META: "The End of "Stick to Sports" (MGoBlog Mentioned in Ringer article)
Interesting article about sports writers possibly getting outside their lane? Mentions our Fearless Leader as an example. Should sports be safe spaces from politics? Should we demand sports writers stay inside the realm of sports? https://theringer.com/sportswriters-media-donald-trump-politics-a8b332b…
[Ed-S: aaaand it's done. Had to banish a 6-year veteran. No more nice things]
January 30th, 2017 at 7:24 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 8:16 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^
Marijuana legalization improves housecleaning and thus advances society. It also helps with skiing.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:34 PM ^
To be fair, I think Brian trends libertarian, if his opinions on sports issues are any indication. Ace and Seth, left all the way, sure. But mostly on Twitter, not much in main posts or the board.
January 30th, 2017 at 6:07 PM ^
of my Phohibitionist Party opinions being oppressed by all you left and right wingers!
January 30th, 2017 at 8:12 PM ^
And the right doesn't? Get serious.
What you're talking about is a human thing, not a political thing. Everyone thinks they're right.
The real trick is being open-minded enough to recognize that you CAN be wrong, having enough critical thinking skills to determine whether you ARE wrong, then having the strength of character to ACKNOWLEDGE that you've been wrong and revise your thinking.
January 30th, 2017 at 3:49 PM ^
I predict this thread to be either locked or deleted.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^
All of our bases are covered.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:32 PM ^
I predict that it might be deleted.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:34 PM ^
I predict that this thread might end with a roundhouse kick to the head.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:44 PM ^
I predict that all traces of this post will eventually disappear coinciding with either the eventual heat death of the universe, or the Big Crunch.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:58 PM ^
I predict that this post will end with a whimper.
Or with a bang.
One of those.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:15 PM ^
... are obvious.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:14 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^
Thus far this has been false. As someone who disagrees with the proprietors on a number of issues I can say this with some certainty.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:24 PM ^
Perhaps your disagreements in general stick around, but I don't think this is true in the case of politics.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:39 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:47 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 5:27 PM ^
tha stephenrjking does, there would be far less knee-jerk rections that immediatly bow-up the whole thread.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:17 PM ^
I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
January 30th, 2017 at 3:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
even when he goes a different direction than I would. Obviously, this creates some challenges for antiquated policies at some websites (aherm) but. . . I think these might be revisited, some careful new boundaries established, and the place become quite a lot more interesting.
Would require more careful moderation. . .
January 30th, 2017 at 3:52 PM ^
Threads about politics don't get nuked because the topic is bad or unworthy of discussion. It's because they always - ALWAYS - turn into shitshows.
January 30th, 2017 at 3:53 PM ^
I don't think there's anyway to have moderation that isn't biased, and there are literally almost an endless number of forums for which one can discuss these issues. It's not like we're starving for places to comment on politics (I direct you to your Facebook). I believe there's value in places where we can set it aside.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:47 PM ^
or full of nimr*ds (take CBS Sports). But politics in sports? Not so much. And involving our coach? Agree that it's probably too much to ask, but I for one would relish some back and forth with bright Michigan posters on these subjects, and expect it to assume a slightly higher level than the general torpid run of national discourse.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:40 PM ^
Clearly we like engaging (for the most part) with each other.
It's always interesting to me to glean what fellow mgobloggers political viewpoints may be, even if I don't agree, and occassionally I learn or understand something better.
Maybe there can be one or two threads, thoughtfully introduced? With politically-neutral (as much as possible) groundrules, like no ad hominim attacks?
Register in advance? A limited (& even) number of people across the political spectrum? Egregious violators of existing civility rules ineligible?
Alright, so it'd be a ridiculous amount of work...
<sigh>
there's gotta be some way.
January 30th, 2017 at 9:07 PM ^
And I think six or seven years ago, we could have had that type of thoughtful discussion here. Today, the signal/noise ratio is terrible, and anything meaningful just gets lost in the rash of mouth breathing mindless bullshit. There are still a lot of the "good" posters around, but they are out-numbered now.
I love a good, honest debate. It has just become almost impossible to have that on the internet today, and that's a shame.
January 30th, 2017 at 3:52 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 3:53 PM ^
this doesn't seem to matter for me. Generally, their arguments are so poor, and statements so ill-informed that even those that "agree" with me make me sad.
