DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry
-
-
They were very lucky against both the Bears and the Lions, i don't think they are world beaters especially on defense.
No luckier than the Lions were against the Falcons.
I also dont buy the "lucky" narrative against the Bears. But whatevs.
Coincidence .... Shanny Junior have anything to do with the success the last 2 seasons? IIRC Matt was in a slump prior to Shanny being OC in ATL.
- correct what you think is wrong please
Matt Ryan had arguably his worst season as a pro in year 1 under Shanahan. He had his best season as a pro in year 2.
Prior to Shanahan's arrival, Ryan had stacked 5 consecutive good+ seasons.
-
One of the strengths of McDermott Panthers defenses that tended to give Matt Ryan fits was....wait for it......super LB Luke Kuechly. His ability to cover intermediate routes was constantly problematic. He'd lurk around the middle of the field and get a great break on rhythm throws to the middle third.
I don't think the Bills have that guy on this roster. But if the pass rush can consistently get pressure, the Bills may be able to force a turnover.
need to play the falcons like the bears did. allowed only two falcons tds but a bunch of fg's. thats what we need to do. they will get their yards but we gotta just hold them in the red zone and cause turnovers and be more aggressive on those turnovers.
The Bears had two things going for them that helped them out in that game:
1) A tremendously slow, grass field.
2) A fresh start with no real game tape available.
2.5) Tarik Cohen.
With the game on the carpet, the Falcons are going to be much much faster than they were in that Chicago game. On both sides of the ball. Which I think is going to be a lot for the Bills to handle.
-
I've seen plenty of accusations of white privilege (and have in fact had the phrase used on me before), but never seen anyone actually define "white privilege". I would be interested in hearing a proper definition, if you would be so kind as to indulge me.
1) I like your Lovecraft sig.
2) I think many folks think white privilege is used to denote this idea that white people are more affluent or well-off or prosperous in general. That by being born "white" theres this assumption that you had a relatively easy upbringing or whatever. That idea is clearly false on multiple levels.
Instead, I think "white privilege" is reflective of the American reality that to a large degree, being white affords you a number of "luxuries" that minorities don't receive. The biggest among them is the lack of a sense of otherness. We're historically a "white" country. Built by white men, engineered and conceived of by white men, populated by white men, etc. Blacks were initially property (yes, I know some whites were too) and upon being "freed" still could not shake off their blackness. Functionally, black folk were subdivided into a discrete legal class in the south for a 100 years after slavery was ended. In the north, they were still a discrete "other" class but more in a social/civil engineering way. The minute the law reacted to comingle whites and blacks more frequently, huge portions of white people simply relocated to live among other white people. To a certain extent, we still see those things today.
The "privilege" comes in the difference in experience walking around this country as a person of color vs. a person of whiteness. The different built-in assumptions that are applied to each class based on our culture and experience. It can be as powerful as the association between blackness and criminality. Or something smaller like the association of black folks with being loud or unruly. And the absolute worst part about it is that those associations essentially form a feedback loop of resentment. White folks see black folks as more prone to criminality. So when they see a crime committed by a black person (lets not get into how media affects this) it essentially reinforces a baseline belief. Which leads to trepidation on the part of white folks dealing with black folks. Which just emphasizes the feelings of otherness by black folks which leads to more resentment. It's toxic.
It's the frequently treatment of blacks by whites as blacks needing to "pass muster" to gain baseline social respect. White folks usually don't have to do that. The presumption starts off neutral, if not positive. By acting out, white folks ostracize themselves from friend groups, etc. It's like an inverse relationship.
I mean, this is a pretty big topic and I'm sure I'm a bit rambly here. And i'm by no means an expert. I'm just a white dude from WNY. But I feel like i've had a pretty broad array of experiences, consumed a decent amount of materials on the subject and I like to think I can be objective.
Funny.
We think the most common thing you see when people disagree about white privilege is that it's a ridiculous SJW canard that pisses all over every single minority who has carved a successful life for themselves.
Let me know how white privilege accounts for 78% of all black children being born out of wedlock -- one of the biggest contributors to their poverty.
