Congratulations to everyone for surviving the End of the World on September 23rd.  The good news is that you’re not dead.  The bad news is that the United States is getting more insane with each passing day with no relief in sight.

Biggest story going on right now is the President of the United States remaining locked in a vicious war of words and escalating threats with violent, anti-American forces.  That’s right.  I’m talking about Trump’s comments aimed at kneeling players in the NFL and his revocation of Stephen Curry’s invitation to the White House.  The athletes involved have responded in kind.

As I’ve said before, I have absolutely no use for professional sports so it’s not like I am going to do anything differently regardless of anthem protests or what the president says about them.  It does bother me that my tax dollars are used to build and improve upon stadiums that these assholes use to protest against me and what I believe in.  On that basis, I guess I do have a dog on this fight.

What I will also say is that I’d have a lot more respect for NFL owners if they would directly punish players for kneeling during protests instead of cowardly refusing to sign Kaepernick while pretending like it’s not the reason why they won’t sign him.  Don’t be a pussy.  If you don’t want to sign him because he’s bad for business, say so.  The fans will reward you for it.  Trump is correct on that point, NFL team owners.

This was pure “campaign speech” Trump.  He got on stage and started just rambling about something and took a position the audience wanted to hear.  Not sure why he had to make it about football, but that’s how he does it.

What I did find interesting is that it’s probably the first time in modern political history that a sitting president called for a boycott of a particular American business.  I can’t think of another example of this happening.  I expect it will be effective, as far as the NFL is concerned.   Football fans are largely white and conservative.  This particular demographic has money to spend.  The NFL will feel their absence.

NBA players bitching about the president won’t affect them at all.  I don’t think NBA fans are especially known for being pro-Trump or especially patriotic (allow me to duck and cover before the angry basketball fans start throwing Air Jordans at me).  Point is that the NBA doesn’t have much to lose by fighting with Trump or supporting these idiotic protests.

Interestingly, a MLB player took a knee during the national anthem for the first time last night.  I’ll be curious to see how that plays out.  Maxwell is the son of a US Army serviceman, so it’s going to be hard to make the “unpatriotic” or “disrespectful to the troops” label stick.  He’s most likely doing it as a “fuck you” to Trump.  That might play well in Oakland, but it’s not a wise career move for a first year rookie.  You know what though?  the picture of him doing it is weird.  He still has his hat off and over his heart.  He’s not looking down with his fist up in the “black power” position.  It’s sort of a half-assed protest poise.  What am I supposed to infer from it?  It looks more like he’s worshipping the anthem instead of protesting it. Is he trying to look more reverent?

The problem that NFL players, ESPN, Hollywood, and the rest of the entertainment industry has is that the more they talk about politics, the fewer Americans watch.  They’re losing their influence the more they try to use it.  The NFL is declining even as movie box office sales and television ratings do.  It doesn’t matter one whit how much ESPN tries to rally around the players if Americans are cutting cable and don’t hear it because they don’t want to.  You have a right to speak your mind in America, sort of.  You have absolutely no right to be taken seriously.  If your job description is “throws and catches a ball”, I really don’t care what you think.  If your job is earnestly discussing other people throwing and catching balls, you’re a complete joke to me.

Speaking of Hollywood, James Woods wants you to leave Dolly Parton alone.  Honestly, I was surprised to see Dolly Parton on stage between bitter leftist scrunt Lilly Tomlin and known traitor Jane Fonda when they went at Trump.  Did Parton know that they were going to do that?  I am in the “no, I don’t think so” camp.  It sucks though.  A 9 to 5 reunion should have been a cool moment in the Emmy’s, but of course they had to screw it up with partisan politics instead of talking about the awareness that the movie brought to women’s issues in the workplace (sexual harassment, unequal pay, child care, etc) and the work that remains to be done instead of more mindless bashing of the president.  Will they ever learn?  Nope.

Hollywood and professional sports getting immersed in politics is merely annoying.  When the intelligence and security apparatus, or “Deep State” gets involved, it’s just terrifying.  Sharyl Attkinson explained the pattern of apparent abuses that the NSA has been engaging in and how the Trump campaign was just one of its many targets.

Regarding one of the most well-known Deep State alumni, Valerie Plame Wilson (accidentally?) came out as an anti-Semite this week by retweeting an article about how Jews cause all American wars or something.  Ah, this one is tough.  I’m not a fan of Wilson’s by any means, but I also don’t believe that “retweets equal endorsements”.  She ended up backing off an apologizing, but I’m going to say that I read the article she referred to and I don’t find fault with it.  Yes, it’s edgelord to talk shit about Jews and paint them as a subversive force in society, but I happen to agree with the central thrust of the original article that conservative America’s unabashed support for Israel is probably more trouble than its worth.

You know what’s really subversive though?  When Americans start enthusiastically spreading North Korean propaganda because they hate the current president.

I witnessed a lot of liberals having a laugh about this and I have to say, cheering on a guy who is vowing to nuke your country is a bad look.  I don’t recommend it.

Rocket Man and the Dotard are both mouthy guys, of course.  Unfortunately, they can’t settle it with a fistfight.  I think that a trial by combat between a septuagenarian and obese little boy would be interesting though.  Still, Politico wonders if the name-calling is working to Rocket Man’s advantage.

That’s what I’ve been following this week.  Anybody have anything to share or discuss?  Hopefully something non-political?

81 comments

  1. Falcons/Lions handled it well. The players and owners stood arm in arm for the anthem. It was a very moving display of solidarity.

    Here’s to a great game, Atlanta!

  2. Hitler’s underwear

    So many joke possibilities. The article has a good one with “just the Reich fit”. My contributions:

    Furher of the Loom
    Underpanzers
    “Ist too much Lebensraum in der crotch.”

  3. You really are letting your disdain for all things athletic show through here. The sport is down, not out, and the reasons have very little to do with whether jingoistic hillbillies think the anthem is sufficiently blown for their approval. Besides, if no one cared why would the fucking president be poop tweeting athletes directly?

    As predicted the entire day will be filled with high profile athletes, coaches, fans, etc taking knees now because it’s a stare down with our idiot president.

