Race and Rosario

[Mike Sixel]

It's almost like that post where I said message sent is not message received didn't happen..... I'm not asking for it to be easier, I'm suggesting that understanding my, and I'm going to say my here on purpose, feelings would help the conversation.

 

As for the conversation, not sure what you want. Everyone has agreed there is racism in the world. Everyone has said it is bad. Not everyone agrees that Latin players face more racism. I guess we could discuss that?

 

Other than time and ongoing protests, and trying to change an individual mind here and there, I don't know how to fix this, frankly. Not voting for racists certainly helps, but in the long run probably didn't matter much.

[KirbyDome89]

 

As to posters feelings, I don't really care. I think if we point out that using racially coded language (Buxton isn't smart, Sano is lazy, Rosario won't hustle) we might piss off some people but I also think some people won't post that stuff anymore as well. It's not a one-way street where if our side isn't polite the other side won't come around. No one wants to be associated with racism (except the Richard Spencers of the world) so even if you think it's bull****, you'll see less of these offensive postings. Even if you didn't think your posting was offensive.

This "by any means necessary," way of thinking does nothing positive. It's precisely how we arrive at a point where simply having an opinion that differs in any way is used as justification to attack. It absolutely becomes a one way street if you've proclaimed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. This approach has nothing to do with having a discussion; it's about validating accusations which ironically are as unfounded as the posts with which you find offense. 

 

This isn't some truth crusade where you're going to out a bunch a closet bigots posting in code. You're going to piss off individual posters by personally attacking them, and then pretend that the reason they no longer post is because you've warded off their racism, when in reality they're abstaining from posting to avoid being harassed for having the "wrong opinion," as decided by you, or for failing to articulate said opinion in a manner you deem appropriate. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Other than time and ongoing protests, and trying to change an individual mind here and there, I don't know how to fix this, frankly. Not voting for racists certainly helps, but in the long run probably didn't matter much.

 

I think by and large this is the difficulty with social change.  People get pretty set in their ways and it takes a considerable amount of push - both in terms of intensity and duration - to move things along and change minds.

 

There are real emotions that are necessary to drive things, but counter-productive to driving them to a solution.  There is a real need to talk, but that means someone has to listen.  A lot of dynamics that oppose each other towards meaningful solutions, but are nonetheless necessary elements for the solutions to even happen.

 

It's frustrating.  But that's how I feel I come down on virtually every political discussion these days.  Looks like this one will end much the same.

 

 

[Squirrel]

 

I think by and large this is the difficulty with social change.  People get pretty set in their ways and it takes a considerable amount of push - both in terms of intensity and duration - to move things along and change minds.

 

There are real emotions that are necessary to drive things, but counter-productive to driving them to a solution.  There is a real need to talk, but that means someone has to listen.  A lot of dynamics that oppose each other towards meaningful solutions, but are nonetheless necessary elements for the solutions to even happen.

 

It's frustrating.  But that's how I feel I come down on virtually every political discussion these days.  Looks like this one will end much the same.

Interestingly enough, I just read this article. I don't know if it's helpful or not in terms of how to address discussions on topics that create polarization. It was just interesting and seemed somehow pertinent to how this discussion is going between all of us. And that isn't an indictment on either side or this, or maybe on both sides of this. <shrug> Something to think about, anyway, not that I completely agree with everything in here.

 

https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

[TheLeviathan]

 

Interestingly enough, I just read this article. I don't know if it's helpful or not in terms of how to address discussions on topics that create polarization. It was just interesting and seemed somehow pertinent to how this discussion is going between all of us. And that isn't an indictment on either side or this, or maybe on both sides of this. <shrug> Something to think about, anyway, not that I completely agree with everything in here.

 

https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

 

I think it's an indictment of pretty much all of us to varying degrees.  But the harder left and the harder right you are....the worse you tend to be.

