For Insiders this week, I had a slew of trade writeups:
- the Kevin Gausman trade
- the Chris Archer trade
- the Tommy Pham trade
- the Roberto Osuna trade
- the Jonathan Schoop trade
- some smaller prospect deals from Tuesday
- The Asdrubal, Moustakas, and Pressly trades
I also held a Klawchat on Wednesday before I headed off to Gen Con 2018. You can see some of the photos I took there, the country’s biggest board gaming convention, on my Instagram. The writeup will come later this week.
I’ve been better about sending out my free email newsletter lately after slacking a bit during the spring (in large part because I can’t use the site’s editing function on an iPad), so, you know, do that signup.
And now, the links…
I’m very confused why people are so quick to come to Sarah Jeong’s defense. She sent hundreds of tweets which showed, at the very least, an anti-white bias – and at worst a bigoted attitude towards white men and women. Few are suggesting her comments are as bad as racism against minorities. However, it seems imprudent to paper over her comments as “counter-trolling” like her current and previous employers just did. I think Jonah Goldberg put it rather well in his piece: “the net effect of [her] “counter-trolling” is that it leads to the opposite of [her] stated goal: You are making white people feel threatened, and, as a result, you’re making at least some of them more racist. You are making whiteness a thing.”
Whiteness has been a thing for a few hundred years, at the very least. She didn’t make it one.
How does writing a book titled “Liberal Fascism” and featuring a smiley face with a Hitler moustache on the cover fit into Goldberg’s theory of unintended consequences?
Sansho1 – you haven’t addressed any critique above. Changing the subject doesn’t harm my argument.
I’m not debating you, I’m deriding your quote source as a hypocrite.
I think you only partially address the main critique – that this behavior creates a divisive society that is white people vs. everyone else. Allowing upstream hate/disparaging comments to prevail and become mainstream because of past colonial wrongs furthers the notion that some of us are born ‘in the wrong’ and others are born with the right to say whatever demeaning rhetoric about their ‘oppressors’ they want. For instance, her comments that suggest white people’s online opinions are like ‘dogs pissing on fire hydrants’ are quite despicable, context or not. If someone directly referred to your opinions that way, they’d be blocked as fast as possible. The fact remains you and I have done nothing to incite such sweeping statements by Ms. Jeong and we sure don’t deserve it.
But, if you find her comments – like the one above – to be totally harmless or that you deserve that vitriol, I don’t think there’s much else I can say. If, however, you don’t – she deserves at least some of the criticism that’s come her way.
that this behavior creates a divisive society that is white people vs. everyone else
White people created this divisive society through slavery, mass incarceration, and systematic oppression. If you watch the Youtube clip at the bottom of my post, he has a rather thorough response to this kind of ‘reverse racism’ claim.
Have you and I done nothing to deserve such statements? I can’t say I haven’t. I’m sure I’m guilty of various microaggressions in my adult life, of submitting to unconscious biases based on race or gender that I have to actively work to defeat. The divisions predate you, me, and our great-grandparents. We’re fighting to undo them. Silencing people who point those divisions out does not help matters.
Not sure how the term “reverse racism” became a thing, but it makes no sense to me. And I honestly don’t know if the term is designed to excuse the supposed reverse racist or make the person look worse.
If I visit Senegal or Japan and look down on the people there, am I the primary racist, or is that reverse racism because I’m in their home, and perhaps they are denigrating me first? Who is the primary racist and who is the reverse? And why should it matter? Neither is ok. That’s why the term makes no sense. You can either have racist views or not, regardless of what you look like, your heritage, or where you were born.
Simply put, if your behavior toward an individual is based on how they look or on their heritage, by definition, it’s racist, regardless of who you are.
I did watch the Youtube clip. I’ve read the Vox piece too. Their arguments don’t elude me. However, semantic arguments about ‘reverse racism’ don’t further the discussion. Historical wrongs are well documented and I’m not oblivious to them.
My issue is that she isn’t pointing out division. She’s deriding a class of people she has no (apparent) respect for. She’s not arguing from a historical perspective. There is no attempt at disguising her tweets as some sort of commentary about the way things are/ought to be. This is a form of retributive justice – “your parents did my parents wrong – thus, I get to call you whatever I want.” This, unfortunately is a zero sum game.
As for what you and I’ve done. Your guilt is yours, I can’t speak to it. I’ve made mistakes and was once a young man of limited vision or virtue. But I’ve generally paid for my mistakes and have done a full accounting the things I’ve said. I can get carried away and am too quick to defend myself, but I’ve never publicly called anyone a dog or suggested we #cancel____people. I’m trying day by day to see each person for what they bring to the table, whatever genetic code they were give. She might be trying to do that too. But for 4 years, she didn’t.
Everyone knows you have to cook morels in a pan, preferably with butter and apple cider to maximize your points.