    There just shouldn’t be anymore anthem before the games. There’s nothing heroic or overtly patriotic about guys playing football and basketball, and its time the country dropped the pretext that the sports are noble and wholesome with shit like these jingoistic orgies of flag worship.

    The idiots that demand the article of faith worship are too stupid to understand a nuanced expression of free speech, and they clearly don’t care about the mountain of evidence piling up that proves Kapaernik right in his effort. So, just get rid of the anthem in football. the armed forces pay the nfl a licensing fee to make the games patriotic porn, so its not a sincere effort at all.

    These stupid yokel, hillbillies and parking lot states are why we can’t have nice things.

  4. You really are letting your disdain for all things athletic show through here. The sport is down, not out, and the reasons have very little to do with whether jingoistic hillbillies think the anthem is sufficiently blown for their approval.

    I’ll point out here that the NFL itself pandered to those same “hillbillies” by deciding to have the players come out for national anthem in the first place. They let in the vampire by trying to capitalize on patriotism and then abandoned it the moment they thought there was money to be had in virtue signalling.

    Besides, if no one cared why would the fucking president be poop tweeting athletes directly?

    Because he gets his base and the broad range of center-right independents. Most of them don’t follow politics, don’t understand policy issues, don’t really care about politics, and aren’t informed by fine blogs such as this one.

    Players not wanting to respect the flag and rejecting national traditions is something that’s symbolic, easily understood, and gets to football fans in a personal way. Trump is harping on it because it ties into fighting the “identity politics” that Bannon is hoping the Democrats keep running on.

    Trump honestly cannot help but win on this issue, no matter what the players do. If they kneel, they further alienate the patriotic white male fan base who buys tickets and merchandise. If they stand, it looks like Trump convinced them to do it. The NFL is doomed anyway, with or without the protests. The brain injuries and frustration over the officiating has been turning people off as well (which Trump also cited in his speech).

    There just shouldn’t be anymore anthem before the games. There’s nothing heroic or overtly patriotic about guys playing football and basketball, and its time the country dropped the pretext that the sports are noble and wholesome with shit like these jingoistic orgies of flag worship.

    No argument here, really. But again, I’ll point out that the NFL cynically started using patriotic displays to strengthen its brand when patriotism was in vogue.

    The idiots that demand the article of faith worship are too stupid to understand a nuanced expression of free speech, and they clearly don’t care about the mountain of evidence piling up that proves Kapaernik right in his effort.

    Fuck Kaepernick. If I started carrying out political activities on my employer’s dime and using my employment as a platform to further my beliefs, I’d be fired like Damore was. Almost everyone here would too. These shitbrains need to focus on their job and quit pretending like they’re a bunch of wise prophets.

    Nobody cares what celebrities and athletes think outside of the media bubble. I say catch your ball, sing your songs, report the news and leave the activism to your personal time.

  5. Nobody cares what celebrities and athletes think outside of the media bubble. I say catch your ball, sing your songs, report the news and leave the activism to your personal time.

    This

  6. You really are letting your disdain for all things athletic show through here.

    You know, I probably do come across like this and I really should clarify.

    I’m not opposed to athletics or sports. Sports are a positive force in the world. I like the promotion of teamwork, fitness, spirit, and competition that they carry. What I hate is the CULTURE of sports.

    I hate the over-competitiveness that makes parents scream at Little League children playing a game and run over opposing team’s fans in the parking lot after games. I have contempt for schools that put more emphasis on athletics than academics. I despise the jock-sniffing worship of athletes that comes with professional sports. It’s stupid to me.

    I don’t hold sports in low regard. I hold sports fandom in low regard. It’s a sick and bad way to live.

  7. The NZ election – we’ll not know for a while. National (right) did slightly better than expected and Labour (left) did a little worse than expected (but Waaaaaay better than we thought they’d do a month ago)

    There’s still about 15% of the vote to come in (foreign ballots, and people who registered on the same day etc) – which’ll probably favour to Labour, but not by a huge amount.

    National (right) have 58 seats
    Labour (left) have 45 seats

    To form a Government you need 61 seats, so we’re looking at a coalition, and some deals are going to be made. Labour and the Greens will go together, so essentially New Zealand First (pretty far right) are kingmakers with their 9 seats.

    Democracy, yay! Next 3 years of Government decided by a guy who got 7.5% of the vote!

  8. Democracy, yay! Next 3 years of Government decided by a guy who got 7.5% of the vote!

    Why, that’s almost as crazy as letting the candidate who gets fewer votes than his opponent be the winner!

    I find parliamentary politics fascinating. Hard to understand, but such an interesting process.

  9. National (right) have 58 seats
    Labour (left) have 45 seats

    Oh, hey. That quiz I took a couple of weeks ago that you shared with us said I was most closely aligned with the NAT party. I’m happy then.

  10. On the NFL #takeaknee stuff – I’ll admit I find it a bit baffling to me. We only do national anthems for international games, and if you’re playing then you’ve already sort of pledged your patriotism. The tabloid press sometimes throws a shit fit over people not singing the national anthem with sufficient passion and vigour – I guess that’s the same thing. But in these situations, you are literally representing your country.

    What happens if a player isn’t American? Are they still expected to pretend they’re an American patriot?

    If you’re required to salute the flag, or lose your job – then doesn’t that make it pretty meaningless?

    Also – in the ‘amusing snark’ files – I liked this thread about what, technically, constitutes disrespecting the flag.

    https://twitter.com/koopa_kinte/status/911715150507454464

    Also stolen from Twitter : You know what’s really disrespectful to the American Flag? The confederate flag.

  11. I don’t blame you for being baffled. The American attitude toward flag etiquette is very bizarre for those of us who understand it. The observations in your link are actually correct.

    One thing that drove me nuts when I went to Branson (which is basically a whole city built around ‘Murican values) is that at the end of almost every show, the performers would do a tribute to the troops or something and play a patriotic song like “God Bless America” or “America the Beautiful” and PEOPLE WOULD STAND UP. Every single time.

    Mrs Thrill and I were sitting there like, “What the fuck?” You don’t stand for anything but the “Star Spangled Banner” if you’re trying to be respectful. Standing up for any other song diminishes the national anthem, I think. But these were the most super-patriotic people you’d ever see, getting it flat out wrong.

