Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 359: Two Scoops of Impeachment

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Uhhhh it does

*Sigh*

---

Don't know why you'd ever walk up to me of all people and say I downplay economics lol

---

corrik what if someone told you that these black people were once slaves and therefore their families now own significantly less wealth because inherited wealth is accumulated over generations

can you begin to understand systemic racism then? 50 years after slavery is abolished, who will likely have more wealth: the families whose fathers were slaves or the families whose fathers wete slave owners?


---

Corrik7 posted...

*Sigh*

Do you NOT think there is inherent bias and stereotyping of white players or European players or Asian players?

Its gotten better but damn son
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Do you NOT think there is inherent bias and stereotyping of white players or European players or Asian players?

Its gotten better but damn son

What?

I think players clearly delinearate themselves as more capable players based on their skills and the best players play assuming no outside factors. Race doesn't matter. If Steve Nash is the best, he plays. If Michael Jordan is the best, he plays. It's great to see when sports has been marred, like much of America with racism for far too long.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I think players clearly delinearate themselves as more capable players based on their skills and the best players play assuming no outside factors. Race doesn't matter. If Steve Nash is the best, he plays. If Michael Jordan is the best, he plays. It's great to see when sports has been marred, like much of America with racism for far too long.

This is just historically not true
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This is just historically not true

And we are talking about now. We don't talk about 50 years ago when discussing current issues.

---

Will you guys stop

---

Corrik7 posted...

And we are talking about now. We don't talk about 50 years ago when discussing current issues.

Firstly, Im talking about within the past 20 years

Secondly, of course we talk about the past when discussing current issues! Its ignorant not to examine the history of bias, especially when the SAME PEOPLE have been in power the entire time
---

Like didnt you study history?

Did you somehow come away that its just a series of independent unrelated events?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Firstly, Im talking about within the past 20 years

Secondly, of course we talk about the past when discussing current issues! Its ignorant not to examine the history of bias, especially when the SAME PEOPLE have been in power the entire time

What is your exact argument? Within the last 20 years, you are claiming what?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like didnt you study history?

Did you somehow come away that its just a series of independent unrelated events?

Yes, but you are comparing different ages as if they are the same. There is an evolution. You are claiming systemic racism exists in the NBA, a league where they scour the world for the best talents all the time.

The problem is your word racism almost undoubtedly.

---

Corrik7 posted...

What is your exact argument? Within the last 20 years, you are claiming what?

Non-black players are stereotyped, typecast, and undermined because their success threatens the status quo.
---

red sox 777 posted...

But very few things are provable. For instance, prove the world is round rather than flat. See if you can do it. I am confident that for every piece of evidence you come up with I can come up with an argument for why it's not conclusive.

In addition to the obvious (going in a loop around the world), you can prove that youre on something with actual Gaussian curvature (e.g. a sphere) rather than just a cylinder using parallel transport:

Hold out your arm with your thumb pointing up, and then move your arm in a closed loop with your elbow fixed (your hand is on the surface of a sphere). Your thumb will have rotated an amount proportional to the solid angle subtended, whereas it would not have rotated if you had rotated your hand in a closed loop on a cylinder. You can do the same thing with a vector of fixed orientation that you carry around some big enough closed loop on earth (it will happen even for an arbitrarily small loop, but the president defect would be correspondingly small).

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Non-black players are stereotyped, typecast, and undermined because their success threatens the status quo.

And, I seriously don't get your argument regarding this but what do you consider your points in favor of this?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In addition to the obvious (going in a loop around the world), you can prove that youre on something with actual Gaussian curvature (e.g. a sphere) rather than just a cylinder using parallel transport:

Hold out your arm with your thumb pointing up, and then move your arm in a closed loop with your elbow fixed (your hand is on the surface of a sphere). Your thumb will have rotated an amount proportional to the solid angle subtended, whereas it would not have rotated if you had rotated your hand in a closed loop on a cylinder. You can do the same thing with a vector of fixed orientation that you load onto a plane and fly around some closed loop around the earth.

Yes, but it's easy to ignore that by arguing that the data is corrupted. My point was semantic, matching the pointlessness of this morning's discussion.

remember when we all went Linsane because there was an Asian dude who was competent at basketball

whatever happened to that guy?
---

HeroicCrono posted...

semantic

Told ya. This was easy to avoid.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

remember when we all went Linsane because there was an Asian dude who was competent at basketball

whatever happened to that guy?

People realized he sucked, just had a small sample size decent run, and he hung around the league as a back up til I think last year or so until going poof.

---

this just reminds me of the bill burr bit on black athletes vs white athletes.


---

Corrik7 posted...

And, I seriously don't get your argument regarding this but what do you consider your points in favor of this?

Like I said, its gotten better. But 10-30 years ago (and probably longer but thats when European players started getting scouted) there was a consistent stereotype that white players couldnt be ball handlers, that European players were soft, that someone like Steve Nash could never win a title as the best player on a team and only gets attention because hes white. He never did, but thats not the reason! Euro players were RESENTED by many black players.