 

And I think it was a wonderful article.  Frankly, there are too many echo chambers out there.  TD gets that way too, though probably more of an epistemic bubble.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Interestingly enough, I just read this article. I don't know if it's helpful or not in terms of how to address discussions on topics that create polarization. It was just interesting and seemed somehow pertinent to how this discussion is going between all of us. And that isn't an indictment on either side or this, or maybe on both sides of this. <shrug> Something to think about, anyway, not that I completely agree with everything in here.

 

https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

 

this is great. thanks!

[TheLeviathan]

Man, that last section of that article is spot on.  I really, really like what it said there about how you diffuse the echo-chamber with trust and good-will.

 

It speaks to problems we've had here: disregard for good-will with someone not like-minded, but also several posters in here "judo"ing any attempt to use evidence and reason to help sway them.

 

Great stuff, thank you for posting it Carole.

[KirbyDome89]

 

What other way would you suggest we remove that implication?  I feel like Brock and I have made explicit that we don't want that implication in the conversation and I've used analogies to demonstrate that.

 

Is there some other way to come at this?  I'm genuinely asking, though my confidence there is a way decreases by the page in this thread.

I feel like we came to consensus on this. We might agree to disagree about how generalizations are handled but I think within this thread everybody has come to the consensus that no individuals are being indicted. 

 

I'm not going to lie, it was slightly irritating that my contribution to the thread suddenly became a strawman 11 pages into a thread that has shifted from Rosario, to race in general, to how bias is interpreted and acted upon, to criticism of Buxton and Sano, and finally arrived at criticism of Latin players in general. There honestly hasn't been a strong theme other than race itself. Take that for what it is I guess. There's a notion that "the conversation," we're supposed to be having is being shut down. I'm not sure I agree. Nobody is telling anybody to "shut up," or that "we can't admit bias exists." That's hyperbole. While the conversation has shifted, it certainly hasn't been hijacked.

 

This thread is in no way dominated by one "side," IMO it's a fairly even back and forth of ideas, so if the thread is guilty of missing the mark, then you, Brock, myself, ect. are all complicit in that failing. If we're going that route, then we've all participated fairly actively in the thread and to that end we've all distracted from "the conversation," via strawman posts. I might think understanding and defining terms is important for productive conversation, while others will label that as ignoring the real issue. I think basic civility and holding each side equally accountable is vital, others may view that as demanding a conversation be held on my terms. We, not necessarily you and I, but this thread, can disagree strongly on some of those points, but we've at least reached a consensus about starting a conversation. Why is the finger still being pointed at others for attempting to shut anything down? We have the ball, so get it rolling.  

 

The point I'm getting at is that if you or Brock have an idea of where you want this thread or "conversation," to go then take it there. It might not happen as immediately as either of you would like. It isn't always fair for the first person to turn the page to criticize others for not already being there. However, as I pointed out before, the thread has shown it's capable of shifting. 

[Squirrel]

 

Man, that last section of that article is spot on.  I really, really like what it said there about how you diffuse the echo-chamber with trust and good-will.

 

It speaks to problems we've had here: disregard for good-will with someone not like-minded, but also several posters in here "judo"ing any attempt to use evidence and reason to help sway them.

 

Great stuff, thank you for posting it Carole.

Sometimes the universe gives you what you need when you need it, if you are looking for it. I had just read the last several posts between you and Mike, and then, of all places, a friend of mine posted that on Facebook. The timing was too odd to be coincidental.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I feel like we came to consensus on this. We might agree to disagree about how generalizations are handled but I think within this thread everybody has come to the consensus that no individuals are being indicted. 

 

I don't think we can.  Every few posts it rears it's head again and that is where we seem to be stuck.  Your posts enabling/defending/rationalizing that only added to it.  I know that wasn't your intention, but it's what happened.

 

I simply cannot do any more over a message board to assert that I am not indicting any individual.  And yet it keeps coming back.  I accept my part in that failure, but it also means I can't agree we have consensus there. 

 

It'd be nice.  I'll hold out hope that we can.

[gunnarthor]

 

This "by any means necessary," way of thinking does nothing positive. It's precisely how we arrive at a point where simply having an opinion that differs in any way is used as justification to attack. It absolutely becomes a one way street if you've proclaimed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. This approach has nothing to do with having a discussion; it's about validating accusations which ironically are as unfounded as the posts with which you find offense. 