    Non-citizens who are pro ball players always stand for the anthem. Major League Baseball is filled with Dominicans and other furriners. They all stand. If I were in the UK, I’d stand for “God Save the Queen”. I’d stand for “Oh, Canada” in Toronto. When I was in the Army, I even saluted foreign officers.

    I think patriotic displays and customs and courtesies are good for public life, but it’s asinine when it’s done wrong. Counterproductive. You’re right to call it out.

  12. Also, American presidents need to stop saluting soldiers. That’s totally wrong. Sorry that it was Reagan who started it.

  13. Anyone who claims these guys should have the right to do and say what they want on the field representing their employer should re-examine their thoughts on James Damore.

    The Damore comparison is worthy of discussion. Glad you mentioned it. Damore didn’t try to become famous. He was working for a company that claimed that it supported diversity and open discussion and provided a forum for its employees to do so. He wrote something that pissed off the SJW’s and one of them sent what he wrote to the media.

    Nothing Damore did merited disciplinary action, except that he triggered an angry feminist.

    In the case of the fury toward the NFL, it’s not so much that Americans are angry at Kaepernick or any individual player. They’re mad that the NFL as an institution is ignoring its own rules and allowing this to go on. They’ve deliberately decided to politicize the game.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/09/24/were-not-going-to-play-politics-steelers-mike-tomlin-says-team-wont-take-the-field-for-anthem/

    The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual, according to a league source. It states:

    “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

    “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”

    Trump is right. The players should be punished for doing this and the NFL is ultimately accountable for it.

    The better comparison to what is going on with the NFL is what happened to Mizzou. The university has suffered an awful backlash because the administration babied the protestors instead of shutting them down. Millions of us are tired of seeing oversensitive attention-whores getting their way over every imagined grievance.

    Appeasing SJW’s is bad for business. If this has to be proven by sinking the NFL’s revenues by a half billion dollars or more, so be it.

  14. Well this doesn’t look good as the Strange saga gets worse for Trump:

    I can’t figure out for the life of me why Trump is helping Strange. I don’t like Moore very much, but Trump’s base from Bannon down has been actively supporting him.

    Strange losing the primary will reflect badly on Trump. It’ll make him look ineffectual, like he’s losing influence over Republican politics. I don’t know why he would do that. If the guy won, he’d be another bitch ass like McConnell and McCain anyway.

  15. It’s a funny cultural difference isn’t it. The only real time (in sport) where you get the national anthem, is in an international game. And the convention is that one set of fans stands, and sings their heart out – while the other side sits quietly and lets them. In fact, standing for someone elses anthem would probably be seen as disrespectful. Shut up and wait your turn buddy, you don’t know what it’s like to be an Englishman! Stop singing about our Queen!

    As a lib, you might be surprised that I actually agree with you. I’m all for (peaceful) civil disobedience in as an activism strategy. It only really works if what you’re doing is actually disobedient.

  16. Wait wait wait, you “don’t find fault” with this garbage?

    Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? ..

    But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, …

    Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? …

    First of all, don’t put [“American Jews”] into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. …

    e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison (!!!!!!!!) …

  17. First thing I’ll say is that I’m not a supporter of Israel but I have nothing against Jews. I think the argument “JOOOOOOS ARE DOING THIS WITH ALL THEIR GOLD!” is simplistic and that the author clearly is anti-Zionist, and may be flat out anti-Semitic in his heart of hearts. But am I going to suggest that it’s totally forbidden to question the motives of Americans who are agitating for war with Iran or that any specific motive is off-limits? No.

    Keep in mind that plenty of conservatives said for years that Obama was trying to get a rapprochement with Iran because he’s a “secret Muslim” and Valerie Jarret was born there. Why is that acceptable but saying that American Jews want the US to keep Iran as an enemy is strictly forbidden but okay to suggest that Muslim politicians and special interest groups want to de-emphasize conflict with Iran?

    We should be examining whether it is really within America’s best interests to make war with Iran and honestly examine the motives of the policy makers and influencers who are pushing it. Actually, I do find fault with one aspect of the article. It doesn’t discuss the role that American Evangelicals also play in agitating for war with Iran for Israel’s sake.

    The author of the article says it’s Jewish neocons who have some sort of “divided loyalty” between Israel and the US who are pushing it. I think there is an element of that but it’s just one factor. There’s also pressure from Saudi Arabia, a balance of power concern that Iran will come to dominate the Middle East in the vacuum of ISIS collapse in its occupied territories, and our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation

    But I don’t think it’s necessarily evil or anti-Semitic for someone to observe that the AIPAC lobby is extremely powerful and that there are influential Jewish Americans who favor policies aimed at protecting Israel which may be guiding us toward a conflict that is in another country’s best interest rather than our own.

    I definitely don’t think Wilson should’ve been excoriated for retweeting it.

  18. You didn’t at all address the highly-inflammatory and clearly anti-semitic language of the piece. Comparing Jews to rats, calling the democratically-elected Netanyahu government a regime of kleptocratic racists, suggesting that the threat of Iranian missiles & nukes are “made up”, and calling for a ban on Jews serving in any middle eastern policy role — this is extremely offensive rhetoric that should negate any consideration of the column’s viewpoint. Plame was rightly excoriated for retweeting it.

    Is discussing possible pro-Israel bias among policymakers beyond the pale? No. Is it wrong to question our policy towards Iran? Again, no. Is it evil or anti-semitic to discuss the influence of the Israel lobby on policy? Not necessarily. But maybe do it without being grossly anti-semitic and we can have a discussion. I can’t believe you think that article was ok!

  19. Hopefully something non-political?

    Last night at a family dinner at a decent restaurant, my husband’s aunt handed us all a nice letter outlining her plan for us all to spend Christmas in Paris on her. We were all pretty speechless for a minute as we internalized such generosity. One of the conditions is “no politics” during the trip. Fortunately, these are all people that I ceased political discussions with on our last family trip to SC. They were screaming at us in a seafood restaurant. That is totally not cool and my policy for discussing politics immediately changed to “one on one only”. With politics off the table, it should be a wonderful trip and I am looking forward to it.