Let me know how white privilege accounts for 52% of black males dropping out of high school and foregoing a diploma -- the other big contributor to their poverty.
You don't have a definition of white privilege that fixes those two massive problems facing blacks today. In fact, even when successful black men and women point this out, what happens? The left attacks.
Uncle Tom! Get back on the porch, monkey! Or what was that recent one? Mediocre Negros?
Yeah. White privilege is the problem.
Well, these are relatively straightforward answers. You're simply describing EFFECTS of institutional racism as CAUSES of black underachievement.
These sorts of ideas essentially box you into a corner. Because your objection to single-parent households in black communities has to have a "why." WHY are there more single-parent households in black communities? Your theory of causation necessarily entails that it is blackness itself that is driving these forces. That if blacks would stop getting divorced, stop dropping out of college, they'd finally get ahead.
Leaving aside the unfortunate reality that by the time blacks were "free" to pursue their own self-interest in a broad manner, the country had already been largely colonized and developed, and further leaving aside the reality of generations of wealth accumulation that white folks were privy to that black folks had zero access to, the objective reality is that the demographic splits between whites and blacks in the conditions you've called out reinforce the notion of the achievement gap.
Single parent white households are significantly more "productive" than single parent black households.
Whites without high school diplomas make as much blacks WITH high school diplomas.
If these are the only things driving the achievement gap we'd see more comparable numbers. But we don't. Because we're dealing with the effects of a society that engineered disparate racial treatment during the largest periods of wealth gains in its history. It's like playing Monopoloy, letting one player go around the board half a dozen times and then letting player 2 start playing the game already in progress.
And FTR - "mediocre negroes" was an unfortunate choice of words, obviously. But its essentially a response to this idea that conservative outlets seem to push: that if a black man or woman comes out and disagrees with racism, that racism isnt real. The idea of black sponsorship being evidence of a non-issue. An idea that you floated earlier.
-
No, it does not. This is an assertion that correlation is causation.
In order to prove institution racism, you need to demonstrate that racism is a motivator of the policy. When examining the case of North Carolina's voting laws, you must prove that the desire to eliminate electoral fraud was not the motivator. All requirements and prohibitions imposed by the law in question can far more linearly be squared with the desire to protect the integrity of the vote than it can with seeking to disenfranchise minorities.
1) Correlation does not equal causation. However, correlation and causation are not mutually exclusive. Many correlative relationships are also causal. Like....tons and tons.
2) The NC analysis is pretty clearly laid out in the opinion of the Court. I believe the phrase was "almost surgical precision?" And of course there's the argument that "electoral fraud" isn't an issue of any true import and needs to be "eliminated" in the way that ghosts need to be eliminated. But thats neither here nor there.
I will grant that I think a large portion of what motivates those laws is politics and the desire to keep Republicans (really "conservatives" more than Republicans) on a tilted electoral ground. Like I said, I dont think its a bunch of white dudes sitting around saying "how can we stop blacks from voting." Instead, I think its a bunch of R's saying "how can we stop democrats from voting." The problem comes in the secondary analysis. The history and rationale behind these marginalization efforts. The labeling of black folk as "takers" or "race baiters" or any other codeword nonsense. And of course, theres the idea that when one wants to take an action and there is a clearly foreseeable, disparate effect on communities of color that is ignored as the action is undertaken, it isnt too tough to call that racist. Because ultimately you're making the determination that "welp, a bunch of black folks wont be able to vote but tough stuff for them"
2) The data you're referencing comes with a problem built in....the ratio of crimes committed to perpetrators identified/punished is not 1:1. So we're working with data that we hope is indicative of the world at large but we can't really know for sure by the data. Obviously we have to take it at face value as it's the best we can do at the moment but we also have to be mindful of how biases could affect the data set. On the small scale, that's a given LEO letting a woman skate on an assault incident while arresting a man involved in a similar incident. Those things absolutely happen. Do they happen enough to toss the data in the trash? No, obviously not. But its not something that should be ignored.
And not for nothing but to prove that no bias is absent in the data we're working with, you'd need figures that support the notion that the ratio of incarcerated men to incarcerated women matches the ratio of crimes committed by men to the crimes committed by women. Is it 10 to 1? 8 to 1? 20 to 1?