Also theres specifically a resistance to adopting the FIBA rule set, which further benefits American players over international talents, despite being arguably a superior rule set.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUu0GuW1WYQ&ab_channel=BrainMaze

---

If you are going to argue anything systemic in the NBA, it would likely be in regards to height. There is a lot of good players who don't get much of a chance due to height and measurements. But, I mean, it's a pretty good indicator and the chances still exist.

The problem with your argument is that they aren't restricting foreign or non-Black involvement to keep a status quo. If you want to see that, go back to sports in the past where keeping black players down was a real issue, see Glory Road or The Express or so on for some media representations of it. Black players simply turn out to be better basketball players. Foreign nations have lagged behind us tremendously due to lack of engagement with the sports that has been Increasing steadily over time.

You could maybe argue that lower economic households tend to encourage more outside play which in turn leads to people being more athletic, I suppose. I don't know how that supports your narrative of systemic racism in the NBA though. I feel you painted yourself into a corner here on a relatively dumb argument.

---

I forgot why I stopped reading these... literally pages of people just arguing with corrik and red sox.

---

hey now, that's unfair.
the first third of the topic was spent arguing with tony.

it's pretty common that 1-3 people get caught in an argument, 150-200 posts on it, switch to someone else, repeat. when that doesn't happen the topic is up for like, a week.


---

It's a waste of everyone's God damn time.

---

but jakyl luka is the odds favorite for mvp

checkmate

---

Corrik7 posted...

The problem with your argument is that they aren't restricting foreign or non-Black involvement to keep a status quo.

But they WERE, very recently
---

Jakyl25 posted...

But they WERE, very recently

No. They weren't. You argued they stereotype play some. Not that they restricted players.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. They weren't. You argued they stereotype play some. Not that they restricted players.

Its like how some teams in MLB accepted black players earlier than others. It was a slow adoption over time

Heres an article about anti-Euro bias in the NBA from 2018 that explains what Im trying to better than I am
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2802775-luka-doncic-has-the-goods-to-crush-the-nbas-euro-bias-once-and-for-all
---

also Linsanity was 100% a result of the Knicks having somebody that didn't suck on their team.
i still don't understand who supports that franchise since even we pretend they don't exist as much as possible. there's the Giants, the Yankees, the Rangers, maybe some love to the Mets or the Jets as second stringers, hell we'll take the Devils because Jersey's our trash heap and they're competent. but the Knicks went extinct in the 90s, i don't know what you're talking about, was a freakish explosion that erased their existence from new york teams.

---

You forgot the Nets!

And the Knicks made the finals in 99!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Its like how some teams in MLB accepted black players earlier than others. It was a slow adoption over time

Heres an article about anti-Euro bias in the NBA from 2018 that explains what Im trying to better than I am
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2802775-luka-doncic-has-the-goods-to-crush-the-nbas-euro-bias-once-and-for-all

This basically says they have to overcome not being as good as advertised. This is, of course, because they generally are playing in lesser leagues with lesser competition. Competition has been improving lately which is why this moniker is going away. Nothing to do with racism. Again. I told you this was going to be the wrong word.

These teams didn't simply tank their world teams versus us for how long because they were doing so to keep up the narratives. Like, I am pretty sure we sent amateurs all the time against their best players regularly for awhile. China doesn't restrict foreigners to certain numbers in China league because they are racist. They restrict those numbers because otherwise no Chinese would ever likely get to play in their own league. I mean, you could make debate there.

There is a reason guys who can't crack rosters are even are close to can go to other countries and be the stars of their leagues.

This isn't a systemic racism. It is that other countries are severely far behind us in talent right now. If the best players could be something else, they would be the people that are the stars of the league. The best players play. Having a stereotype and having to prove it wrong doesn't mean there is systemic racism.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Having a stereotype and having to prove it wrong doesn't mean there is systemic racism.

When there are teams that wont draft them because of the stereotype, I disagree
---

Jakyl25 posted...

When there are teams that wont draft them because of the stereotype, I disagree

I fail to think of many amazing talents that the NBA misses on, in comparison to many players who are taken a chance on and are busts.

I still remember the bucks drafting Yi Jianlian or whatever and him sucking ass. Darko. I mean the list relatively goes on. They take chances all the time on foreign talents. You have a problem with scouting reports, not the NBA system.

---

StartTheMachine posted...

corrik what if someone told you that these black people were once slaves and therefore their families now own significantly less wealth because inherited wealth is accumulated over generations

can you begin to understand systemic racism then? 50 years after slavery is abolished, who will likely have more wealth: the families whose fathers were slaves or the families whose fathers wete slave owners?

This.

The analogy I really liked about this involves a game of monopoly between two players.

Player 1 gets to take 100 turns while player 2 sits on start.

So for 100 turns player 1 is accumulating wealth and property. After this player 1 probably owns most of the board.

Then player 2 is allowed to start, and the two players take turns as normal.

And they play, taking turns, for 100 more turns. But this only widens the disparity between the two players because player 1 was holding most the cards by the time player 2 was allowed to participate. So for most of the turns player 2 is just landing on player 1's property and paying rent.