  20. I believe in free speech, zoom. Even offensive speech should be permitted and shouldn’t automatically be dismissed. I’ve been writing about this for weeks. Neo-Nazis should be allowed to hold rallies. Silicon Valley shouldn’t be censoring based on legal content. Et cetera.

    The author said this in the article:

    It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity.

    Subsequent to him writing this, Wilson resigned from her job under pressure and the author was fired by The American Conservative. Thus proving his point!

    Let me make three statements and then ask you a question.

    1. American Christians who are agitating for involvement in the Syrian Civil War to protect the Christian minority in that country are doing it because they favor their religion over America’s security interests.

    2. American Muslims who are demanding that we continue to abide by Iran nuclear weapons deal to protect Muslims from American military force are doing it because they favor their religion over America’s security interests.

    3. American Jews who are agitating for military action against Iran to protect Jews in Israel from Iranian attack are doing it because they favor their religion over America’s security interests.

    Why is it that only the third statement is considered hate speech and the author a bad person who should lose his job for writing it (as well as anyone who retweets it)?

    You’re way off the rails here. Giraldi did not compare Jews to “rats”. He said that identifying the biases of people like Kristol would have the same effect as putting a warning label on bottles of “rat poison”. I personally don’t think we should explicitly identify people as Jews for the purpose of assessing their political motives, but I see the argument that the author was trying to make. If he called American Jewish neocons any animal, he called them “hawks”, not rats. Are you going to say next that he’s being anti-Semitic because hawks have hooked beaks and are very sneaky?

    Criticizing Israel’s current government is not “anti-Semitic” any more than criticizing Kim Jong Un is being racist against Asians.

    Observing that Iran is a greater threat to Israel than the United States is accurate and doesn’t require any disdain for Jews to point out that attacking Iran would benefit that country more than ours.

    Giraldi did not call for a “ban” on Jews serving in a Middle Eastern role. He said that they should recuse themselves if they cannot objectively place American interests first and instead focus on threats from other parts of the world.

    I don’t personally believe the author wrote this out of hate for Jews. Is it anti-Semitic to observe that American Jews feel a connection to Israel, fear for its future, and want the United States to help guarantee the future of a Jewish state in the Middle East? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it’s perfectly understandable for American Jews to feel and act that way. I wouldn’t condemn them for it.

    You say that you think it should be acceptable to question pro-Israel bias and the influence of Jewish special interests with regard to Iranian policy, but the truth is that you CANNOT question it without severe repercussions. Even you twisted and misinterpreted what the author said.

    I don’t see the problem with saying that some American Jews who are in very influential positions adopt positions that are more beneficial to Israel than the United States. I don’t think they do it because they’re evil hook-nosed Shylocks who want to destroy Western civilization, but because they don’t want to see another Holocaust happen. Why is nobody allowed to question whether or not they are motivated in this by a desire to do what’s really best for America, even if it is an understandable policy preference on their part?

  21. One of the conditions is “no politics” during the trip.

    That’s wonderful! It’s crazy that it’s gotten to where we can’t have political discussions anymore without it turning into a fight (many, many families are like this), but I applaud the maturity of people who agree that the focus on the season should be goodwill, tolerance, and a desire to get along.

  22. The discussion about Israel reminded me of this old post I wrote over at RTFLC. God, five years ago. Wow.

    http://right-thinking.com/2012/11/30/wherein-i-call-for-throwing-israel-under-the-bus/

    Simply put, I’m tired of defending Israel when the rewards are clearly diminishing, if there are any at all. Demographics and political developments among Israel’s neighbors give me a bad feeling that we’re supporting the losing side for no good reason.

    It’s perfectly appropriate for us to admire a romantic and embattled people. It’s another thing entirely–and arguably not conservative–to place the ambitions of such a nation above the long-term interests of the United States. I think it’s time for American conservatives to break up this bad romance.

  23. 3. American Jews who are agitating for military action against Iran to protect Jews in Israel from Iranian attack are doing it because they favor their religion over America’s security interests.

    Why is it that only the third statement is considered hate speech and the author a bad person who should lose his job for writing it (as well as anyone who retweets it)?

    As stated, that question isn’t “hate speech” at all but that wasn’t the tone of the article. I quoted a lot of the nasty bits, which you dismissed by restating the author’s statements in a more measured tone. Which, when you put it that way, it is actually a fairly reasonable argument (though I would largely disagree).

    But yes, the author did compare Jews to rats–he could have chosen any number of analogies, so are you saying he just randomly happened to choose the one that is associated with the most virulent strains of anti-semitism?

    And yes, the author did call for a ban on Jews being involved in middle east policy. This isn’t a matter of self-recusal when stated as the author did:

    First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted.

    “Don’t put them into…” means those in charge should not place Jews in such positions. De facto that is calling for a ban on Jews in such positions.

    I am honestly floored that you are so pollyanna about the author’s arguments here. A reasoned argument discussing how much of a threat Iran truly is to the U.S. would be fine. A discussion of how committed the U.S. should be to the state of Israel is also ok to talk about. But when such argumentation is dripping with such obvious anti-semitic thinking, it’s not a leap to say “sorry, try again, come back and talk to me when you aren’t such a Jew hater”.

  24. But yes, the author did compare Jews to rats

    Look, I don’t like getting all hung up on this analogy, but you’re using it as a major argument for why Giraldi is a Jew hater.

    Let’s examine it.

    Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison

    In this context, Kristol is the one selling poison. Rats don’t give you rat poison. You give rats rat poison. If someone gives someone a bottle of something and doesn’t tell them it’s rat poison, the person who drinks it is going to get sick. Giraldi isn’t saying to give rat poison to Kristol. In that event, he would be calling Kristol (and by extension, Jews) a rat.

    Okay? Can we agree that rats do not sell rat poison?

    “Don’t put them into…” means those in charge should not place Jews in such positions. De facto that is calling for a ban on Jews in such positions.

    Go to the end of that paragraph. It says this:

    This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.

    So let me ask you: Was every US president from Truman to GHW Bush an anti-Semite for not placing a Jewish person into the role of US Ambassador to Israel?

    A reasoned argument discussing how much of a threat Iran truly is to the U.S. would be fine. A discussion of how committed the U.S. should be to the state of Israel is also ok to talk about.

