Link: ESPN layoffs will hit on air "talent"

rgw said:

I guess my question is that is it really on a "wing" to be strongly anti-discrimination and pro-equality within the public sphere? I think not. It is not left wing, it is neoliberalism (classical liberalism), and honestly more closely aligned with the Capital-F Founding Fathers' philosophical framework for our country than modern progressivism.

My point being: our country has went so far down the authoritarian right mindset that centrism is taken as "extreme left wing rhetoric."

Click to expand...

Generally, the progressive movement needs the heavy hand of big government to realize their agenda. That does not align them with the Founders and small government origins of this country.

CrimsonProf said:

Grammar aside, that's the dumbest thing I've read on this site in a long while.

Click to expand...

It's the truth. This country has went so right wing authoritarian that the middle ground is called left wing extremism.

rgw said:

It's the truth. This country has went so right wing authoritarian that the middle ground is called left wing extremism.

Click to expand...

No, it's not, and you've got to be a full on Bernie Bro to think that. I'm in the weeds right now but I'll try to waste some time later and give you a response.

Bodhisattva said:

Generally, the progressive movement needs the heavy hand of big government to realize their agenda. That does not align them with the Founders and small government origins of this country.

Click to expand...

Small government origins are a slaver's lie. The only people who wanted limited federal government were the slave states who had all the financial leverage in the war loan payoff phase of our country's beginnings. Many of the states wanted a more centralized government but the split of federal/state rights was a compromise to get all the state's war debts assumed by the federal government.

CrimsonProf said:

No, it's not, and you've got to be a full on Bernie Bro to think that. I'm in the weeds right now but I'll try to waste some time later and give you a response.

Click to expand...

I hope the only thing you're a professor over is an undergrad management course if you think that.

rgw said:

It's the truth. This country has went so right wing authoritarian that the middle ground is called left wing extremism.

Click to expand...

This is a joke right.

Same type of people laughing at college liberal safespaces are demanding their sports channel safespace.

rgw said:

This is a joke right.

Same type of people laughing at college liberal safespaces are demanding their sports channel safespace.

Click to expand...

You seriously don't get this, do you?

I go to Lowe's or Home Depot for tools, not clothing.

I turn to ESPN for sports, not politics.

It's not that complicated.

rgw said:

This is a joke right.

Same type of people laughing at college liberal safespaces are demanding their sports channel safespace.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do think your comment is a joke. At least, I hope it is.

rgw said:

This is a joke right.

Same type of people laughing at college liberal safespaces are demanding their sports channel safespace.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. They are consumers looking for a specific type of product.
I'll grant you that the kernel of discontent is the same (I.E. annoyance at hearing things they don't want to hear) but one is based on purposefully excluding people from participating in life together (basically segregation) and the other is limiting factors and influences that could be considered perpendicular to the original goals of the network. I don't turn on the weather channel to get social commentary, I just want the local on the 8's. Likewise I watch ESPN for sports, not commentary.

But the age old adage applies. If you don't like it, don't watch. I never watch ESPN except for when a game is on. And ESPN is losing viewers. So the consumer will likely win out in the long term.

rgw said:

Small government origins are a slaver's lie. The only people who wanted limited federal government were the slave states who had all the financial leverage in the war loan payoff phase of our country's beginnings. Many of the states wanted a more centralized government but the split of federal/state rights was a compromise to get all the state's war debts assumed by the federal government.

Click to expand...

We are supposed to have a small federal government with limited, enumerated powers per the Constitution. You wanting something else doesn't make it right or intellectually honest.

I go.
I went.
I have gone.

rgw said:

I hope the only thing you're a professor over is an undergrad management course if you think that.

Click to expand...

I hope you are not a professor of anything.

I'm going to my "safe space", so I can earn a dollar or two.

Last year, I told a consulting client that I was going to add a 20% "wealth redistribution fee", to my normal charges, since they believe in that crap. They thought I was joking. For some odd reason, they didn't laugh. Couldn't understand why. If I was joking, why didn't they laugh? If they believe that crap, they should have been glad to pay me extra, since they run a company that grosses hundreds of millions a year.

Anyway.............we rapidly came to hate each other, and the project died. Hard to work for someone who thinks you are a kook if you "trust a cop over a liberal". Or thinks you are lying when you state that you have friends who are cops and friends who are liberals. Non sequitur!

OK.........we also had strong clashes over what was to be done, and how. They were rich, but clueless, at the same time, over some relatively minor details. Like why you don't take a simple concept, make it a complex one, and price the product out of its range of feasibility.

All of that means I have to work extra hard, this year. No more time wasted on hearing convoluted left-wing excuses why the world is the way it is.

So, do the rest of us a favor, and go to your safe space, ok, bub?

Holy thread derailment, Batman! [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ESPN does not speak "extreme left wing" agenda. They're in the business of selling us sport leagues created by groups of billionaires. They're neoliberals who love capitalism, anti-discrimination, and equality. Why? Because it validates capitalism as a system that is not systemically unfair. You can't blame the market so long as the power elite class looks like a college recruiting brochure with the right racial mix. It is conflating the wrong things to call this push from ESPN "left wing." Pushing anti-discrimination and equality are not really left wing at all, they can be co-opted by either side and considering ESPN's place in the world I think it is clear that it is being championed as a validation of capitalism. To that end, I don't even think the modern Democratic Party is "left wing" anymore. They only recognize systemic economic flaws insofar as it relates to gender or race. This is ultimately the reason I think the DNC lost the Midwest this election: white, struggling middle class workers didn't see the old union-friendly DNC speaking a truth they understand anymore.

Anyway, to my point in all this: the issue is that people want sports channels to be free of politics because you don't have an alternative. You don't like the politics of CNN, you can go to MSNBC or Fox News. You don't like the politics ESPN - albeit as centrist an inoffensive as they may be - what is your recourse? You've still got to give them your eyeballs when your favorite teams come on their network. My second point: if you have a problem with the stuff ESPN has dabbled in w/r/t politics, you need to look in the mirror. The stuff they champion are things that I think are central to the American identity...at least if this country intends to survive as an ethnically diverse nation.

I must watch the wrong ESPN. I watch a lot of football games on there and I have never heard anybody express a political opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk