ESPN's "wokeness" reaches it's zenith.

[thraashman]

That's the big difference between you and me, you're only thinking about yourself and the present day while I'm looking out for the future and the generations that follow after me.

The idea that anything Trump does will benefit anyone other than Trump at the expense of the people is hilarious. Trump's actions are always designed to help him and hurt as many others as possible.

 

[thraashman]

by saying this would have been anything more than a couple chuckles on twitter, you're basically saying that leftists are morons who can't tell the difference between an asian in 2017 and a confederate general from 1865

what rational ground would they have to be upset? please explain this. you can't because there is no rational ground. thus you consider leftists to be irrational morons

Have you never been on the internet? People will run any joke into the ground. If you think /r/The_Donald wouldn't have put out a dozen memes an hour and that Twitter wouldn't have mocked this until the dead horse they were beating started running again, you don't know the internet. So ESPN did a simple change and the right wing is more outraged by it than they were by Nazis organizing. ESPN made the right choice, whoever told a conservative commentator chose poorly though.

 

[tynopik]

If you think /r/The_Donald wouldn't have put out a dozen memes an hour and that Twitter wouldn't have mocked this until the dead horse they were beating started running again, you don't know the internet.

y'all need to get your story straight

pauldun said switching him out was the best option because the only people complaining about it are 'fringe jerks offs" (sic)

meaning that if they didn't switch him out, then criticism would be more mainstream, which from his perspective means leftists

so pauldun170 was NOT worried about the right criticizing it, he was worried about the left criticizing it

The negative attention they are getting now has less potential impact than not switching the announcer out.
Right now the only impact is a bunch of fringe jerks offs complaining on the internet about ESPN. People are using this as an excuse to toss around the same tired catch phrases "Snowflake", "Trigger" "left" etc etc etc. The lifespan of items like this in the news cycle is short and and the interest inthis will fade as the idiot brigade moves on to the next Fox and Friends, Breitbart talking point.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I don't think lefties would give a shit. I would lol if a dude named Robert Lee of Asian background was handling this game.

That's what should happen. I'm not joining the right wing echo chamber. My whole point is that it was ridiculous for Disney / ESPN to think that this guy announcing would be an issue.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's what should happen. I'm not joining the right wing echo chamber. My whole point is that it was ridiculous for Disney / ESPN to think that this guy announcing would be an issue.

Agreed, and I take that further by examining... who does ESPN think they're being sensitive towards?

 

[FerrelGeek]

No, real conservatives are just incensed whenever they're associated with lunatic fringe groups with whom the find just as revolting as those on the left do; as that doesn't reflect what they believe.

FTFY, bro.

 

[pauldun170]

y'all need to get your story straight

pauldun said switching him out was the best option because the only people complaining about it are 'fringe jerks offs" (sic)

meaning that if they didn't switch him out, then criticism would be more mainstream, which from his perspective means leftists

so pauldun170 was NOT worried about the right criticizing it, he was worried about the left criticizing it

Wrong

 

[realibrad]

Wrong

Actually that is a good summary of your point.

First, you defined the alternative.

The negative attention they are getting now has less potential impact than not switching the announcer out.

This implies that the option they took has less of the impact vs the option they could have taken. Your logic is that had they chosen the other option, the negative attention would have been greater.

Next you have this...

Right now the only impact is a bunch of fringe jerks offs complaining on the internet about ESPN.

This is vital to understanding your claim. This part means that right now only the fringe are the ones making an issue out of this.

Fringe definition - adj, not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.

So, all things coming from this is from the non mainstream. So the logic follows that had they taken the option of leaving him, the negative attention would have been greater. That coupled with the next part about how right now its all fringe means that the other option would brought negative attention from non fringe. Because you implied that the 2nd option is the cause for only the fringe to react, you inherently implied that the first option would have caused the non fringe to also bring negative attention.

So, if you had intended to say something else, you failed because your claim is explained above. Its quite possible you misspoke but he is not wrong in his understanding of what you actually said.

 

[pauldun170]

Actually that is a good summary of your point.

First, you defined the alternative.



This implies that the option they took has less of the impact vs the option they could have taken. Your logic is that had they chosen the other option, the negative attention would have been greater.

Next you have this...



This is vital to understanding your claim. This part means that right now only the fringe are the ones making an issue out of this.

Fringe definition - adj, not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.

So, all things coming from this is from the non mainstream. So the logic follows that had they taken the option of leaving him, the negative attention would have been greater. That coupled with the next part about how right now its all fringe means that the other option would brought negative attention from non fringe. Because you implied that the 2nd option is the cause for only the fringe to react, you inherently implied that the first option would have caused the non fringe to also bring negative attention.

So, if you had intended to say something else, you failed because your claim is explained above. Its quite possible you misspoke but he is not wrong in his understanding of what you actually said.

This part is wrong

meaning that if they didn't switch him out, then criticism would be more mainstream, which from his perspective means leftists

so pauldun170 was NOT worried about the right criticizing it, he was worried about the left criticizing it

I said nothing about left vs right nonsense


Your statement

This implies that the option they took has less of the impact vs the option they could have taken. Your logic is that had they chosen the other option, the negative attention would have been greater.

My statement

The negative attention they are getting now has less potential impact than not switching the announcer out.

The impact of the the negative attention is less than the total impact of not switching the announcer.
Negative press now <> The impact of not switching out the announcer. That involves the announcer, the school the state and several other things than factors.