    But we can’t talk about any potential conflicts-of-interest that a US official might have which might lead them to serve the interest of an entity other than the United States? Or is it that there’s only one , and only one, particular potential conflict-of-interest we can’t talk about?

    Assuming that what Giraldi says is true that there are a large number of American Jews serving in official positions with regard to American foreign policy as it relates to Iran and that they are all in favor of going to war with Iran, are you saying that nobody is allowed to point it out or question why they’re doing it?

    It seems like you’re saying that even if it’s true, it’s too politically incorrect to talk about and anyone who wants to deserves to be punished. Is that right?

  25. What I find the most amusing about your point of view, and the point of view (I assume) of others like you is that you’re violently opposed to celebrities/athletes preening their political positions on tv.

    You VOTED for a FUCKING REALITY TV CELEBRITY!! He’s the most loudmouth idiot politicizing celebrity there is and you and the yokels not only voted for him, but celebrate him (a city slicker billionaire celebrity) as the champion of the proletariat.

    You deserve all the fallout and attention this is getting, because you voted for this very exchange.

  26. You VOTED for a FUCKING REALITY TV CELEBRITY!!

    And Reagan was once an actor. What of it? Did Trump inject politics into The Apprentice? No, he ran for office and won.

    If these NFL players want to do something meaningful, they can quit the nonsense and maybe start donating their time, influence, and wealth to something more productive than killing their own golden goose.

  27. Well, Alabama may be where the Trump Effect doesn’t work-or maybe it does, depending on your POV.

    It’s crazy. I’ve seen Trump supporters over the last week saying that Trump is secretly supporting Moore to win. They’re convinced he only supported Strange as some sort of bargain with McConnell to help prop him up.

  28. Wasn’t Strange Leading in the polls?

    also, if these NFL knee benders, put half as much effort into stopping domestic violence among their own club as they put into pissing on Trump/The Anthem/Cops or what ever, they might have a positive influence for once.

  29. I don’t think the kneeling protests are going to last much longer. The advertisers and sponsors are starting to feel the heat and polling shows that the public mostly agrees with Trump.

    This is a good thing. I’m all in favor of getting politics out of business. They all need to see that there’s a price to be paid for angering the Silent Majority. If the NFL isn’t safe, nobody is.

  30. If Heaven seem a little “dude-heavy” from here on out, it’s only because all of the ladies are concentrated in one location.

  31. I don’t think the kneeling protests are going to last much longer.

    I don’t either. The goal was to raise awareness and that goal has been accomplished. I think that over time it will diminish.

  32. I’m less sure that the NFL will recover from this. They don’t seem to understand at all how deeply upset many fans are. That trust isn’t going to come back anytime soon. Getting things back to normal sooner rather than later will definitely head off the inevitable boycotts against sponsors.

    My suspicion is that they’re going to do something like this again in the near future. The NFL clearly doesn’t see that left-wing virtue signaling clashes with what its heavily “white male Boomer with disposable income” audience expects to see. I don’t think they’ve learned a thing. Certainly didn’t gain any “awareness”.

  33. Obviously I didn’t mean awareness of white male boomers with money. We are all well aware of them. They do have us all talking and that is what they wanted. I am of the mind that the nation’s ADD will kick in and people will wonder what the fuss was all about.

    In Atlanta the stands are full of black people alongside the rednecks and rich boomers. That may not be everywhere, but it is not a white man’s sport exclusively.

  34. Here’s my take:

    A year ago, I was rolling my eyes over Kap. He was a guy who I initially respected when he first debuted because he found immediate success and seemed like a humble man. However, once the success grew, so did his ego. Kissing his biceps became his signature move. I stopped caring about him and started rooting against him. Total WWF heel. This was before the anthem thing.

    However, when the anthem thing began, I quickly wrote it off as a self-focused gesture from an egotist. He kept saying that he was starting a discussion and I kept wondering, “what is it, exactly, that people are talking about now that they weren’t 2 years ago?”.

    Today, though? Yeah. I was wrong. There is a huge discussion going on. People who were posting “Here’s me not caring about football!” memes last year are now vocally discussing what should and should not be happening at a “sportsball” game. The backlash to the protest is the biggest indicator of the strength of the protest. I still think Kap is a tool. But I now give him full credit for having accomplished what he said he was setting out to do.

    Now, regarding your theory that it’s directly responsible for the pull-back in NFL support, you may be right. And, to some extent, I’m sure you are. But I’m not sure if the anti-protest group is the largest.

    5 years ago, I was still a season ticket holder for the Lions and would tailgate with 2 dozen other guys in the same Eastern Market parking lot with 3 dozen other groups. Week after week, before every home game.

    Today? Only one of those guys has his tickets still. I dropped off 2 years ago and basically everybody else did last year. The reason was not protests. Or, rather, not the player protests. But, instead, OUR protests over the exorbitant prices. Not only were be facing 8-10% yearly increases but we are *forced* to buy the 2 preseason games as part of our packages. Those games are exhibitions. Worthless. The starters play one quarter, if that.

    Yes, Kevin, but that doesn’t explain the drop in viewership.

    Well, no, it doesn’t. Something else does.

    Aggregate channels like Red Zone and fantasy football have coupled to make it so that you never have to watch “boring football games” to see the highlights. Instead, you can watch a HIGHLIGHT STATION, gather stats for your fantasy team, and ignore the broadcasts altogether.

    As somebody married to a fantasy football devout, I can attest that she would prefer to watch Red Zone all day long on Sunday instead of any specific game. As such, she wouldn’t count in the ratings of any of those games but, in truth, is just as active in following the games as she’s ever been.

    It’s true. Some fans may feel like the NFL is forcing liberal propaganda down their throats and are bailing as a result. But, even my most conservative friends seem to be unaffected (I know one guy taking this Sunday off as a protest). I think that percentage is lower than you may think.

  35. Kevin, I have no idea if the anthem protests are the primary cause in the decline of the NFL. If anything does in the NFL, I’m pretty sure it’ll be the fact that playing the game literally causes brain damage rather than kneeling protests by brain damaged players. The only thing that annoys me is that the NFL keeps denying that the protests are affecting them at all.