 

This isn't some truth crusade where you're going to out a bunch a closet bigots posting in code. You're going to piss off individual posters by personally attacking them, and then pretend that the reason they no longer post is because you've warded off their racism, when in reality they're abstaining from posting to avoid being harassed for having the "wrong opinion," as decided by you, or for failing to articulate said opinion in a manner you deem appropriate. 

I disagree. I don't care why someone stops saying stuff like Buxton isn't smart enough to play baseball or Sano ate too much fried chicken. I just want them to stop spreading that stuff for others to read. (And, again, no one is labeling anyone racist. They are giving them all the rope in the world to explain their reasons. Some took it. Some hung themselves). 

 

We've had this thread going for a week now and a bunch of posters don't seem to understand that coded language exists or that speaking in a way that invites racial stereotypes is bad (other than acknowledging that it sometimes somewhere might happen). It's not the politeness of one side - Brock and Levi and others have made sensible post after sensible post. But they are being ignored. But you know what else we haven't seen as much? Threads using coded language and racial stereotypes. Calling this out when you see it is a good thing, regardless of whether someone might get hurt feelings over it.

[Mike Sixel]

Who's being ignored? Seriously?

 

I'm not sure people disagree that you can or cannot call it out, I think they believe:

 

1. That criticizing Rosario for boneheaded plays is not racially motivated, since he seems to make a lot of them, and even he seems to realize that. Using this as the OP weakens the argumemnt, imo.

 

2. Pointing it out is implying there is racism, and that creates tension. That tension can be good, or it can be bad. Even if you somehow don't think this, it is still the message received by many.

 

3. Saying no one is trying is ridiculous on its face, and insulting.

 

4. We aren't going to solve society's problems on this board, but discussing how we can might help us do more on our own. Saying we are ignoring the real problem because we are also discussing how to address the problem, or not, is insulting to those trying to have this conversation.

 

5. If people want a different discussion, start a post that way, and ask for something specific.

 

6. Carole's post is awesome.

[Craig Arko]

At this point I’m just going to shut my pie hole and listen to what others have to say and offer.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I don't think we can.  Every few posts it rears it's head again and that is where we seem to be stuck.  Your posts enabling/defending/rationalizing that only added to it.  I know that wasn't your intention, but it's what happened.

 

I simply cannot do any more over a message board to assert that I am not indicting any individual.  And yet it keeps coming back.  I accept my part in that failure, but it also means I can't agree we have consensus there. 

 

It'd be nice.  I'll hold out hope that we can.

I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between a small group of us agreeing on how to utilize generalizations within this thread and how their misuse in a world outside of this thread becomes harmful. That's just undeniable fact. It you want to say I'm enabling others by pointing that out and offering it up as reason why generalizations are pushed back on that's fine. I'll disagree and say it's important to understand exactly what we're talking about and how it can/should be applied. I don't see how our disagreement about that matter precludes us from attempting discussion, but if you don't think it can happen then it certainly won't. I will say though, this isn't the instance of victims vs. offenders it's being painted as.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

I disagree. I don't care why someone stops saying stuff like Buxton isn't smart enough to play baseball or Sano ate too much fried chicken. I just want them to stop spreading that stuff for others to read. (And, again, no one is labeling anyone racist. They are giving them all the rope in the world to explain their reasons. Some took it. Some hung themselves). 

 

We've had this thread going for a week now and a bunch of posters don't seem to understand that coded language exists or that speaking in a way that invites racial stereotypes is bad (other than acknowledging that it sometimes somewhere might happen). It's not the politeness of one side - Brock and Levi and others have made sensible post after sensible post. But they are being ignored. But you know what else we haven't seen as much? Threads using coded language and racial stereotypes. Calling this out when you see it is a good thing, regardless of whether someone might get hurt feelings over it.

I know you don't care. That's kind of the problem....

