scottz

So, they don’t get an article written about them? They are forgiven, with the hope that they’ll do their best and admit when they are wrong? You don’t need to answer. You should, because you’re smart enough to know that you just defended a group of people with the exact logic I and others have been arguing for Kepler and those who are less vocal than you wish, but you don’t need to. This is my last post. I wasn’t going to reply anymore but the post from another commenter about an opinion not mattering because it was wrong was too asinine to let slide. I’m pretty sure it has been established that I’m allowed to call a comment asinine. I admire your passion, and Nick’s. I really do. But I think it’s misapplied. That’s just me. Be well, everyone. Do your best. Scott Zilka

I don’t think you have to be a parent of black children to feel anger over this issue, but I understand what you mean, and why you are particularly angry. The owners are white...are the moderators also? But also, that was the half humor question. What about the serious question? Have you verified that all of your owners and moderators met the standard that was asked of Kepler?

Here's a thought that just came to mind. Can anyone verify that all of Twins Daily's owners and moderators have publicly taken an appropriate stance on this? I would guess they have, but I don't monitor all social media so I can't say for sure. Serious question, no snark. I guess I don't know if all owners and moderators are white. But honestly, if they are all white, I expect more out of Twins Daily to ensure that we're getting a full spectrum of voices and perspectives to cover and moderate this issue and Twins baseball in general. Not serious statement, 50% snark, 50% humor. No arguments please. That's hilarious and a freaking genius post 16 pages in. If you don't agree, you're wrong. No tagbacks.

This seems problematic. If you don't think so, then your opinion is wrong.

Let’s ask him. But also, I’m looking for your total or percentage guess. Because I would guess it is a remarkably low number, and the feeling I got (from the earlier post of yours that I quoted) is that you might think it’s a large number. I’m trying to establish whether my interpretation is correct or if I’m missing your intended meaning.

If you had to guess off the top of your head, how many commenters in this thread think there’s no cause for reform? Or what percentage if that’s easier.

Imagine the outrage if Kepler would have worn a lawn service mask.

Someone else explained something about his mom’s dad being military, but I quote this post only because the last sentence is major league funny.

I’m curious, Bill. What is the “it” you think is being argued about? Can you define the thing that is being debated? Or can you tell me the two positions (the right one and the stupid one). Tell me as if you’re explaining it to a child. (That sounds snarky, but that’s not my intent. I just mean to put the “it” in the most clear terms you can.)

You want people to act. In my opinion, that is good. You want people to think deeply about what they do. In my opinion, that is very good. But think deeply about what you would have done if you, Nick Nelson - writer, were instead Nick Nelson - baseball player. You post a selfie about something loosely connected to COVID (remember when that was important?), you find out instead of a mask you were actually wearing a beehive, so you quickly take it down. What do you do next? Remember now, you're a 27 year old baseball player. Do you call PR right then? Or do you say "whoa. sorry everyone with strong opinions. i'd rather not fight." Because that's what he did. THEN, the firestorm continues (because that's what firestorms do) and he called PR, because he knows he's walking on a thin sheet of ice and there is fire everywhere. And PR writes a well thought out, yet obviously PR written statement. Then he posts it. Isn't that what you would have done? Or are you telling me that you, Nick Nelson - 27 year old baseball player, would have silently reflected and penned a beautiful heartfelt essay on the tragedy of life, the state of racial inequality, and the unjust violence associated with interactions between black men and the police, and the whole time, you would have found the right balance in your essay to make sure that you didn't say anything that would further ruffle the feathers of the thousands and thousands of people that follow you because they like the way you can hit and run and throw. Think of how unlikely that is. You, Nick Nelson - writer, are an excellent writer, and you were unable to write an essay that didn't ruffle feathers of at least some of your audience, and you had time to think about it. I have no idea if Max Kepler is a good writer or not, if he's brilliant or dumb as a bag of hammers, but if you couldn't do it, then what chance did he have? As long as we're playing the empathy game, let's all think about all the main characters in our little stage and put yourself in all of their shoes. Some of you probably have already done this. Put your self in George Floyd's shoes, Derek Chauvin's shoes, the shoes of each of their families, the shoes of young black men everywhere, the shoes of cops everywhere, the shoes of the commenter who had a relative recently killed, even the shoes of the rioters, and on and on. Put yourself in Nick's shoes. It is plainly obvious that many people have already done this for George Floyd, as is evidenced by the protests, and that is good. I'm not suggesting that anyone needs to come up with some certain outcome of whether, if in another's shoes you absolutely would have done the same thing. But I think it's a good exercise, and it challenges our own thinking. It also helps us delineate in our minds what truly is right and what truly is wrong, without deceiving ourselves that the position we hold is the right one simply because we hold it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's what we all get and we are guaranteed nothing more. If you see somebody getting screwed out of one of those, I think you should speak up. If you don't, hey. Do you.