The source tried to make a culture war issue.
ESPN came out with a reasonable explanation as to why and I agree with it.

There isn't much else to it as far as I'm concerned.

So, if you had intended to say something else, you failed because your claim is explained above. Its quite possible you misspoke but he is not wrong in his understanding of what you actually said.

Since this issue seems cut and dry to me, going back and forth with people who are trying to push the culture war angle gets old pretty quick.
If what I say doesn't come across effectively then I am a poor communicator. However this is a "low effort thread" at this point.

 

[brandonbull]

which any Trump voter completely failed to do. As evidenced by, well, brains.

Get over it. Trump won and Hillary lost. I guess it doesn't matter how many racists and radicals she considered as her heroes because Trump is really the racist.

 

[realibrad]

This part is wrong


I said nothing about left vs right nonsense


Your statement


My statement


The impact of the the negative attention is less than the total impact of not switching the announcer.
Negative press now <> The impact of not switching out the announcer. That involves the announcer, the school the state and several other things than factors.


The source tried to make a culture war issue.
ESPN came out with a reasonable explanation as to why and I agree with it.

There isn't much else to it as far as I'm concerned.


Since this issue seems cut and dry to me, going back and forth with people who are trying to push the culture war angle gets old pretty quick.
If what I say doesn't come across effectively then I am a poor communicator. However this is a "low effort thread" at this point.

So you are saying that its the fringe making this an issue, but had they done nothing, its a larger fringe that would be making an issue? So a fringe by definition is small, but they were worried about a small group making a joke out of something but it would only be a fringe. So why be worried about a small group if a small group would be making an issue either way?

 

[FFFF]

The idea that anything Trump does will benefit anyone other than Trump at the expense of the people is hilarious. Trump's actions are always designed to help him and hurt as many others as possible.

It's much less about what Trump does, and much more about the big dent his election made in the mighty power of mainstream media which continues to push hypocrisy and censorship as something legitimate.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's much less about what Trump does, and much more about the big dent his election made in the mighty power of mainstream media which continues to push hypocrisy and censorship as something legitimate.

I'll bet you think that makes sense. It doesn't, of course. Trump & his Russian pals manipulated the media even better than Repub propagandists had done over the preceding decades. They nurtured raving stupidity & Trump harvested it.

It's just the usual "Can't trust the media! Gotta go with your gut where we can get to you!"

 

[FFFF]

I'll bet you think that makes sense. It doesn't, of course. Trump & his Russian pals manipulated the media even better than Repub propagandists had done over the preceding decades. They nurtured raving stupidity & Trump harvested it.

It's just the usual "Can't trust the media! Gotta go with your gut where we can get to you!"

Who cares if the russians were behind the hacking or not, as long as most of what has been uncovered was confirmed to be real. Facts are facts no matter who reveals them, trying to ignore all that is downright disingenuous.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who cares if the russians were behind the hacking or not, as long as most of what has been uncovered was confirmed to be real. Facts are facts no matter who reveals them, trying to ignore all that is downright disingenuous.

Trying to ignore the incompetence of Trump as President is what's disingenuous.

There's nothing wrong with Russian propagandists messing with America's minds to help make that happen, either... according to you, anyway.

 

[FFFF]

Trying to ignore the incompetence of Trump as President is what's disingenuous.

I didn't ignore it, I just know there are much bigger concerns out there.

There's nothing wrong with Russian propagandists messing with America's minds to help make that happen, either... according to you, anyway.

Sometimes the ends justify the means.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't ignore it, I just know there are much bigger concerns out there.



Sometimes the ends justify the means.

So, Trump is incompetent & Russian efforts to make him President were justified... Because the Libruhl media...

 

[FFFF]

So, Trump is incompetent & Russian efforts to make him President were justified... Because the Libruhl media...

Pretty much, the evils perpetrated by the mainstream media (which is 90% liberal) are immeasurably more dangerous than Trump's pettiness and polarizing decisions.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Pretty much, the evils perpetrated by the mainstream media (which is 90% liberal) are immeasurably more dangerous than Trump's pettiness and polarizing decisions.

Truly enlightened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty much, the evils perpetrated by the mainstream media (which is 90% liberal) are immeasurably more dangerous than Trump's pettiness and polarizing decisions.

Now, define the evils you allege. You've already agreed that Trump is incompetent to lead America so you'll need to come up with something demonstrably worse than that.

 

[FFFF]

Now, define the evils you allege. You've already agreed that Trump is incompetent to lead America so you'll need to come up with something demonstrably worse than that.

I think I've mentioned them plenty of times already, I don't like repeating myself pointlessly so I trust you'll find out yourself sooner or later if you're really interested.

 

[zinfamous]

That's the big difference between you and me, you're only thinking about yourself and the present day while I'm looking out for the future and the generations that follow after me.

..so you voted for Trump? You're a fucking idiot. You know that, right?

 

[FFFF]

..so you voted for Trump? You're a fucking idiot. You know that, right?

Now, now, you know insults don't recommend you in a discussion, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think I've mentioned them plenty of times already, I don't like repeating myself pointlessly so I trust you'll find out yourself sooner or later if you're really interested.

You've done no such thing. All you've offered is accusation & innuendo.

You've only trolled this forum for 162 posts so surely you could easily cite at least one example.

 

[FFFF]

You've done no such thing. All you've offered is accusation & innuendo.

You've only trolled this forum for 162 posts so surely you could easily cite at least one example.

Suit yourself then, I guess I was really spot on you weren't genuinely interested in that.