Rob
January 30th, 2017 at 3:52 PM ^
anything of sportswriters. That said, it's very simple - I have no interest in a sportswriters opinion of politics. I had no interest when it was their opinion of President Obama. I have no interest in their opinion of President Trump. If I'm going to read politics, I'm attempting to find informed sources, and 99% of sportswriters don't fit the bill.
So no demands, I'm not mad at them, I don't think they are bad people... I just don't read it. If they would like me to read their stuff, they may want to try sports, since I'm more likely to read their sports material. Quite possible they don't care. :)
Rob
January 30th, 2017 at 3:56 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:03 PM ^
Yep - the sportswriters referenced in that article were emoting more than offering an informed opinion. I'd bet my life savings that more than one of them hadn't even bothered to read the actual Executive Order and the statutes referenced in the EO.
Emotivism equals argumentation for many these days. It's unfortunate and unsurprising.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^
Opinions should be taken with a grain of salt unless it's one of a lawyers with regards to the EO. Hard to understand these days I know.
The thing most disturbing to me about emotivism is that instead of feeling for the victims of say the Quebec City shootings, the first thing people check to see is whether their narrative fits the situation.
If it doesn't, you won't hear about it. If it does, it'll fill up your news feed for the next 3 days.
Get ready for some white men are evil memes regarding Quebec City now that it has been found out that the shooter was not a Muslim refugee.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^
I like Ace and Brian, but after reading this site for 10+ years, I can confidently say there are zero reasons to believe that they have any expertise regarding the constitutionality of executive orders affecting immigration (especially purportedly unconstitutional actions coming from the executive branch which would be even more noteworthy given Presidential powers over immigration).
It's not that they couldn't have informed opinions (they're both smart dudes), but the reality is that their tweets and those of their colleagues are basically just echoes bouncing off of each other from the media chamber in which they function.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:26 PM ^
This is also why you have every right not to read their hypothetical opinions on politics.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:32 PM ^
Which is why the "stick to sports" crowd is right in this particular instance. There is no conceivable way that Bomani Jones or Stan Van Gundy or Brian all have the expertise to offer anything close to a valuable opinion on this matter.
There are plenty of political topics where legal expertise isn't needed to have a good opinion and a sports journo may be able to offer an interesting take (sex assault on college campuses, etc). This isn't one of them.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:58 PM ^
Meh,
Studies have shown that viewers of certain 24 hour news channels are more wrong about current events than those who have not watched any news. I can't see how what Bomani Jones or Stan Van Gundy or Brian has to say would be any worse.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:48 PM ^
Here's the thing. You say Brian's in an echo chamber and in the same breath say that other opinions (Brian's, in this case) aren't of any value. That's an echo chamber. Dialogue is essential to breaking down barriers and learning more. Shutting it down does no one any good whatsoever and it creates the kind of miasmic climate that is pervasive in politics.
I don't think you're completely wrong about the "keep the sports blog on sports" thing, and on this website they seem to do a fairly decent job with keeping it that way. However, if we're talking about the @mgoblog Twitter account, which is (to my knowledge) Brian's personal and only account, I don't see why he should have to refrain from stating his thoughts on whatever issue he'd like to. He has a voice. If people don't want to listen, then don't. That's pretty easy, especially if it's Twitter or a website like this one.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:49 PM ^
Why? He said it on his twitter account (yes, their certainly is a connection to this site, which makes sense, because it's his site), he has to stick to sports on the only twitter account he maintains? If you need Brian's opinions so badly that you also follow his twitter account, I think you should be prepared for an opinion that has nothing to do with sports.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:54 PM ^
I'm a lawyer, and this stuff is not so complicated as to require real legal knowledge as to the EO itself.
January 30th, 2017 at 10:31 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
The tweet linked from the article was not about the immigration ban, it was about reports referring to possible changes in the makeup of the National Security Council.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:31 PM ^
Well if they had read the statutes in the EO, it wouldn't have been much help considering the drafters were too careless to even cite them correctly. On two occasions, 8 USC 1222 was referenced instead of 8 USC 1202.
Kinda seems like you didn't do the very thing you're demanding from others. We have a word for that.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
I did read the EO. I also read the statutes it referenced (assuming you're right about incorrect statutory references it would've been a corrected version since the version I read was correct). You don't have a point.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^
It still hasn't been corrected, so either you're lying, or you unknowingly read an irrelevant statute.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-…
January 30th, 2017 at 4:50 PM ^
I read a version with the cites embedded and I didn't notice that the cites were incorrect from a legal/drafting perspective. Why does that matter? I'm not an expert and don't claim to be.
January 30th, 2017 at 7:27 PM ^