Yeah, but the issue is what happens when those cultures begin to change, before integration, (a very woke thing in the 1950s) Basketball began to be to be a part of the culture for black people. Integration was the “ramp” then that allowed black players to have a chance to then soar once in the NBA.
I did “criticise and nit-pick” her definition of “Simspons Humor”. She provided a cite, the example of Family Guy. I explained why that cite was incorrect and did not meet the definition she had provided. Again, I always ask for cites when a claim needs them. I always ask for a definition if a term needs one. This is one of the many reasons I love the Dope so much. Not only is that behavior acceptable, every body else does it too.
By left-wing I mean the common left-of-centre views on this board, which you seem to be calling liberal here. I’ve never understood this terminology, as some people seem to treat ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ as synonymous, and others as contrasting positions. 
…I assume you don’t want relationship advice from strangers online?
Right. The same thing happened with football and baseball. But now we have a situation where Black Americans are again under represented in baseball. Not just compared to other racial groups, but also compared to Black Americans from earlier time periods. What happened? It wasn’t that Blacks lost their talent for baseball. It’s not that MLB team owners are more racist than the owners in the NFL and NBA.* IMHO what happened is there was a change in the various Black cultures around the US where the interest in baseball declined. I don’t know why that happened, but IMHO it’s the most likely explanation.
*. My guess is that for every Marge Schott (MLB) there’s a Donald Sterling (NBA) or Daniel Snyder (NFL).
Nah, she’s used to my idio syncracies. She loves me. I love her. We chat on Facebook messenger during work hours and talk on the phone every week night. She lives in New Jersey. I live in Philly. We see each other at least once a week.
More, she knows that when I ask for a definition or a cite it is not a sign of hostility.
Yet another claim that’s going to require some unpacking on your part.
I.E. Exactly what rules themselves are tilted towards left-wing sensibilities?
Must be difficult, living in different states. But whatever works for you.
FYI, I definitely took it as a sign of hostility, which is why I prioritised responding to other replies when I was snowed under in the other thread.
And that again is when a culture decides that other sports are more interesting, not much for the issue at hand when people from a culture are changing, see an underrepresented sports that they begin to see as interesting, and asking for more fairness to get into… only to be told now that that yearning is a “woke virus”.
As they say, “reality has a liberal bias.” If the rules aren’t based on lies, then they are “tilted towards left-wing sensibilities” because those sensibilities are largely based on objective fact, while right wing sensibilities are nearly all based on falsehoods. Being “fair” in the way a centrist or rightwinger defines is absolutely requires lying in the Right’s favor; because they are factually wrong.
It’s the money! Youth baseball has priced Black families out. It’s the same reason you don’t see very many Black athletes for US soccer. They are both rich suburban white kid sports in the US.
It’s not. It’s utterly standard behavior on this board; and in one form or another in a whole lot of conversations not on this board.
Why did you take it as a sign of hostility?
Absolutely not. That is the kind of thing that right wing people who complain about the “woke left” say.
In fact, there are people all over the political spectrum who despise and dismiss people with different ideas. There are people on the right who cry “communism” at any attempt to collectively improve anything. There are people on the left who cry “fascist” or “hater”. And then there the people who are willing to engage in political discourse. And of course, the vast number of people who hate political discourse, but didn’t especially hate our put down other people for their political views.
Now, of course, it depends on the views. You are more likely to be despised by the left if you talk about how to keep “those” people in their place, and more likely to be despised by the right if you talk about how we really ought to confiscate wealth because it’s basically evil to have too much money. But those are both areas where the disagreement isn’t about how to improve the world, but rather about what better looks like. If you generally agree on a goal, people from various political persuasions are usually willing to discuss ways to get there as normal political disagreement.
The main goal of the Right is to hurt and oppress people, which is malicious by definition. If you removed malice from humanity you would pretty much erase the Right as a side effect. So yeah, the people who are targets for persecution tend to believe the people trying to persecute them while screaming how much they hate their victims are in fact driven by hate.
Then using such a word, especially as a political weapon, should be just as, if not more, difficult.
This more text
There is no such thing as, " reverse discrimination. "
This board is only ‘left of centre’ to fervent rightists. I mean, you’re from the UK, most of this board isn’t even your centre.
That is bizarre to me - soccer is so very much the game of poor kids here.
No one has done this. Do you think opposing affirmative action is ‘trying to keep “those” people in their place’? Does believing America mostly has a police violence problem rather than a police racism problem constitute ‘trying to keep “those” people in their place’? Does a belief that supporting the principle of free speech is more important than preventing hate speech constitute ‘trying to keep “those” people in their place’? Because that sure seems to be the assumption here.
And why is ‘trying to keep “those” people in their place’ such a big moral issue, while letting people die from lack of healthcare is politics as usual? The second seems objectively worse to me, yet the first is what inspires moral disgust from the left.
I don’t really see how this area is different from any other. There are always small differences in what ‘better’ looks like, and the average non-woke person is someone who thinks ‘the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating’, not someone who wants to bring back segregation. Do you genuinely believe the latter is true?
FFS, I wasn’t using the word as a political weapon. I was replying to an OP asking if the Democrats should ‘tone down the wokeness’. It’s right there in the title, why wouldn’t I use it?
This is what I’m talking about when I say the board is biased. You can viciously slander half of humanity all day and no one turns a hair, but say something negative about the left and people will jump all over you.