after winning a championship.

 

This whole thing is just nuts now.

[Max Fischer]

14 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

Go stroke your strawman, virtue boy.

 

Seems obvious you wouldn’t pass your own test. Sad. 

[Warren Zevon]

4 minutes ago, njbuff said:

You can add DSP to the list of players making their stance of not going to the WH after winning a championship.

 

This whole thing is just nuts now.

 

Who cares? 

[Max Fischer]

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

Do you think there are other factors at play for youth incarceration rates?

Everyone in America has the right to say stupid things and have stupid opinions. I think we just used to be more ashamed of saying stupid things.

 

Perhaps, and the current White House has done wonders to lower the bar to depths not known possible. 

[Rob's House]

7 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

 

Seems obvious you wouldn’t pass your own test. Sad. 

Sick burn, dude.

[keepthefaith]

22 hours ago, TheElectricCompany said:

 

Not my girl. What do you know of my political views? I'm not getting into "what if scenarios". 

Sports are getting political because the status quo is no longer good enough, and things need to change.

Do you think Malcolm Jenkins was blowing smoke yesterday when he talked about youth incarceration rates? 

 

 

There is a sure fire way of staying out of jail. 

[OGTEleven]

20 hours ago, dpberr said:

In some ways Drudge Report started it and 9/11 accelerated it. Drudge was able to get breaking news out so much faster than the networks, even MSNBC which was started as a way to get news out so fast on your MicroSoft Internet Explorer. 

 

Since networks could no longer scoop the news like they used to, they now found themselves filling air time talking about it like everyone else and in order to keep viewers, the commentary had to be attractive or incite some emotion.  Fox rolled out the pretty and handsome hosts, MSNBC turned up the rhetoric and CNN had no idea what to do.  It was stuck between its real news history and the new dawn of punditry of Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews.  

 

Secondly, on 9/11 and every day since, real news was relegated to the "ticker" at the bottom of the screen and air time was filled with well-dressed opinion from commentators.  Can you imagine Peter Jennings doing a Don Lemon or a Sean Hannity bit? 

 

Since the reportable stuff is now just a streaming phrase, "media" needed something new to "report" on and it was opinion.  Opinion is cheap and easy to report and if your opinion is inflammatory, YOU can be the news.   

 

It's easier to digest because you're reacting to someone else's reaction.  It creates one of three emotions:  Joy, anger or apathy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't been a frequent poster for a long time (I used to be) and I'm not sure why this thread and your post made me want to reply.  I'm conservative but I wasn't always.  My whole family is liberal (to varying degrees) and I started out that way.  I don't remember everything about why I changed stripes but I do remember when it started.  I was about 20 and went to a Jackson Browne concert.  I didn't like President Reagan at the time.  I liked Browne's music (something else that I wonder about now, but he is ok I guess).  I left the concert annoyed because of all the railing against Reagan between songs, the pictures on the screens behind JB during songs and certain things he said that I knew were only part of the story (I shared his overall beliefs but wondered why he left things out that didn't fit his theme).  For this reason, it was the worst concert I'd ever attended and I saw The Cars play live (ugh).

 

You make interesting points about Drudge, but I look at it from the opposite angle as well.  Even though I agree with you about Drudge scooping by use of the internet, I think there is a lot Drudge did that exposed the shortcomings of network and cable news in ways that had little to do with scoops.  To this day his page is almost completely links.  He posts his own stuff (scoops) from time to time but most of it sends you somewhere else.  People can say he mostly links right leaning articles and that can be argued either way.  Even if you buy that, the middle column of his simple page, has for as long as I can remember been simple links to the latest editorials written by people left, right and center.  His page is basically aggregation.  

 

There is nothing stopping anyone (especially CNN, Fox and other news outlets) from copying him.  They could have very easily done that 20 years ago, but they were too tied to their filters.  Why can't CNN link Thomas Sowell or Fox link Maureen Dowd?  Shouldn't they want their audience to get a complete picture that draws them to a nightly broadcast?  To me, Drudge exposed the politics of others.  Maybe he didn't do it on purpose but I'm glad he did.  Now he has a name and people go to the site, but when he started, he could have easily been beaten, or at least copied.  Travelocity vs. Trivago vs. Hotels.com vs. 15 others isn't really all that different but Drudge is still by himself?

 

These filters still exist.  I can't count how many times I've gone on Drudge in the last two years and followed a link about an American political topic and found myself landing at an article from the UK.  Very often these article have turned out to be very truthful and hit American news outlets months later.  What is that?