 

What's the difference between telling another poster their post is tinged with ugly racial stereotypes and flat out calling that person a racist? IMO not much but if you want to split hairs on that point be my guest. The issue is that you've conveniently appointed yourself as the lone juror and executioner, but being the merciful soul that you are you've allowed those who stand accused a rope to explain themselves to your satisfaction and thus escape your wrath. 

 

Can you see how problematic that is? 

 

We aren't talking about overtly racist posts here, i.e. Sano eating fried chicken. We're talking about posts were one person sees a fair critique and you see racial motivation. I feel strongly about some issues that are brought up on TD but that doesn't mean I get to attack anybody I disagree with and shrug it off as "their feelings don't matter." This isn't about feelings. It's about not acting like an jerk in a thread and trying to excuse by making claims as unfounded as those you attacked in the first place. This attitude of "by whatever means necessary," gives individuals carte blanche to do just that. 

 

Yeah we're just going to flat out disagree that those participating in this thread don't understand that coded language or stereotypes can be harmful. 

 

I don't think we can credit the cleans boards on this site to your vigilante enforcement of your belief system.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between a small group of us agreeing on how to utilize generalizations within this thread and how their misuse in a world outside of this thread becomes harmful. 

 

I wasn't talking about the world outside.  We don't have consensus in this thread that no individuals are being attacked. 

 

I would very much like jimmer and Chief and Mike to not feel attacked.  (Or anyone else for that matter) I have no reason to attack them.  They all seem like fine people who often have interesting things to say.  I don't, in any form, think of them, or even their comments, as racist.  However, for whatever reason, they seem intent on feeling as though they are personally attacked, even though I want nothing to do with breaking down personal comments and only want to talk about the issue more generally.  I feel like Brock, Carole, diehard, and yourself would fall into that camp as well.

 

And while I agree with Psuedo and gunnarthor on a broader level, I've taken issue with the tact they are more inclined to.  I've stated openly that I'm not sure it's helpful.  

 

But by the same measure, at some point you have to drop the "I'm being attacked" if you're not being attacked.  If you're going to rush to be offended or insulted by the conversation, then you're making it about you and it's hard for any of the rest of us to penetrate that.  Regardless of tact.

 

As Carole's article suggests, I guess some of us can keep saying they can trust the intent, but until they do there isn't much of a consensus unfortunately.  

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

What's the difference between telling another poster their post is tinged with ugly racial stereotypes and flat out calling that person a racist? IMO not much but if you want to split hairs on that point be my guest. The issue is that you've conveniently appointed yourself as the lone juror and executioner, but being the merciful soul that you are you've allowed those who stand accused a rope to explain themselves to your satisfaction and thus escape your wrath. 

 

Can you see how problematic that is? 

 

We aren't talking about overtly racist posts here, i.e. Sano eating fried chicken. We're talking about posts were one person sees a fair critique and you see racial motivation. I feel strongly about some issues that are brought up on TD but that doesn't mean I get to attack anybody I disagree with and shrug it off as "their feelings don't matter." This isn't about feelings. It's about not acting like an jerk in a thread and trying to excuse by making claims as unfounded as those you attacked in the first place. This attitude of "by whatever means necessary," gives individuals carte blanche to do just that. 

 

Yeah we're just going to flat out disagree that those participating in this thread don't understand that coded language or stereotypes can be harmful. 

 

I don't think we can credit the cleans boards on this site to your vigilante enforcement of your belief system.

Just saw that your replied to this. 

 

So how much "tinged" racism are we supposed to allow? Bringing up racial stereotypes WHEN THEY APPEAR seems to me a good time to address them. No one, to my knowledge, has ever said "[Poster X] you are racist" on Twins Daily. I know I haven't. So that's not the problem.

 

If you can think of a way to tell Poster X that using racial stereotypes isn't a great idea in 2018 in a way that they don't think they are being attacked, great. Start doing it. But you seem to be saying that it is too rude to discuss troublesome posts so we should just not do that. 

 

And, as a reminder, posters on TD have made the fried chicken comments. They've made posts about lazy and uneducated people of color. 