You have an odd definition of "institutional racism." Usually, that term refers to the unrecognized or unacknowledged bias in social, commercial, or governance systems, where such bias is historically inherent and slow to change.
You are the first person I've ever seen describe it as "institutions that are racist." That's a bizarrely concrete interpretation of a phrase I've always seen defined in a very abstract manner.
But they're really the same thing, right? Those things of which you speak (let's call them biases) ARE institutional norms and rules of order. That's more of what I was speaking to. And I think the key is that they are "unrecognized" or "unacknowledged." It's the difference between explicitly racist structures (Apartheid, Jim Crow, slavery) and structures (housing policy, policing policy, etc) with implicitly racist features.
perhaps I didnt describe it well. I meant something like "the institution in question has racist applications nested inside" rather than "The institution in question is explicitly racist"
Does that make sense?
-
I genuinely a lot of minority friends who think the white privilege thing is embarrassing and damaging to minorities as well as whites.
Should I tell them they just don't understand the issue?
Perhaps. I'd have to speak with them about their underlying rationale. Perhaps they (and you?) don't understand what "white privilege" means. That's usually the most common thing I see when people rage about WP.
I'll say this though: the notion that the status of a given speaker altering the truth value of the statement being offered is kind of ridiculous. If your minority friends say things that arent correct, their status as minorities doesnt make them correct.
You're damn right I don't care to consider it. Because it's patent nonsense. There are actual institutions and laws giving minorities preferential treatment in this country. That's a fact. Everything else (especially what you hear from the BLM crowd) is anecdotal and lacking in any fact.
You're entitled to believe what you'd like. Just a shame that your mistaken beliefs have actual real world consequences.
-
Disparate impact is not evidence of institutional racism.
Just because a law has a greater impact on members of a certain race does not make it racist. An argument that more cases of negative impact is a firm indicator of racism must start with the base assumption that members of a given race are more prone to negative impacts because they are members of that race, which to me, in and of itself, seems to be a racist argument.
I'll give you a borrowed example:
According to the Bureau of Justice, in 2013 across local, state and federal prisons, 213,700 women were incarcerated, while 2,092,400 men were incarcerated.
Making an argument based on disparate impact, the American penal system is amongst the most sexist institutions in history, given the population is greater than 50% female, while approximately 90% of the prison population is male.
That, however, is a poor argument, and I think you know why.
1) Yes, the disproportionate impact of certain laws IS evidence of racism. Not ALL disproportionate impact, but just as one does not necessarily entail the other, you cannot claim it precludes the other. Disparate impact analysis has a pretty firm foundation in the study of law so its clearly not irrelevant.
2) Your gender-based analogy isnt really on point. But EVEN IF I grant that the underlying rationale is worth considering, why would it be so difficult to conclude that the criminal justice system may treat the sexes in a "sexist" manner when it comes to enforcement? I don't think that's out of the question given traditional social norms and gender roles.
The city of Chicago.
True! Although probably not in the way you think it is...
-
Why? It's the truth.
I'm tired of the "white privilege" lie. My family never owned a slave, they didn't even arrive in this country until after 1910 for the most part. And yet somehow I'm supposed to feel guilty about slavery or the eradication of the native population?
Nope, sorry. Not buying it. And I'm certainly NOT going to apologize for anything I'm not responsible for.
With all due respect, this comment suggests you don't have a very good understanding of the issue. And further suggests that you don't care much to consider, let alone understand, the issue.
That's fine. Totally your choice. An unfortunate one nonetheless.
-
Because it isn't.
INSTITUTIONAL racism is an active thing by its very definition.
Not really. Institutional refers to institutions. Institutions are not actions. Institutions are structures/systems.
So when we look at things like community structure or housing policy or criminal justice practices, we can find the frame work for racism absent explicit "screw over dark people" motivations.
-
Blacklivesmatter.
The New Black Panthers.
BLM, clearly not.
The New Black Panthers....perhaps. I wouldnt deny that there are racists (or at least prejudiced folks) among racial/ethnic minorities. However, the source of their racism is different in character.