 

As for the overall topic I find the political takes of sports figures annoying.  This is mostly for two reasons.  First, I find them mostly uninformed and the better ones usually have a spin or filter.  Lebron James seems like a nice well intending guy to me but he does not sound like he knows about politics.  Colin Kaepernick is articulate to an extent and has formed beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.  but I don't think he considers all sides and I think if he did there would be a lot less reporting about him.  The second is that these guys are doing this at work and it creates problems for their employers.  I have zero problems with a guy saying he will give his full opinion on something right after he leaves the locker room and that the reporters can wait for him ini the parking lot, but while he is at work?  

 

I pretty much stopped posting on the main board because although I am a fan I don't know how to evaluate a 3 technique or a cover 2 so I don't feel like I contribute much.  I look at athletes the same way when they speak on politics until they prove otherwise.

[keepthefaith]

21 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm not going to delve too deep here, because I don't want to drag this any further into the mud, but I'll try to neatly walk the line.

 

No, I do not think Malcolm Jenkins was blowing smoke.  What I will suggest is that these outcomes do not exist in a vacuum, and are not driven by institutional racism.  The disparities are usually driven by differences in crimes rates in certain areas which then demand more policing, as you tend to move heavily police areas which have high rates of crime.
 

It's a very complex issue, and while I sympathize with Mr. Jenkins, he's giving a very incomplete reporting.

 

There are dozens and dozens of systemic problems which have led us here, which absolutely include abhorrent racial injustices in our past; and things absolutely do need to change.  However I'm afraid Mr. Jenkins is tilting as the symptoms rather than the disease, and the cancer of racial division can't be cured that way.

 

I can tell you that in the city of Chicago, smaller crimes which are vigorously prosecuted in the suburbs are not at all pursued in the city.  In Chicago you can steal a purse, use people's credit cards, hit and run in a car accident, damage or steal people's property, push or possess petty drug stuff and be undeniably identified in doing the crime and the police will not even file charges and they will tell the victims "sorry, can't help you".  In the case of groups of youths committing crimes such as these, the police will put you on the train, pay your fare and send you home.  If other large cities are doing the same, crime in cities is under-reported and under prosecuted compared to more affluent suburban areas. 

 

I would tell Jenkins and others, be careful what you wish for.  Equal application of the law state-wide and nation-wide might not yield the result you're looking for. 

[dpberr]

13 minutes ago, OGTEleven said:

 

 

 

I haven't been a frequent poster for a long time (I used to be) and I'm not sure why this thread and your post made me want to reply.  I'm conservative but I wasn't always.  My whole family is liberal (to varying degrees) and I started out that way.  I don't remember everything about why I changed stripes but I do remember when it started.  I was about 20 and went to a Jackson Browne concert.  I didn't like President Reagan at the time.  I liked Browne's music (something else that I wonder about now, but he is ok I guess).  I left the concert annoyed because of all the railing against Reagan between songs, the pictures on the screens behind JB during songs and certain things he said that I knew were only part of the story (I shared his overall beliefs but wondered why he left things out that didn't fit his theme).  For this reason, it was the worst concert I'd ever attended and I saw The Cars play live (ugh).

 

You make interesting points about Drudge, but I look at it from the opposite angle as well.  Even though I agree with you about Drudge scooping by use of the internet, I think there is a lot Drudge did that exposed the shortcomings of network and cable news in ways that had little to do with scoops.  To this day his page is almost completely links.  He posts his own stuff (scoops) from time to time but most of it sends you somewhere else.  People can say he mostly links right leaning articles and that can be argued either way.  Even if you buy that, the middle column of his simple page, has for as long as I can remember been simple links to the latest editorials written by people left, right and center.  His page is basically aggregation.  

 

There is nothing stopping anyone (especially CNN, Fox and other news outlets) from copying him.  They could have very easily done that 20 years ago, but they were too tied to their filters.  Why can't CNN link Thomas Sowell or Fox link Maureen Dowd?  Shouldn't they want their audience to get a complete picture that draws them to a nightly broadcast?  To me, Drudge exposed the politics of others.  Maybe he didn't do it on purpose but I'm glad he did.  Now he has a name and people go to the site, but when he started, he could have easily been beaten, or at least copied.  Travelocity vs. Trivago vs. Hotels.com vs. 15 others isn't really all that different but Drudge is still by himself?