I object to the part that came after. It assumes Kepler is indifferent and apathetic because he didn't respond the way you thought he should. I object to that as unreasonable and wholly egotistical and declares your way as the arbiter of appropriate action. And then goes on to say that all who do that are complicit. I object to that as overly broad and requires that all act in the way you suggest or else they are guilty of not acting in the way you suggest and therefore you are right and they are wrong. And then it goes on to say what he should have done. I object to that as people are free to act in a manner they see fit. And then you attempt to rescue yourself by saying that because people can't grasp that (those dummies), they can't read (those dummies) or they don't care (those selfish dummies). If you want to say "I am frustrated, and what I want is not what is. And I am frustrated, because others don't agree with me about what needs to be done," then say that. But you simply cannot assume that because the actions or inactions of others don't fit with what you want, it means they are guilty of anything you are accusing them of. And further, you cannot assume that those actions or inactions mean that they simply do not think there is reason or desire for any change. You are telling a group of people - a group who I believe based on my reading of this site over years are largely ALLIES on the topic of race and equality in a broader sense - that if they do not agree with what you are saying is needed in a specific sense, then they are ENEMIES. Even from just a strategic sense, it is an approach that is lacking. You are a talented writer Nick - in my opinion the best on this board - and no doubt your heart and argument comes from a good place on this topic. But your argument here is flawed. Not your hopes or desires. Your argument.

Brock, you're clearly a person of above average intelligence. You also clearly understand how logic works, not just based on the kind of thinking one needs to do in the role/job you have for TD, but also because you have frequently over the years called people out for strawman arguments, like here at the beginning of your post. However, I don't think you're as smart as you think you are. Before you get upset, I think I have the same flaw. I think many others here do as well. So I don't mean that to be insulting, and I apologize if it does insult you. My reason for saying the previous paragraph is because you appeal to authority as your argument. God help me, but Dr. King writing what he wrote - while absolutely brilliant and iconic and a sent-from-heaven leader - doesn't make what Nick did correct. Should we consider his words? Absolutely. They are powerful and rooted in the experience of a man who had multiple singular experiences. Are they above discussion and opinion? Not a chance. You appeal to accomplishment. You are a parent to black children. That gives you a perspective that should be considered. I am a parent to asian children. Am I not allowed a perspective? Am I not also accomplished? Must we go back and forth, as some earlier comment declared, in a battle of Orwellian Pac-Man, where we each get to pile up points of our accomplishments as they relate to race? What about the time I stepped in and told an angry white guy to take the next bus if he couldn't shut up about the way the black driver handled his luggage? How many points do I get for that? What about the time a young black kid biking by my house stopped and asked if he could cut my lawn for money, so I agreed and then invited him in for lunch and we sat and talked about all sorts of things that he wanted to do with money he was earning. No racism involved there, but certainly it's on the scorecard, right? What about the time I confronted the racism at my son's preschool (preschool for God's sake)? Shall I continue with my race scorecard or can we agree that making those kinds of arguments is irrelevant to whether or not what Nick did was right? What Nick did, was to call out Max Kepler and declare from horse on high that Kepler did not meet Nick's fair and true and above reproach standards for action, and declared all who were similar to Kepler to be complicit and guilty as well. Why stop with Max? Has Joe Mauer said and done the things that meet your approval? What about Dick Bremer? Certainly Jim Pohlad is lacking, is he not? Don't stop now, Nick! You're on a roll, which is easy to do when you claim the moral high ground. I am certain I sound angry and indignant. I certainly feel a bit fiery. I would rather the world were a glorious place and we didn't have to discuss any of this, but the world is ugly and so we should. I wish it wasn't on a baseball site, but given that we can agree that this group of people all loves the same thing (the Twins and/or baseball), I think it is probably good to see that there are so many wide and nuanced views on this. Because I think that's the point. It's a very broad topic. It is MOST DEFINITELY nuanced. We each have our own perspectives and our opinions and that is good. I think we live in a shameful time. We all deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those who have barriers set up to the first two of those based on the color of their skin clearly have a harder time of being successful in the third. And I believe we all should work towards that with every action we take, and I mean every action. But Max Kepler did not deserve Nick's treatment, and the crowd of people who disagree with the position taken by you (Brock) or Nick or others do not either. Their view does not mean they don't believe anything needs to be done, and it doesn't mean they don't take action as they see fit in their lives and in their perspective. It means that they disagree with you or Nick or others. And they are not "wrong" because they disagree, any more than you or Nick or others are "right" because you assert it to be true. As I said in my first post yesterday. It's your site. Do your thing. You certainly have the courage of your convictions, and good on you for that. We all need that. But Nick may lose dozens of Twitter followers and TD may lose readers. Fortunately, I don't have Twitter followers, so all I risk is my Twins Daily reputation as being a smart alec jokester. Let me know if you'd like to grab a beer sometime to discuss. Scott Zilka PS - Did we win yet? No. Not yet. And I'm not sure we ever will again.

