Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Baseball query. Read this. I don't get it. What were the Sox doing wrong? Swinging at the first pitch in the late innings against a tired pitcher who you think will be throwing strikes? The writer seem to think the Sox were intentionally making non-K outs, but that's loopy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Baseball query. Read this. I don't get it. What were the Sox doing wrong? Swinging at the first pitch in the late innings against a tired pitcher who you think will be throwing strikes? The writer seem to think the Sox were intentionally making non-K outs, but that's loopy.

i can’t imagine why any Red Sox would care. It’s not like he’s beat out a Sox pitcher for top SO, just an individual feat.

Different if it was a race for top numbers. When Cabrera was chasing the Triple Crown the only thing in doubt on the last day was HRs. Granderson was in second maybe 1 back. The Yankees pulled him before his last at bat; class act.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i can’t imagine why any Red Sox would care. It’s not like he’s beat out a Sox pitcher for top SO, just an individual feat.

Well, no one likes to strike out, and players can get kinda cranky towards the end of a season when they're underperforming. So if you start to think that the other team is trying to strike you out instead of winning the game, I can see getting annoyed.

Not saying they should be annoyed -- I just don't even understand why Deadspin thinks the Sox were doing something wrong. Because batters were swinging at the first pitch? Really?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Well, no one likes to strike out, and players can get kinda cranky towards the end of a season when they're underperforming. So if you start to think that the other team is trying to strike you out instead of winning the game, I can see getting annoyed.

Not saying they should be annoyed -- I just don't even understand why Deadspin thinks the Sox were doing something wrong. Because batters were swinging at the first pitch? Really?

It may be the pitcher has money on the line, too. That 200 K number could affect a bonus, or it may just be perceived to give him more negotiating leverage.

The don't-swing-at-the-first-pitch is Red Sox religion, and it's odd to see it broken by more than one player (certainly, not everyone has Wade Bogg's discipline, and they never have). But I'm not sure why they'd care, unless the guy did something like pitched at one of them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Well, no one likes to strike out, and players can get kinda cranky towards the end of a season when they're underperforming. So if you start to think that the other team is trying to strike you out instead of winning the game, I can see getting annoyed.

Not saying they should be annoyed -- I just don't even understand why Deadspin thinks the Sox were doing something wrong. Because batters were swinging at the first pitch? Really?

The Sox did nothing wrong, just showed no class. Like I mentioned the Yankees showed. Or in 1968 Mickey Mantle is at bat for the final time in his career. Denny McClain is pitching- 31 game winner that year, Mick knows he has no chance. But Denny groves a big pitch straight down the middle. Mick takes it for strike 1. Looks at Denny, who nods and gives the exact same pitch. Last HR of Mick’s career.

Tigers and Yankees classy. Red Sox?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Sox did nothing wrong, just showed no class. Like I mentioned the Yankees showed. Or in 1968 Mickey Mantle is at bat for the final time in his career. Denny McClain is pitching- 31 game winner that year, Mick knows he has no chance. But Denny groves a big pitch straight down the middle. Mick takes it for strike 1. Looks at Denny, who nods and gives the exact same pitch. Last HR of Mick’s career.

Tigers and Yankees classy. Red Sox?

bucky fing dent

[sebastian_dangerfield]

"Republicans" are comfortable being on the right, but also comfortable being the establishment. "Conservatives" are in a state of (increasingly populist) reaction, and see Republicans as part of the problem when they are firmly in power.

I think this describes where I lose some of your argument. "Conservatives" have been replaced with populists. We have a few populist parties running right now. Bernie, Warren, and Trump are all attracting different varieties of populists. I don't think conservatives are in a state of reaction right now. They might have been in the past. Now I think they're in a state of near extinction.

When conservatives are in power, they struggle because they can't complain about the people in power; also, exercising power forces pragmatic compromise with reality, which makes it harder to sustain grievance.

When conservatives gained power in the past they struggled because they realized that they weren't really conservatives. They wanted to spend money just like liberals, only in different ways. They realized they weren't really conservative at all.

(Trump, for example, has the most powerful job in the country, and keeps complaining about his poor treatment at the hands of the media, bureaucrats who work for him, etc. It's absurd, but it works for him because it's so authentic.)

He's a populist.

Republicans care about power, and are willing to be hypocritical to get it (like many Democrats, and many other people).

Correct.

Conservatives are motivated by grievance, and are not so much hypocritical as willing to argue in bad faith because they feel that mainstream discourse is structured to disadvantage them.

Populists masquerading as conservatives are animated by grievance. Conservatives are, as I said, near extinct.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think this describes where I lose some of your argument. "Conservatives" have been replaced with populists. We have a few populist parties running right now. Bernie, Warren, and Trump are all attracting different varieties of populists. I don't think conservatives are in a state of reaction right now. They might have been in the past. Now I think they're in a state of near extinction.



When conservatives gained power in the past they struggled because they realized that they weren't really conservatives. They wanted to spend money just like liberals, only in different ways. They realized they weren't really conservative at all.



He's a populist.



Correct.



Populists masquerading as conservatives are animated by grievance. Conservatives are, as I said, near extinct.