-
1
-
-
Why not?
He asked for examples of institutions actively practicing racism, and explanations why they're racist.
If you're gonna make the accusation, back it up.
If we're going to discuss complex issues, we should treat them with the respect they deserve.
Although, you've provided a nice example of why these issues never seem to go anyway: the tacit implication that if something is not actively, aggressively and explicitly racist (eg. Jim Crow) then it isnt racist.
-
No, it's pretty much white guilt and fear of being called a racist.
Racism is the new communism, and the latest iteration of the "civil rights" movement is nothing more than McCarthyism. Period.
Don't be afraid. I'm not.
......
Welp. This post isnt all that promising for the discussion
(edited for clarity)
-
North Carolina legislature
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/
This is a pretty good example. Might as well start the discussion there.
At your request, Larry:
Please list the institution you believe to be racist, and in what ways they are racist.
If we're going to have this/these discussion(s) we're going to have to try to use nuance and analysis. I don't think "list the racists!" is going to get us very far.
-
Holy ****, that's a real thing?
If you're talking about disproportionate sentencing, I think you're wrong.
That's an -economic- thing, not a -racial- thing.
I'd wager that if middle class blacks and whites caught with marijuana were compared, the imprisonment outcome would likely be the same.
1) I don't think that "economic thing" and "racial thing" are mutually exclusive. There's no reason something can't be driven by both factors. Particularly given the significant social overlap between the two.
2) There have been a number of studies that have controlled for those things (income, frequency of offense, etc) that have still found disproportionate sentencing when other factors are controlled. They could obviously be wrong but I found them rather compelling. Although its been a minute since Ive read them so its possible the literature has changed.
3) Specifically with respect to drug policy, its pretty tough to argue its an economics thing given the stated intentions of the Nixon administration in setting off the "War on Drugs." Even conservative firebrands like Newt see the serious criminal justice issues of treating crack cocaine offenses differently than powdered cocaine offenses.
I should clarify right now what I mean when I talk about institutional racism so people don't get the wrong idea:
I do not ascribe to the idea that the vast majority of US cultural institutions are actively and aggressively racist. I think its much more insidious than that. A huge portion of it stems from the legacy of slavery, the greatest of moral ills in our country's history. An institution so destructive that we've essentially never been able to regain balance. And I don't know that we ever will. Because American society did a serviceable job marginalizing explicit, hate-fueled racism but that just resulted in decades of "work-arounds." Explicit white superiority morphed into other forms. And we're at a point where the mere mention of the long-lasting effects of these policies brings out resentment from all sides.
I think many of those iniquities are still present, albeit in less powerful forms. And in more self-delusional forms. I think there are many racists who would loathe the idea of admitting that they're racist. They rest on the distinction set forth in that there amazon book up there^ Or they talk in hushed tones about "no, he's not like them. He's one of the good ones." They've incorporated this idea of blackness being equal to criminality or low class or poverty-stricken into their world view. Not EXPLICITLY, but through upbringing and social norms among white folks.
And I'll admit, I suffer from some of those things too. I've "joked" about things that are objectively repugnant. I've had thoughts that are essentially impulses that I've had issues with upon reflecting for like three seconds after the thought passes. Some folks would call that "white guilt." Whereas I prefer to think of it as self-reflection and simply trying to get to the motivations of what is a huge social problem in this country. If that's "white guilt" then so be it.
-
You're more obtuse than a 140 degree angle, and given your second paragraph, you're a complete fraud as well given that you can't pin down what makes the "black experience" so unique that it would be worth discussing.
Name the racist institutions, and then explain how and why they are racist.
Honestly, it's most of them. Although some of them are suffering from "residual" institutional racism: aka what used to be codified set the stage for where we are today.
Things like criminal justice (drug policy, policing models, brutality, sentencing, slave labor protected by incarceration, etc), housing policy, voting policy, redistricting, etc. All have and/or had (to a degree such that the effects remain relevant) serious racial inequities.
Frankly, something as basic as the "institution" of civil discourse in this country has serious racism issues.
If you'd like to discuss any of these issues, I'd suggest making a separate thread and we can (hopefully) have a productive discussion.