    What I have to wonder is why when the NFL is already struggling due to drops in cable subscriptions, complaints about rule changes, fans disgusted by exorbitant prices, and CTE they would be alienating a huge portion of their audience who has money to spend. I still maintain that they’re doing it because they’re pandering to socially-conscious Millennials to make up for the dying Boomers.

    I don’t care what happens to football. My family is filled with Chiefs fanatics. They made me go to a game when I was around 13 and I hated it so much, I took a book. I believe it was called “The Decline and Fall of the British Empire.” I was never taken to a game again and that was the last time I ever sat all the way through a football game. So yeah, football can live or die and it makes no nevermind to me.

    The larger issue I have is that we see corporations like the NFL, Google, and others exclusively push liberal activism (which now appears to consider any form of patriotism as problematic) while actively punishing or at least discouraging right wing points of view. We’ve even seen how players who wanted to stand for the national anthem appear to have come under pressure from their teams for doing it. So much for freedom of speech!

    There’s been this talk about how they’ve raised “awareness”. Awareness of what? I’m not clear at all what they’re protesting. The players and teams are completely inconsistent where they’re not incoherent. Is it over cops? Is it about racism? Is it a “fuck you” to Trump? To me, it looks like the players are trying to help sink the NFL with political division and they don’t even know why they’re doing it. Kaepernick sure as hell didn’t know what he was trying to accomplish. He couldn’t explain what he hoped to achieve or how he would know that he’d achieved it. He doesn’t even vote.

    I don’t think entertainment should be politicized, particularly if it wants to be profitable. This is a huge mistake on the NFL’s part. Wasn’t it enough that it was the ONE thing that both white and black people enjoy watching on television? Instead, that actual unity is being beaten out of it by the likes of Kaepernick and the others.

    My only interest in this whole affair is for corporations to start to realize that virtue-signalling does NOT help the business and can even harm it. If it takes a high-profile disaster like the NFL being gutted to prove to them that they don’t have to kowtow to the liberal cause of the week, I’m good with it.

  36. Kap did have a stated goal. He wanted to start a discussion about the death of black citizens at the hands of police officers.

    What he didn’t have, as you pointed out, was any kind of solution. Any kind of metric to gauge if things have improved. So, he didn’t choose those as his goals.

    He took the easiest route possible —

    “hey, everybody, start talking about this.”

    –people start talking–

    “My work is done here.”

    However, I think his message has gotten lost — it’s now become a discussion about patriotism/anthem/etc. That particular discussion is pretty pointless, unfortunately. But where I thought that this kneeling thing had crested last season and would be a footnote this year, it’s been surprisingly resilient.

    I’m curious what you find to be the specific value signaling going on, by the way. I could see your argument with the players and even some owners. But what has the NFL specifically said or did that seems to give them a position on this, in your mind?

  37. Well, I would note the response of the various teams and NFL in publicly released statements as examples of the NFL’s support for useless virtue-signalling.

    Look at the players joining hands to support “unity”. What does that mean? These are empty gestures and, worse, they’re being made (maybe, I can’t tell for sure) over an extremely divisive political hot button. Why is it even necessary for the NFL to permit these displays when it doesn’t allow teams to wear decals on their helmets in support of law enforcement or players to wear patriotic shoes to commemorate 9/11?

    If the NFL, its teams, and players want to do something useful, there are a myriad ways that don’t involve offending its customers or jeopardizing its sponsors. How about focusing more attention on programs that support at-risk inner city youth and encouraging players to get involved? What about getting players to participate in the crime commissions in the cities they represent to push for some real criminal justice reform with their star power and influence? Why not push for support of domestic violence victims (a huge concern both in the black community and the NFL itself) with funding and publicity?

    These protests are as ineffectual as they are divisive. So why do they do it?

    I say the reason is that they’re trying to show how much they “care” about injustice or whatever. That’s all “virtue signalling” is. It’s masturbation in that it’s totally self-involved, accomplishes nothing productive, and only feels good for a short time. Most people don’t watch football or watch television and movies to get the consciousness raised. They want entertainment. The Social Justice Left hates that. There is this push to involve politics in absolutely everything. To polarize the country and to portray people who don’t sufficiently care enough about injustice (for selfishly wanting to be entertained) as “part of the problem.”

    This isn’t the mission of the NFL. It’s troubling that they’re not only playing along with the mentality that their own audience needs to bandwagon with divisive political movements, but they refuse to even consider that maybe they shouldn’t be doing it.

  38. I say the reason is that they’re trying to show how much they “care” about injustice or whatever. That’s all “virtue signalling” is.

    I totally get that. I’m just of the opinion that you’re putting more of that on the NFL than need be. The teams, themselves, decided how they wanted to “protest” (if at all). If the locker room for the Chargers decided one thing, it had no bearing on the locker room for the Cowboys. It was not NFL mandated.

    Where you’re nailing it, however, is that they are usually pretty stringent on everybody staying in line. With the exception of the pink breast cancer gear, the NFL very rarely allows players to get away with this stuff. With the protests, though, they have an issue — offend their labor or offend their customers. I don’t know what most business manuals would say is the lesser gauntlet to navigate, but coal mining and automotive history tells me that they would rather have a product to sell to angry customers than no product to sell to happy customers.

    So, to that end, I won’t fight you — they’re definitely going against tradition by allowing these protests to happen. But I think they have $$$ in mind, not image.

  39. But I think they have $$$ in mind, not image.

    Image is money. As I’ve pointed out before, they’re doing this to appeal to socially-conscious Millennials. That’s what they think their future paying audience is going to be like. I think they’re wrong, but that’s what they’re doing.

  40. If what you’re saying is true, it implies that the NFL believes that snowflake wussy liberals who hate violence are the future of their fanbase, not the traditional good ole boy who probably played ball in high school.

    If what I’m saying is true, it implies that the NFL believes that losing their workforce would have more adverse effect on their business than alienating those good old boys.

    The NFL is huge, greedy, and arrogant. They are forcing a largely unwanted London expansion down their throats (give it 5 years). They ignore violence and rape from their players. Mostly, because they know that people love their product and can’t quit it.

    Like I said, I know ONE person who is taking ONE WEEK off of football. It’s crack. Very few people are giving up on the NFL over this. And, out of those, most will be back.