[USAFChief]

 

Just saw that your replied to this. 

 

So how much "tinged" racism are we supposed to allow? Bringing up racial stereotypes WHEN THEY APPEAR seems to me a good time to address them. No one, to my knowledge, has ever said "[Poster X] you are racist" on Twins Daily. I know I haven't. So that's not the problem.

 

If you can think of a way to tell Poster X that using racial stereotypes isn't a great idea in 2018 in a way that they don't think they are being attacked, great. Start doing it. But you seem to be saying that it is too rude to discuss troublesome posts so we should just not do that. 

 

And, as a reminder, posters on TD have made the fried chicken comments. They've made posts about lazy and uneducated people of color. 

We post fried chicken comments in the game thread of almost every Twins win.

 

Is it your position that I cannot consider a person of color lazy?

 

"Black people are lazy" is racist.

 

"Joe Black Guy is lazy" isn't necessarily so.

[ashbury]

"Joe Black Guy is lazy" isn't necessarily so.

Porgy and Bess? Careful there, sir.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Just saw that your replied to this. 

 

So how much "tinged" racism are we supposed to allow? Bringing up racial stereotypes WHEN THEY APPEAR seems to me a good time to address them. No one, to my knowledge, has ever said "[Poster X] you are racist" on Twins Daily. I know I haven't. So that's not the problem.

 

If you can think of a way to tell Poster X that using racial stereotypes isn't a great idea in 2018 in a way that they don't think they are being attacked, great. Start doing it. But you seem to be saying that it is too rude to discuss troublesome posts so we should just not do that. 

 

And, as a reminder, posters on TD have made the fried chicken comments. They've made posts about lazy and uneducated people of color. 

"We aren't talking about overtly racist posts here, i.e. Sano eating fried chicken. We're talking about posts were one person sees a fair critique and you see racial motivation."

 

I was very clear about the type of posts we're talking about; posts that started this thread. Rosario doesn't move out of the box on an infield popup and he's criticized for not hustling. Where you see the posts as tinged with racial stereotypes others see fair criticism of a player failing at the most basic aspect of his job. 

 

You may feel that some of the criticism is unfounded, but again, your presumption that the motivation is racial is as equally unsubstantiated as the posts you're targeting. You're not the arbiter of truth when it comes to these posts i.e. your feelings about a post don't grant you authority to attack it, and they absolutely shouldn't be used as justification for doing so. 

[Craig Arko]

 

"We aren't talking about overtly racist posts here, i.e. Sano eating fried chicken. We're talking about posts were one person sees a fair critique and you see racial motivation."

 

I was very clear about the type of posts we're talking about; posts that started this thread. Rosario doesn't move out of the box on an infield popup and he's criticized for not hustling. Where you see the posts as tinged with racial stereotypes others see fair criticism of a player failing at the most basic aspect of his job. 

 

You may feel that some of the criticism is unfounded, but again, your presumption that the motivation is racial is as equally unsubstantiated as the posts you're targeting. You're not the arbiter of truth when it comes to these posts i.e. your feelings about a post don't grant you authority to attack it, and they absolutely shouldn't be used as justification for doing so. 

Wait a second. It's okay to criticize people but posts are now sacrosanct? Good luck with that.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Wait a second. It's okay to criticize people but posts are now sacrosanct? Good luck with that.

I don't know how this is even remotely controversial. 

 

Am I supposed to be ok with posters judging what posts are and aren't racially motivated, and then using their own unsupported assessment to attack other posters/posts that they themselves have labeled unfounded? If it's clear cut i.e. Sano eating fried chicken, then feel free to call it out if you can even get to it before a mod takes it down, but those aren't the posts we're talking about. Honestly, can't you see the issue with the self appointed judge, jury, executioner setup, especially when the justification for attack is as groundless as the OP is in the eyes of those attacking? 