-
The Russians did not interfere with the election.
If this means "the Russians did not actively alter vote counts or hack voting apparatus" I agree.
If this means that Russian actors had no impact on the election, I strongly and vehemently disagree. Whether they SWUNG the election is debatable. But they were clearly involved in the course of the election.
Someone, no direct proof who, (although that doesn't stop the Left) released the ACTUAL E-mail of the DNC and John Podesta.
This has been clung to as "Russian interference" by those who cannot face that their candidate and views were defeated in November.
But......but....popular vote ?
There..........I saved you a response..........
This is an oversimplification and incorrect, bro-chacho.
-
Did Bills Fan Houston Texas, Tefflebees, That's What She Said, The Professor and Frostbit Mic make it over?
FBM is here. My guess is we see Tex and Teefle/TWSS before we see Jay or likei've.
-
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you just not know the difference between individual racists and institutional racism?
Institutional racism, which no longer exists, would impact the group that was being systematically discriminated against.
Individual racists impacts are very limited, and impact only individuals; and given that there are individuals of all races who are racist, these experiences are not unique to the blacks.
And again, I'll note you haven't responded to this: "Map out "the black experience" for me. Be sure to include specific details about how the experiences of Colon Powell's children are more similar to those of a black inner city child than to those of James Mattis, and how the experiences of a black child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Alabama are vastly different from those of a white child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Louisiana."
Yikes.
if i buy you guys a book will you read it?
im a disabled poor guy but i would be happy as hell to shell out a measly five bucks to try to get you to walk into the light on this issue
i read somewhere that this book was required reading in some college courses. i never checked that out but i can see why it would be. there is a faction out there that freely admits we have a problem with too many black ass holes right now. note this is similar to the problem we USED to have with too many white ass holes that werent getting called out for their ass holery. this is a legitimate problem that just keeps hurting our black communities and thus the collective at large
mr starkes is just an average black man, accountant i think, that got tired of the blatant bull ѕhit and started writing books calling out ass hole blacks for what they are. his first one is mostly about the violent ass hole blacks, his second is about the race grievance exploiters like al sharpon and blm. hes very very blunt, he chooses to just call that violent faction ni99ers, similar to chris rock. in fact, all these authors i mention call out that ass hole faction, though they do it in different ways with different terms. but they are pointing out the poison that currently infects too much of our blackness for what it is
this is just a reality that we have to admit. mr starkes is blunt, while mr sowell is brilliantly more subtle. i would love to buy you some of his books but they are much more expensive. and mr starkes does do a good job with his sledgehammer approach, too. at least it would get you started to thinking about how to push yourself past this ridiculous mental block that blacks are above any criticism or its racist
oops forget the link
if you promise you will actually read it i will send you a voucher to get this on your device. just pm me your email
If you've accurately encapsulated the central thesis of this book, then I think I'll pass. No use in wasting my time considering an argument that's bunk on its face.
-
Well sir, I would argue that anyone's interpretation of what "borders" on perjury is NOT enough for someone (of any party) to resign
Good to have you over here Larry, they need your help.
And that may be, although calls for resignation dont necessarily clear a high bar before being sent out into the world.
Democrats are adjusting. And in defense of them, they're trying to feel out the best way to approach a very non-traditional public authority who has done/said some pretty concerning things. This is all part of it. Perhaps you think its histrionic, but I'm sure you recall the narratives back in 08-09 prior to the BBMB POLHAMMER being delivered unto all of our heads. Is it more ridiculous than the stories about Obama enlisting a Hitler-Youth-esque "army?" And not for nothing but the Democrats have been incentivized to strongly react to everything given the victories the right have achieved over the last 8 years or so. Republicans showed that blatant forced hysteria and ridiculous stories could yield electoral wins on a pretty consistent basis.
I think we're FINALLY approach something of an equilibrium point. Sessions has recused so this whole thing will run its course. Frankly, I'm a bit too cynical to think that even if an independent investigation were to reveal even more concerning things than we already *think* we know, the Trump constituency is unlikely to give it any consideration at all. This election took the conspiracy theory cognition mainstream. I think the middle ~20% may be fluid but Trump's baseline 35-40%? They're locked in, regardless of what happens.