  41. It’s not that I think liberals are “wussies” and “snowflakes”. Just the opposite. I think conservatives who automatically associate “liberal” with “weak” are deluded and dangerously underestimating the other side.

    I study generational issues very closely and I have no doubt that the NFL marketing department has come to the same conclusion that many other sociologists have. Millennials are left-leaning and like “easy” or hashtag activism. They tend to support brands that benefit communities and causes. And all of the players are Millennials, after all.

    Virtue signalling is cynical. It was also cynical when the NFL exploited patriotism to build its brand when MLB started to decline in popularity and post-9/11. Make no mistake about it: I think the NFL is doing this for the wrong reasons.

    I can’t provide any anecdotal evidence one way or the other to support my position that the NFL boycott is harming them beyond the growing videos of fans burning their NFL merchandise. What is undeniable is that ratings and ticket sales are down. The NFL’s approach, whether it’s right or wrong, isn’t working. They’ve come up with various excuses for the decline in ratings, but they can’t explain an 18% drop in ticket sales with a handwave.

    The NFL is under the impression that it doesn’t need “the good ole boys” anymore, but it’s grounded in the failure to understand that white Boomers have money. Millennial SJW’s don’t. Most blacks don’t either.

    This is the same problem that Marvel Comics ran into when they started pushing diversity in their characters and storylines before they were forced to change course by declining sales. It’s what Hollywood is encountering now. Social Justice Warriors make a lot of noise, but at the end of the day, they don’t buy shit.

    Happy tweets don’t fill seats. They definitely don’t increase profits. I don’t care what your business is. If you lose your customers, you’re screwed. Why should the NFL care about “losing” its workforce? There are 1,000 kids who would gladly take the place of even the lowest paid NFL player on the worst team in the league.

    The NFL and the teams should tell their workforce to quit antagonizing the customers and save the activism for their personal time the same way virtually every other employer in America would do.

  42. What is undeniable is that ratings and ticket sales are down

    While I’ll admit that I’m relying on anecdotal evidence (since I’m not really sure how to quantify much of this otherwise), I gave you reasonable explanations for both of these. Do you remain unconvinced?

    Regarding the NFL’s leniency on the protests, I think we’re just going to remain at odds on their rationale. I think we can both agree that the leniency exists and we’ll both see how this plays out over the next decade.

    I will say this final thing — I am sure that the NFL is confidently watching everybody burning their jerseys with anticipation for the holiday season when all of these people will be getting replacements under the tree. The anti-protest protest rings as gutless to me as Kap’s “I’ll start the conversation and sit back while you all figure it out” gameplan.

  43. The anti-protest protest is the whole reason Kap is just sitting back. That the NFL blacklisted him without wanting to admit it is one way I can tell they are downplaying what’s happening.

    What happens to the NFL doesn’t much concern me. Nobody is forcing me to watch. What does concern me is the polarization that has crept into places where it never existed and shouldn’t exist. People are being forced to choose sides. I don’t like it. Nobody should.

  44. While I’ll admit that I’m relying on anecdotal evidence (since I’m not really sure how to quantify much of this otherwise), I gave you reasonable explanations for both of these. Do you remain unconvinced?

    Anecdotal evidence – I have three friends (and let’s be honest, I don’t have many) who were NFL fans (watching multiple games a week) that have said they will stop watching all games due to the most recent round of kneeling. And I have two relatives who are huge football fans who have switched to Red Zone watching exclusively now due to the protests – they have said they won’t watch Monday/Thursday night games.

    It is definitely a sizable reason for the dip in ratings. Stadium attendance is reportedly down as well at multiple stadiums/teams, and that’s probably not because of the Red Zone channel being available.

  45. Ironic that we’re complaining about virtue signalling during a coordinated display of deference to a pattern on some fabric while singing a special song in unison – all to show how patriotic we are.

    It’s all virtue signalling. The argument is about which virtue.

  46. Alright, let’s go with the notion that everything is virtue signalling. It misses the point though.

    There are two major sides to this discussion. One side would be perfectly happy if there were no partisan politics at all in football. They recognize that football is a uniquely American sport and favor upholding the tradition of standing up for the national anthem as a tradition on the grounds that our status as Americans cuts across all political, social, economic, and racial lines.

    The other side demands that an audience who has gathered for a non-political purpose witness a partisan political demonstration that only presents ONE side of the issue. If the NFL wanted to take a “fair and balanced” approach, that would be something else. But they don’t.

  47. Dismiss it as ‘virtue signalling’ if you like, but some people are stepping up.

    I’m 90% sure that one of the black students probably did it. Not that this would stop the NFL. “Hands up don’t shoot” was a lie too.

  48. Well, somebody’s full of venom today!

    This incident has the hallmarks of a hoax. There have been dozens over the past year, from the Jewish cemetery desecrations to the Hopewell Missionary Church in Mississippi to the guy who cut his own hand and blamed it on Antifa. Kind of weird that you’re not talking about the most high-profile hate crime from the past week though. What’s up with that?

    I’m treating these supposed hate crimes with skepticism until suspects are identified and some sort of evidence bears it out. There has been far too much damage done by hoaxers. Look at Mizzou to see how bad it can get.

    Your outrage over the social media ads is hilarious. Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent over $1.2 billion dollars in ads but you think she was brought down by $100,000 worth of Facebook ads shared by my Boomer uncle? Grow up.

    Hillary would have lost with or without some random Russians trolling. Either way, I’m glad she lost.

  49. NFL fans are libtards.

    They’re INDEPENDENTS. Look at the graph again. They don’t affiliate with either party and that’s why I keep saying they do not want partisan politics involved in the game.

  50. It’s not like we don’t have cause to be skeptical.

    Regarding the rash of hateful graffiti and signs popping up this week: while some was certainly meant to offend or inspire terror, other times it has turned out to be the work of anti-Trump forces who intended it as commentary on how they perceive “Trump’s America.” For instance, the message scrawled on an Elon University whiteboard post-election—”Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista”—was actually “written by a Latino student who was upset about the results of the election and wrote the message as a satirical commentary,” according the school’s vice president for student life. The same for a Nazi flag that went up over a house in San Francisco last week.