 

These filters still exist.  I can't count how many times I've gone on Drudge in the last two years and followed a link about an American political topic and found myself landing at an article from the UK.  Very often these article have turned out to be very truthful and hit American news outlets months later.  What is that?

 

As for the overall topic I find the political takes of sports figures annoying.  This is mostly for two reasons.  First, I find them mostly uninformed and the better ones usually have a spin or filter.  Lebron James seems like a nice well intending guy to me but he does not sound like he knows about politics.  Colin Kaepernick is articulate to an extent and has formed beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.  but I don't think he considers all sides and I think if he did there would be a lot less reporting about him.  The second is that these guys are doing this at work and it creates problems for their employers.  I have zero problems with a guy saying he will give his full opinion on something right after he leaves the locker room and that the reporters can wait for him ini the parking lot, but while he is at work?  

 

I pretty much stopped posting on the main board because although I am a fan I don't know how to evaluate a 3 technique or a cover 2 so I don't feel like I contribute much.  I look at athletes the same way when they speak on politics until they prove otherwise.

 

We may differ in age a bit, but I remember when Drudge broke the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and it was a watershed event for the "Internet" because he broke it well before any of the networks could.  IMO, that was the first time the Internet demonstrated it could be a viable competitor to the traditional news networks.  It basically took the Headline News format of 24 hour news and turned it digital without having to wait while the newscaster works his or her way through the stories.  

 

See a story you're interested in and click, you've got it.  I think the simplicity and consistency of Drudge's page has and continues to be brilliant web design.  I too am surprised the networks haven't copied the format.  

[Azalin]

15 hours ago, Max Fischer said:

 

“Dont understand”?  You mean, there should be a test to determine if you should have an opinion?

 

 

No, I believe he means that many people emote, mainly because they lack the fundamental understanding of civics, politics, and current affairs that would afford them a more informed opinion.

 

 

[row_33]

drudge didn’t care about the established narrative on reporting on Clinton

 

[GG]

Holy cow, an 11 sighting.  Weird threads seem to bring out the long departed.

 

What will it take to unearth Murph?

[Max Fischer]

51 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

No, I believe he means that many people emote, mainly because they lack the fundamental understanding of civics, politics, and current affairs that would afford them a more informed opinion.

 

 

 

I disagree with that correlation (and I hope you as well).  So if you don't "emote" it's more likely you have a greater understanding of civics, politics and current affairs?  I'd say it's much more likely the opposite is true.  However, I do believe that people all across the spectrum should utilize a wider array of information and resources; and a LOT more understanding as to WHY people protest.  

Edited June 8, 2018 by Max Fischer

[row_33]

emote is fine for the level of expression required

 

if they think this will replace a doctoral thesis they are sadly mistaken

 

 

[3rdnlng]

It amazes me that people are arguing that NFL players have the right to protest on company time. They don't have the right to protest jackshit while they are representing their team. They are injuring the product that the NFL is trying to sell and in doing so are hurting their future remuneration.

[Rob's House]

38 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

 

I disagree with that correlation (and I hope you as well).  So if you don't "emote" it's more likely you have a greater understanding of civics, politics and current affairs?  I'd say it's much more likely the opposite is true.  However, I do believe that people all across the spectrum should utilize a wider array of information and resources; and a LOT more understanding as to WHY people protest.  

Why don't you shed some light on why they protest?

[row_33]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It amazes me that people are arguing that NFL players have the right to protest on company time. They don't have the right to protest jackshit while they are representing their team. They are injuring the product that the NFL is trying to sell and in doing so are hurting their future remuneration.

 

 

the incidents leading to the protests were all on Obama's watch....

 

 

[TheElectricCompany]

3 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Do you think there are other factors at play for youth incarceration rates?

They are many factors and no easy answers. 

I was in social work for a few years; I would say family structure, education, poverty, drugs or alcohol abuse and mental health all play a part. 

My bottom line? Incarceration and recidivism rates are all extremely high, and we need to start working on solutions. 

While I often disagree with the platform (I think peaceful demonstrations outside city hall or police HQ would be more impactful), I don't disagree with the messages Jenkins and others have brought up. 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by TheElectricCompany

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, TheElectricCompany said:

They are many factors and no easy answers. 

I was in social work for a few years; I would say family structure, education, poverty, drugs or alcohol abuse and mental health all play a part. 

My bottom line? Incarceration and recidivism rates are all extremely high, and we need to start working on solutions. 

 

 

 

try to do your best in school

 

don't break the law

 

stay with the woman who had your kid, teach the kid what being a man is really about in decent society