Call it whatever you want, Conservatives, Republicans, Populists. They're assholes. These are all people who take pleasure in being assholes. It's not just about owning the libs, it's about screwing over people color, putting women in their place, using kids for personal gain or just generally being assholes.

Call an ass an ass.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You are out of your mind. Conservatives deny climate change now, in large part (I think) because progressives care so much about it. The former is empirically undeniable.

You credit progressives with being much more important than they are. The people who deny climate change do it for a variety of reasons. Some for the reason you cite. Some because they work in fossil fuel industry. Some just because they're suspicious of everything.

As the problem has gotten worse, conservatives increasingly deny that it exists and oppose doing anything about it. The current Administration is rolling back air quality protections that industry doesn't want rolled back, just to say "f*ck you" to Obama. That is quintessentially conservative.

I think they're doing it because they're in the pocket of the fossil fuel industries, and because one of Bannon's planks was dismantling of the regulatory state. This has to do with Libertarian politics more than it does with grievance.

I guess we are using the word "conservatives" in different ways. You're talking about Republicans. I'm talking about conservatives.

I don't know what definition you are using for conservatives, but it seems to be "populist." Why not just use "right wing populist"?

No, I was trying to describe polarization.

No you weren't. You were arguing one side is at fault for everything. You know that's not accurate. You understand the tango that brought us here. It's complex, and annoying to hear people search for something or someone to blame when confronted with a complex problem.

Is the GOP worse on climate than the Democrats? Yes. But Republicans are embracing the urgent need to do something about climate change. The polls reflect that shift. They can be and are being brought around to it. And many have been there all along. More efforts toward expanding this emerging bipartisan consensus are useful. You're carping about how one party historically fucked it up is just, well, carping.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Sox did nothing wrong, just showed no class.

By swinging at the first pitch? Seriously? When you've got a tired pitcher who wants to throw strikes, of course you're going to swing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think this describes where I lose some of your argument. "Conservatives" have been replaced with populists. We have a few populist parties running right now. Bernie, Warren, and Trump are all attracting different varieties of populists. I don't think conservatives are in a state of reaction right now. They might have been in the past. Now I think they're in a state of near extinction.

All the people who you are calling "populists" call themselves "conservatives." Not only are they not extinct, they hold a significant share, if not a majority, of the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch's political jobs, and the Senate.

When conservatives gained power in the past they struggled because they realized that they weren't really conservatives. They wanted to spend money just like liberals, only in different ways. They realized they weren't really conservative at all.

And yet they continue to see themselves as "conservatives," so they are. Saying they're not is a nice little rhetorical trick, but otherwise just gets in the way of conversation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A lot of dribble

I will give you this, conservatives themselves are the best argument against evolution.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Call it whatever you want, Conservatives, Republicans, Populists. They're assholes. These are all people who take pleasure in being assholes. It's not just about owning the libs, it's about screwing over people color, putting women in their place, using kids for personal gain or just generally being assholes.

Call an ass an ass.

That's emoting, I understand, but to characterize those groups as assholes who just like doing bad things to people isn't really fair.

A lot of people in those groups simply don't care about what progressives care about. You can't call someone an asshole for having different interests and not paying attention to yours. And I don't think you can call Libertarians, who are basically saying nothing more than "leave me the fuck alone" assholes. They don't wish you any harm. They just don't give a fuck about the things progressives do. Or anything, really.

But as to the people who simply wish to control others under a right wing agenda, yes, those people are assholes. In fact, that word might not be enough. If you wish to compel another person to live the way you want him to live knowing it's anathema to him, you're the lowest form of humanity in existence. You deserve to be violently reproached in your efforts. I'd exile your ass if I were in charge.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

All the people who you are calling "populists" call themselves "conservatives." Not only are they not extinct, they hold a significant share, if not a majority, of the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch's political jobs, and the Senate.



And yet they continue to see themselves as "conservatives," so they are. Saying they're not is a nice little rhetorical trick, but otherwise just gets in the way of conversation.

I'm a pterodactyl.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's emoting, I understand, but to characterize those groups as assholes who just like doing bad things to people isn't really fair.

A lot of people in those groups simply don't care about what progressives care about. You can't call someone an asshole for having different interests and not paying attention to yours. And I don't think you can call Libertarians, who are basically saying nothing more than "leave me the fuck alone" assholes. They don't wish you any harm. They just don't give a fuck about the things progressives do. Or anything, really.

But as to the people who simply wish to control others under a right wing agenda, yes, those people are assholes. In fact, that word might not be enough. If you wish to compel another person to live the way you want him to live knowing it's anathema to him, you're the lowest form of humanity in existence. You deserve to be violently reproached in your efforts. I'd exile your ass if I were in charge.

Look at each issue out there:

Building a wall. Rational policy? No. what motivates it? Assholes.
Putting kids in tents and cages. Rational policy? No. What motivates it? Assholes.
Trade. Rational policy? No, totally moronic. What motivates it? Assholes.
Police. Again, do they have a rational policy? No. And you get the gist.

On any issue, ask yourself "What would an Asshole do?" and your answer will be the Republican conservative agenda.

There are all kinds of names for this type of reaction to the world. I'm related to a lot of these people. Their approach to life is quite bitter and their view of the world very bleak. They have taken over the Republican party, the conservative movement, and every other trapping of the right in America.