Tell me what I care about. Tell me what I do in my daily life. Tell me about how I've responded to this wretched event. Tell me what I should do tomorrow to appease you, or Nick, or others, to convince you that I care as much as you do or as much as Nick does. Tell me how I can show that I am properly educated on the right way forward to get us out of this mess we are in. It is certainly baffling.

It is a forum though, right? There's a note at the bottom of the article that says TD is leaving comments open, and so people comment. Is it now the position that if you post a dissenting comment about the position taken in an opinion article, that those people are hypocrites for reading and commenting? Do you imagine that these same dissenters think that George Floyd deserved what happened to him? Let's take a quick poll. When it comes to the death of George Floyd, generally and over simplistically, I believe: A ) George Floyd deserved what happened to him. B ) George Floyd did not deserve what happened to him. I'll start. B Anybody else care to join me? Let's save everybody the time. 100% of TD readers think that George Floyd didn't deserve what happened to him. There's unity on that. What there isn't unity on in this particular forum and opinion article is whether someone should be called out for not responding in the specific way prescribed by another person. There also, apparently, is not unity on whether or not a dissenting opinion should be seen as something other than hypocritical.

We live in wild times. A couple of things about me first, and the way I'm reacting to this story: 1) I knew nothing about it until I came in here about 15 minutes ago. 2) I had no idea that the mask Kepler is shown wearing is a police-supporting facemask. So now, my opinion. This is how Nick's article reads to me: "If Kepler felt the way he should feel, he'd act in the way I think he should act." It is not far from something that is a cliche for arguing husbands and wives, "if you really loved me, you would know what i want you to do." It's a fallacy that defines a feeling as something that can only be achieved through the execution of specific actions described by someone else. Anything other than those specific actions? You don't love me the way you should love me. It's emotional hostage-taking. It's fine to me to have opinion articles here. Hell, the vast majority of stuff on here is opinion articles or predominantly opinion articles. If Nick and others want to post political things, hey, it's your website. Do you. But that might push some people away. From how I read Brock's comments (not picking on you Brock, I just recognize you as a moderator), that's the price to pay for what you believe is right. Again, do you. That's having the courage of your convictions. But it does open a door that you're open to discussing non-baseball societal issues that are complex, and that means you're going to encounter a wide variety of opinions, and the degree to which you (the website) is open to discussion versus shutting down opinions is the degree to which you will have a growing or falling readership. Do you. So what does that mean for me and Twins Daily? Well, if you loved me, you would know what I'd want you to do.