Also, thank you for the welcome B-Man. Glad to be "back."
The Perjury Allegation against Jeff Sessions Is Meritless
by Andrew C. McCarthy
Original ArticleReport: Obama officials spent final days purposely pushing Russia allegations.
LET’S ALL PANIC: Everyone Met With The Russian Ambassador.
No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists.
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak Appeared As Obama White House Visitor At Least 22 Timesby Kaitlan Collins
Original ArticleThis McCarthy article is kind of ridiculous.
He's not wrong in that it would be a very difficult case to prove. Most perjury is. But a case being difficult to successfully prosecute doesnt mean that the case is devoid of merit. Unless Mr. McCarthy and similarly-minded folks would like to concede that the Clinton email investigation was also "meritless"
-
Do we need any further evidence of why the conservatives and libertarians (and others) on this board feel free to laugh and call out the liberals when they get excited with the current "scandal" ?
From the "paper of record" and the source that all the mainstream media point to.....
I appreciate that they are no longer making an attempt to hide their bias "We don't know all the facts, but we made our decision anyway"
The desperation of democrats and the DC elite is palpable, and (amazingly) will only get worse as the administration starts passing a few more reforms.
One could argue that behavior bordering on perjury could be grounds for it being "time to go" regardless of the full set of facts.
Its not like this sort of political game hasnt been common among folks on the right for 25 years.
-
1. jrober38, spursfan
2. 2007 - August 2016 (banned without a single infraction), September to yesterday
3. Toronto
4. 14
5. List of your fears; spiders
6. List of your turn ons; wife
7. Fitz or Trent?; Fitzmagic
8. Have you ever tried reattata?; no
9. mrags should stay. True or False; and true
10. Complete the following sentence: "Ralph is " deceased.
how did I not realize you switched your name to spursfan.
Glad to see you here man.
-
I don't know if thats such a good idea, bruh...
I went against my better judgement a few weeks ago and posted a post about Tony Romo just based off some nonsense that was floating around and it turned into a barrel-fire. Never in a million years did I think there was tangibility in 1-Bills being reluctant to pursue someone due to the explosive fan reaction, but then there was a gigantic social media initiative launched a week ago that was a head-turner for anyone in the media who was finding themselves increasingly shut out. Kind of validated that there was truth to there bring concerns from the FO around fan/media reactions. By no means would I ever validate it or justify, quite the opposite (I'm a fan before anything else), but I gate that it came to fruition. The fans are well within their right to be frustrated. I just think this is just the beginning of their frustration this offseason.
Oh... and Mike Williams from Clemson is fat and slow.
Sports.
grins
I'm going to miss Shaw's reports after each game....
Damn it. Another one of the good ones.
Teef was right.
-
Hey buddy
Buffalo716 here
Nice to see ya
Sup dude!
Yeah man. This might work out.
-
Anyone know exactly why the board was shut down?
I just find this really bizarre.
My guess would be the bittermen moderators got sick of doing the nothing it took to keep the board going.
So Bills brass, in their never-ending quest to satisfy Bills fans (and quasi trolls like myself) pulled the plug.
Because when you're historically moribund, you should do whatever it takes to kill off passionate fan engagement.
-
Follow your gut instinct.
My gut instinct led me here. And remembered my login.
Man, I dont even know...
DC Sean McDermott vs QB Matt Ryan
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I think thats on the table if the Bills can get a 10 point lead relatively early. I think if they fall behind, its not all that likely.
Our run defense has been fine for most of the season except for a tiny handful of plays (Tarik Cohen for 46 Wk 1, Matt Stafford for 19 last week, Randall Cobb for 10). I think we can handle the normal approach to the run game simply because of our speed and the current personnel likely to play a lot of snaps.
What will be interesting to see is whether the Bills can make some money on "tricky" run plays. Reverses, etc. That could work well against the Falcons' defensive speed and was a large part of Cohen's big 46 yard run.
I also dont doubt that Tyrod will be able to move the ball on the ground.
It should be an interesting game, for sure.