Player 2 complains this is unfair.

Player 1 says "of course it's fair, we've both been following the same rules for 100 turns now"

.

Even if we assume black people are being treated completely fairly now relative to white people (which is not a given) the disparity in their starting positions has still created systemic inequalities. The analogy is a bit over simplified, but it should be easy enough for all but the most obtuse to understand.

---

Very disturbing article

https://twitter.com/kimzetter/status/1350526704180051968?s=21

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This.

The analogy I really liked about this involves a game of monopoly between two players.

Player 1 gets to take 100 turns while player 2 sits on start.

So for 100 turns player 1 is accumulating wealth and property. After this player 1 probably owns most of the board.

Then player 2 is allowed to start, and the two players take turns as normal.

And they play, taking turns, for 100 more turns. But this only widens the disparity between the two players because player 1 was holding most the cards by the time player 2 was allowed to participate. So for most of the turns player 2 is just landing on player 1's property and paying rent.

Player 2 complains this is unfair.

Player 1 says "of course it's fair, we've both been following the same rules for 100 turns now"

.

Even if we assume black people are being treated completely fairly now relative to white people (which is not a given) the disparity in their starting positions has still created systemic inequalities. The analogy is a bit over simplified, but it should be easy enough for all but the most obtuse to understand.

Now make the analogy correct.

You have 8 monopoly players. You have 1 monopoly player take 100 turns first. Then 7 other players get to play for 100 turns with the 8th player. The 8th player is even more rich. The other 7 players are poor but vary some. 4 of those players were White. 3 of them were African-Americans.

Was the issue race? Or economic?

---

The existence of poor white people does not disprove racial inequality.

Poor white people were not literally slaves. Your analogy sucks.


---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This.

The analogy I really liked about this involves a game of monopoly between two players.

Player 1 gets to take 100 turns while player 2 sits on start.

So for 100 turns player 1 is accumulating wealth and property. After this player 1 probably owns most of the board.

Then player 2 is allowed to start, and the two players take turns as normal.

And they play, taking turns, for 100 more turns. But this only widens the disparity between the two players because player 1 was holding most the cards by the time player 2 was allowed to participate. So for most of the turns player 2 is just landing on player 1's property and paying rent.

Player 2 complains this is unfair.

Player 1 says "of course it's fair, we've both been following the same rules for 100 turns now"

.

Even if we assume black people are being treated completely fairly now relative to white people (which is not a given) the disparity in their starting positions has still created systemic inequalities. The analogy is a bit over simplified, but it should be easy enough for all but the most obtuse to understand.

not just sitting on start a hundred rounds of monopoly, but but being forced to play those hundred rounds building properties for the other players!

---

https://mobile.twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1350528489657688064?s=19

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

The existence of poor white people does not disprove racial inequality.

Poor white people were not literally slaves. Your analogy sucks.

White people have been slaves in the past. Obviously It is immaterial though. The poor African-Americans today have not been literally slaves. They are poor African-Americans. Same as poor Americans of any race. It isn't any more fair they are poor than it is fair that another American of any race is poor. Neither of them did anything to deserve what they were born into. Just like someone did not deserve to be born rich either and have that head start. It is why we should eliminate this via a better taxing of estates upon death.

What caused you to possibly be poor has no matter on the fact that you were born poor. It sucks regardless of the reasons.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Was the issue race? Or economic?

When the black players are forced to be in the second group because of their race, its both
---

Corrik7 posted...

Just like someone did not deserve to be born rich either and have that head start. It is why we should eliminate this via a better taxing of estates upon death.

Do you support redistribution of this wealth directly to disadvantaged Americans?
---

Corrik7 posted...

White people have been slaves in the past. Obviously It is immaterial though. The poor African-Americans today have not been literally slaves. They are poor African-Americans. Same as poor Americans of any race. It isn't any more fair they are poor than it is fair that another American of any race is poor. Neither of them did anything to deserve what they were born into. Just like someone did not deserve to be born rich either and have that head start. It is why we should eliminate this via a better taxing of estates upon death.

What caused you to possibly be poor has no matter on the fact that you were born poor. It sucks regardless of the reasons.

So what you're saying is....

Forceful_Dragon posted...

"of course it's fair, we've both been following the same rules for 100 turns now"

And to which I say

Forceful_Dragon posted...

it should be easy enough for all but the most obtuse to understand.

So that's my bad for expecting anything else.

---

i mean the big issue with the monopoly example is that it means that most migrants are in the same position.
which means most americans don't have anything to do with it. just that tiny percentage.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

Do you support redistribution of this wealth directly to disadvantaged Americans?

Nope. I support giving everyone a relatively fairer start. I do not support handing from one to another. I support a UBI that all receive. A Universal Healthcare all receive. I support a seizure of all assets barring a maximum allowed inheritance to eligible persons that allows there to not be an insanely large gap between starting places and over time will make the gap miniscule at all.

Is what I support realistic? I suppose not. But, it is what I would argue for if I believed it could be.

---

You may now make your witty 500th post

---

ltg

---