    In Pittsburg, California, a sign reading “You can hang a n****r from a tree / Equal rights he will never see!” was posted aside a house, and shared in a photo on Twitter November 12 by a man who wrote: “My sister texted this to me 10 minutes ago. Our democracy is being tested even in California.” This post was retweeted more than 4,200 times. But it turns out the sign was posted by a black man, on his own house, long before last week in protest of a grievance the man has with the court system. “Police said they planned to cite the man for the banner’s message,” reported the East Bay Times, “but upon further review Monday discovered that they already did so last week.”

    True, these incidents make up just a small percentage of the offensive graffiti and messages reported this week, but they serve as a reminder that the most simplistic explanation—racist imagery spread by racists—isn’t always the correct one.

  51. Nah no venom (or outrage), but the ongoing lazy but consistent defence of fucktards and fucktardary is just getting silly. Calling anything you don’t like a ‘hoax’ – who exactly are you trying to decieve (other than yourself)?
    No kidding you’re glad she lost. The reasons are all here in black and white. No matter how you sometimes try and dress them up.

  52. the ongoing lazy but consistent defence of fucktards and fucktardary is just getting silly.

    I’m not being lazy. I’m just not getting challenged enough to put in much effort.

    No kidding you’re glad she lost. The reasons are all here in black and white. No matter how you sometimes try and dress them up.

    Oh, here we go. Please continue.

  53. ‘Skepticism’ isn’t being 90% sure something is a hoax. It’s literally the opposite.
    Again, what this IS though, is consistently instructive.

  54. ‘Skepticism’ isn’t being 90% sure something is a hoax.

    And what will you do if it turns out to be a hoax? Won’t that make you a foreigner spreading fake news in America to influence our politics like so much Russians?

    Again, what this IS though, is consistently instructive.

    If you have something to say, come out and say it. Be a man.

  55. This whole ‘virtue signalling’ brand of bitching is just another variation on the whining about ‘political correctness’. Most of it seems to be people who hate arseholes and arseholery being called out for what it is. They’re so used to people just being quiet so as not to upset anyone. How dare they!
    And course, like with everything, they’ll be a few examples of over-reach or idiots exploiting the situation, and they’ll be used to help reinforce that the ‘real’ problem is calling out the arseholes/arseholery.

  56. And what will you do if it turns out to be a hoax?

    Oh, I’ll be demanding the guy withdraw his request that people shouldn’t act like arseholes. Because, you know, it’s just virtue signalling and so unnecessary, because it will further prove that racism is a liberal hoax and is causing significant harm to white people.

    Won’t that make you a foreigner spreading fake news in America to influence our politics like so much Russians?

    Lol, oh yes, spreading the message of people being reminded not to be arseholes. OH NOES!

    Be a man

    Why, what would a woman do?

  57. ‘Skepticism’ isn’t being 90% sure something is a hoax.

    It’s like climate change deniers claiming to be ‘skeptics’ when in fact they’re actually 90% sure it’s a hoax.

  58. This whole ‘virtue signalling’ brand of bitching is just another variation on the whining about ‘political correctness’.

    “Virtue signalling” and “political correctness” are two different things I whine about. Virtue signalling is stupid, but largely harmless. I mock it, but I understand why corporations and individuals do it.

    If you’ll read some of my comments above, I offered some real alternatives that might make some sort of difference in addressing the social problems of the black community and its relationship with law enforcement. Virtue signallers don’t want to put in the work though. That’s why I mock it. It’s about “feelings” not solutions. It’s useless and should be made fun of.

    I’m not saying that NFL athletes have to “be quiet”. But I also don’t think that people should be “forced to care” about every pet issue a celebrity/athlete/whoever has without their being an implication that they hate those people if they don’t want to be bothered with it when they’re trying to watch a stupid football game.

    At the end of the day, the market is going to decide if consumers want to live in Perpetually Activist America as exemplified by the NFL. At the moment, I’m saying that Americas are firmly rejecting it. If NFL players were out on their own time drawing attention to these issues (instead of committing crimes), nobody would tune out the NFL over it.

    The problem is that the virtue signallers absolutely cannot allow anyone to have the freedom to Not Care. Normal, apolitical Americans MUST care about all causes at all times. The VS’s want to make them uncomfortable at EVERY opportunity. Nothing is inappropriate. All that matters is “caring” and making sure that you do your damndest to make everyone care. That’s pretty much an end unto itself.

    I say, “Fuck those people.” We have a right to be left alone and a right to disengage from politics. If our entertainment providers can’t respect that, then they deserve to be out of business.

  59. Because, you know, it’s just virtue signalling and so unnecessary

    Oh, is that why you’re bringing it up? No, that’s not virtue signalling. It’s the commander’s JOB to enforce discipline within the Academy. I don’t fault him at all for reinforcing the organization’s policies. Now if he was instructing the students to stand outside and hold a candlelight vigil and he sent photos of the event to their families with a pro-BLM message, THAT would be virtue signalling.

    I can see why you’re confused by my stance if you don’t know what virtue signalling is. What the NFL is doing is that. It’s not their job and they have nothing to offer but empty gestures.

    Lol, oh yes, spreading the message of people being reminded not to be arseholes.

    Is it your mission in life to regulate other peoples’ behavior? You must be fun at parties.

    Why, what would a woman do?

    A woman would be more concerned with feelings than solutions. (ducks and runs)

  60. Little point protesting to people who already agree with you. The whole point is to make people uncomfortable. The people who can probably usually ignore the issue. Also, what sort of snowflake can’t handle someone taking a knee, the game hasn’t even started FFS.

  61. People who think the way you do are the reason many Americans dread family gatherings at Christmas. All I can say is that the aggressive, deep polarization that you root for is why you got Trump.

    Achievement unlocked: Methuselah Thread. Responded to an open thread after a new one has been published.

  62. Actually I’d never ruin a family gathering by deliberately confronting anyone with politics. Or start a serious argument at a party. But yeah I know some don’t seem to mind doing so. I don’t see any benefits, but plenty of negatives.
    I don’t seek deep polarisation, I think that’s a weak response.

  63. The whole point is to make people uncomfortable.

    Then they failed. Miserably. Because all they did was piss people off. A majority of the very people that make it possible for them to get paid millions of dollars to play a game.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: