Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    10974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

15578 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thread name should be changed: Hey PK -- What would you say you did here?
  2. This absolute madman choosing an outside table at night in Minneapolis in December Bitchass aggy Caruso will be guest picker for College Gameday. Morning after taking a big L. You love to see it
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-anti-indian-hate.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
  4. Yeah all of these stories kind of smacked of "she was going to give me her phone number, but her friends needed to go to the bathroom and I didn't see her again all night"
  5. I'm somewhat surprised that Olynyk and Sochan haven't been seeing more playing time.
  6. Love seeing this for Sooner nation
  7. Genius move, to bring this story back just in time for the holidays
  8. I won't begrudge the guy for writing about his personal experience, especially since he was perceptive and honest enough to acknowledge his own mediocrity. Nor would I begrudge the guy for finding other white millennial men who have walked similar paths and felt similar feelings. What I take issue with is his going back and forth between anecdotes and statistics. I take issue with him teasing a hypothesis that he's too chickenshit to full-throatedly stand behind, in the same way Elon Musk is too chickenshit to ride one of his own rockets. He'd rather just publish the essay and hand the baton over to the usual gang of white grievance blowhards. What use is this essay? It's already being used as justification for anti-wokism. But if that wasn't his intention, what else could it have been? To be more charitable to him, he may have been trying to better understand why white men moved toward the manosphere and connected the dots starting with his own insecurities and resentments and arriving at some of the entry-level concepts upon which white resentment rests. But if you really think about it, is "I was a liberal guy, until this one bad thing happened to me" even a unique story? The only difference here is that it's career shit instead of something mundane like a divorce.
  9. I honestly believe this decision was made in Sark's mind the moment he saw Kirby Smart tell recruits that Texas is soft in the postgame presser.
  10. I agree! But so many people are scared to jump out of the airplane, and need that "steady" revenue as they start out. Eventually they reach a point where they perceive the relative opportunity cost of continuing with the 9-5.
  11. and OJ was still looking for the real killer
  12. I'm sorry but this essay is just so cynical. Using a personal anecdote about having a project passed on in Hollywood as the prologue? What assurance do we have that his pilot was even any good? He received one of the most cliche fucking polite rejection lines, believed it at face value, and that's somehow a data point in support of his conclusion? Part I, centered on "Andrew," is basically the same grievance repackaged. The man was in a dying industry. Once again, I ask, what evidence do we have that this Andrew guy was even any good at his job? Dude, if you are going to be saying shit like this, be man enough to put your name on it. Part II is sort of a mismash of different anecdotes, basically complaining that there was no demand in academia for the niche subjects these particular white millennial men had studied, and heavily implying but never outright saying that the only reason they didn't get the jobs they were finalists for was because they were white men. Part III, back to Hollywood, and we are finally dealing with an anecdote about someone who actually has some evidence of their talent. Still, I wonder if something else was holding "Matt" back professionally, something other than his race and age cohort. Hollywood is notoriously petty and vindictive, and word tends to get around. You piss of the wrong person, or rub them the wrong way, and it's basically curtains for your career. This part in particular: Is that something the showrunner actually told "Matt," or is that creative license on the part of the essayist? I ask because I've seen this play out in Hollywood, where something is progressing and then gets abruptly halted, often by a higher-up. It's usually personal. The above bears all the hallmarks of a "we just really don't want to work with this guy in particular." As is commonly said in the industry, "talent will out." But slightly less well known is that your agent can submit a writing sample that some screener may like, and then when the writing team actually has lunch with you, they realize they'd rather not spend a lot of time with you in a small writer's room, but need a polite way to explain how it got that far but is gonna be a "pass." TV has only gotten better since 2011. Correlation or causation? This is pretty strong evidence that merit isn't being sacrificed when diversity is made a priority. Part IV, the parade of statistics. I agree with the first part, in that it's "not an argument." But it does explain why, when steps are finally taken to remediate the effects of those worse systems of discrimination, the effects are felt so sharply by the people who had historically benefited from that discrimination. The essay so far has failed to rule out a common sense conclusion one could draw from this evidence: that the people "harmed" are "mediocre" at best (and "harmed" is a bit of an excessively dramatic word choice on the part of the essayist). I've yet to see the evidence that these guys actually were better than the people who got hired instead of them. It's a cynical appeal to the losers' desire to believe that they didn't lose fair and square, for which there will always be an audience. Part V returns to the personal anecdote. I suppose it's kind of novel to be pointing the finger at other white men, upset that the Gen Xers were the last ones who could build careers while being mediocre: I call this essay cynical because the essayist proposes absolutely nothing in light of the "problem" it chronicles, fully aware that all of these unanswered questions he's leaving the reader with will almost certainly be filled in by right-wing pundits, opportunistic pundits who will laud the Trump administration's regressive policies and clueless (or equally cynical) consultants who will advise the Democrats to abandon even more of their constituents. And that's what gives the game away. Another thought is where the whole "participation trophy" culture fits into this narrative. Because I remember the 2010s well enough to know how much the Boomers and Gen Xers would criticize the millennials for having been overly coddled and consequently less equipped to deal with the "Real World." Not hard to hypothesize that, among millennial men, the white ones got the most coddling and participation trophies, the ones who internalized the whole "I'm a special boy" mentality that perhaps (just perhaps) was not serving them well in adulthood when confronted with firsthand evidence of their own mediocrity. Just a thought.
  13. I remember Tony as being quicker but, one, his jumper wasn't ever as good as Harper's seems like it already is and, two, Tony lacked the physical tools to be as good of a finisher as Harper already is, so much so that I always felt like his teardrop became such a prominent part of his game as a way to compensate for that. It was beautiful, novel, and frustrated the hell out of opponents. Tony's speed and quickness generated a lot of his interior scoring, and if he didn't quite have confidence that he'd beaten his man he would go to the teardrop. I don't remember him going for contact or just taking it right to a defender the way Harper does. The most impressive part to me is that it looks like Harper is taking it right to a defender or even splitting multiple defenders, but his body moves so fluidly that it looks as if he was completely untouched. Reminds me of a 5'3 running back slipping through gaps and getting out into the open field, but Harper is not a small or wiry guy. He's got superstar written all over him.
  14. I just found it astonishing that he wasn't even suspended for like a quarter. Was he even fined? I'm pretty sure MLB, NBA, even NHL would have meted out some kind of discipline.
  15. I'm beginning to think Dylan Harper could be the first option, and the offense would be damn near unstoppable. But which guard would you bench? Mitch is from the Pop school of minutes management, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to burn all three stars' quality minutes simultaneously.
×
×
  • Create New...