 

Lets say I criticize Rosario for not hustling on a play where he very clearly didn't hustle. Another poster decides that I'm falling into the lazy minority stereotype with my criticism. That poster decides to question my post, and based on their judgement of my explanation, which I would add, I don't owe, that poster can now decide whether or not to attack me until he's driven me from the thread, and those attacks are completely warranted based solely on the judgment of the attacker. Nobody should be comfortable with that setup. 

 

I'm not saying criticizing posts is off limits, but misplaced criticism shouldn't simply be excused or shrugged off because those issuing it feel a certain way. 

[Craig Arko]

 

I don't know how this is even remotely controversial. 

 

Am I supposed to be ok with posters judging what posts are and aren't racially motivated, and then using their own unsupported assessment to attack other posters/posts that they themselves have labeled unfounded? If it's clear cut i.e. Sano eating fried chicken, then feel free to call it out if you can even get to it before a mod takes it down, but those aren't the posts we're talking about. Honestly, can't you see the issue with the self appointed judge, jury, executioner setup, especially when the justification for attack is as groundless as the OP is in the eyes of those attacking? 

 

Lets say I criticize Rosario for not hustling on a play where he very clearly didn't hustle. Another poster decides that I'm falling into the lazy minority stereotype with my criticism. That poster decides to question my post, and based on their judgement of my explanation, which I would add, I don't owe, that poster can now decide whether or not to attack me until he's driven me from the thread, and those attacks are completely warranted based solely on the judgment of the attacker. Nobody should be comfortable with that setup. 

 

I'm not saying criticizing posts is off limits, but misplaced criticism shouldn't simply be excused or shrugged off because those issuing it feel a certain way. 

Why do you think it's someone's goal to drive you (or anyone else) from the thread?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Why do you think it's someone's goal to drive you (or anyone else) from the thread?

I've never personally had that happen, but the posts I was responding to seem to imply that the goal is to drive out posters/posts they deem racially motivated. 

[Craig Arko]

 

I've never personally had that happen, but the posts I was responding to seem to imply that the goal is to drive out posters/posts they deem racially motivated. 

Because it is assumed those posters are incapable of self-examination, and broadening the scope of their ideas? Maybe even considering their own motives in action?

 

For all I know, you are correct. I was giving people the benefit of the doubt; maybe that's wrong.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Because it is assumed those posters are incapable of self-examination, and broadening the scope of their ideas? Maybe even considering their own motives in action?

 

For all I know, you are correct. I was giving people the benefit of the doubt; maybe that's wrong.

Those are strong assumptions to make based on a post(s) that can easily be viewed as fair criticism. 

 

I might be, or I could be completely missing something. Ultimately I strongly disagree with the logic of the setup that was advocated and I think the application of it leaves behind a great deal collateral damage.

[Ultima Ratio]

 

 

 

I was very clear about the type of posts we're talking about; posts that started this thread. Rosario doesn't move out of the box on an infield popup and he's criticized for not hustling. Where you see the posts as tinged with racial stereotypes others see fair criticism of a player failing at the most basic aspect of his job. 

 

 

They find themselves supplying the worst possible interpretation quite easily and the angst of this discovery about themselves causes projection of these internal impulses onto others as a way of coping. 

 

One must look, hunt for and supply the racial element that is truly absent and benign.  The contortions and torture to reason are indeed -- incredible, but somehow effortless for the race obsessed, sick with their own guilt.

[Ultima Ratio]

Your response to my initial post joining the discussion (you were not alone).

You’ll find the Ignore prefs are managed under ‘My Settings.’

 

 

Why do you think it's someone's goal to drive you (or anyone else) from the thread?

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

They find themselves supplying the worst possible interpretation quite easily and the angst of this discovery about themselves causes projection of these internal impulses onto others as a way of coping. 

 

One must look, hunt for and supply the racial element that is truly absent and benign.  The contortions and torture to reason are indeed -- incredible, but somehow effortless for the race obsessed, sick with their own guilt.

LMAO. 

[Craig Arko]

 

Some people just love to pick at scabs. Some people are obsessed with race. If you feel guilty about your skin pigmentation, ask for personal forgiveness if you must -- but leave the rest of us out of it.

Sure.