Keep Your Virtue Signalling Out Of My Sports

Keep Your Virtue Signalling Out Of My Sports


What does that even mean? And what the hell does any of the blatant virtue signalling we saw last night have to do with sports?

I love sports. I love competition. In fact, I spent much of my young adult life swimming competitively. One of my favorite childhood memories is my Dad waking me to watch the Cincinnati Reds win the World Series in 1990. He served Skyline Chili and Barq’s Root Beer at midnight my brother and sister and me, and it was the greatest. I still have my ratty old sweatshirt that says “Wire to Wire”. I adore “The Big Game.” Doesn’t matter the sport or the season – I can get into anything competitive. I love Buckeye football and Orange basketball, but I don’t even care if it’s my team or not – I figure out a way to justifiably hate one of the teams (i.e., Tom Brady went to Michigan, I went to Ohio State, therefore I should automatically hate him).

So,yes, I dig the Super Bowl. Food, alcohol, sports…what’s not to love? Last year, for Super Bowl 50, I was an unapologetic bandwagon Broncos fan, and I don’t regret it for one second. I drank way too much champagne and vodka (that was a big whoops on Monday morning), declared my love for Peyton Manning, and dabbed. I even let my kid skip school two days later for the Official Victory Parade – mostly because I want him to have the fond memories of excellence in sports that I have from childhood.

But this year’s Super Bowl? I was hate watching. I admit it. I knew it was going to be a hate-watch spectacle from the second the media focused on the friendship between Tom Brady and President Trump. I saw through the stupid façade of President George H. W. Bush and Mrs. Barbara Bush flipping the coin in the thinly veiled attempt to make it “bipartisan.” But, literally two seconds later they have a commercial of lots of faces with “America the Beautiful” in different languages.

And so, brotherhood: (And sisterhood, since we’re apparently amending the words to national songs now) What is happening here?

Here are the things we need to accept:

  1. We live in The United States of America.
  2. We have a President of The United States of America. His name is Donald J. Trump.
  3. Everyone who lives here in The United States of America has different ideals, gods, beliefs; BUT…
  4. You’re required to live here legally….and pay taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.

Or, am I just supposed to “accept” anyone who wants to live in The United States of America, even if it’s illegally? Am I supposed to be teaching my children to accept anyone regardless of nationality or color? (Last time I checked, I already do this…even though I’m a (GASP) Republican. Like, literally card carrying. I get the robo-calls and everything). By the way, who funded the #weaccept commercial? So. Many. Questions. (I didn’t know either—turns out that it was Airbnb, who have officially gotten their last dollar from me-Bark)

Tom Brady is a huge asshole. He’s an asshole because he went to Michigan. Anyone who wears maize and blue is an automatic asshole. He’s an asshole because he left his pregnant girlfriend for a supermodel. He’s an asshole because he doesn’t eat “nightshades.” This means he doesn’t eat tomatoes, peppers, mushrooms, or eggplants because they’re not anti-inflammatory. Weird. If Peyton Manning eats chicken parm, Tom Brady should be okay with eating nightshades.

However, Tom Brady is NOT an asshole because he (maybe) voted for Donald Trump. We literally don’t know if he did or not – he apparently keeps a “Make America Great Again” cap in his football locker – but, he hasn’t discussed if he voted for Trump because he doesn’t have to. It’s called privacy. In America, he is still entitled to this privacy—even if he is an asshole because he doesn’t eat nightshades in his Michigan pajamas. It’s just none of our freaking business. The fact that we are supposed to care about who Brady voted for is a weird narrative. Why is the media trying so hard to tell me what to care about?

Here’s the problem with Super Bowl LI. They want us to care about the things they want us to care about and they want us to “accept.” One could say that “they” should have accepted the law of the land on approximately January 22, but apparently the marketing and advertising departments wanted to go a little wild this year. Forget funny – let’s be controversial and teach life lessons. “They” want us to watch commercials and make illegal immigration okay. I’m looking at you, 84 Lumber.

By the time the halftime show came around, I was entirely worked up…but, Lady Gaga was (blessedly) vanilla. Apparently no one gave her the political memo—maybe she was super tired from her protests outside of Trump Tower. Or, hey, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe she actually cared about the fact that the Super Bowl is a time that Americans come together and she focused on, you know, performing. Who knows – this is a woman who wore a legitimate dress made of meat. I don’t pretend to understand or know what she’s thinking.

I might be calming down a little.

Here are the things I learned from the Super Bowl this year:

  1. Don’t buy an Audi
  2. 84 Lumber should have had the balls to finish the entire story on TV
  3. Barbara Bush is the GREATEST FIRST LADY OF ALL TIME
  4. I’m no longer buying or drinking Coke or Anheuser-Busch
  5. Do not buy menswear where Joe Buck does
  6. Lady Gaga has drones
  7. Michigan still sucks
  8. Not one advertising executive this year spent a single second worrying about offending conservatives. But, as the great Michael Jordan once said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” Maybe they should have.


Whew. Is it time for March Madness yet?









  1. Your thought process is entirely too rational, except for the Michigan part,(I live near Ann Arbor) I had no horse in this race.
    I don’t generally watch sports unless it’s one of the college football games like Michigan/Ohio mostly because of the left bent in sports, the commenters have jumped the shark with racism and gun control, it is no longer about competitive sports, it’s a big giant brainwashing event, and I refuse to be part of it! Great articles, both of them!

  2. AirBnB has been getting a lot of flack in lefty/mainstream media because their crowdsourced/property sharing model allows people to directly (wait for it) discriminate in whom they rent their properties to. One of my former law professors is a prominent critic of them for it, and has been featured on major media outlets speaking on the topic. So AirBNB’s commercial was an attempt to atone for the perceived wrong that they really didn’t have much to do with.

    1. This is interesting. I really had no idea that the commercial was for AirBnB until this morning. I’ve never booked through them – I usually use vrbo, but it seems like their owners could do the same thing because you book directly through the owners and not through the company. I hadn’t heard anything about this…will definitely be looking into this further – thanks for sharing.

      1. My folks were looking to buy a condo in a beach town and they were considering using it as a rental. The property was affiliated with one of the major hotel chains, so you could put your condo in their system, which would make your life very easy, but you lost a lot of control over not only who could rent it but also when you could use it. White, black, or green, there are some people you don’t want staying at your place, and just based on timing of the availability (e.g. don’t rent it out in late March) you could prevent potential damage to the unit. Ultimately they decided that VRBO/AirBnB would be too much trouble to manage, so they didn’t rent it out at all.

        And, not a fan, but Brady is the GOAT. I think it is indisputable. Yeah they cheat a little, but they also don’t have anyone else really great on their team.

  3. Ah, the media….They still think it’s 1977, and they can just tell Americans what to think, what to buy, what to believe. Nope. There are too many channels of communication now. The cat is out of the bag, and the “silent majority” can no longer be silenced by Marxist elites and their propaganda spewing handmaidens in advertising.

  4. I was pretty indifferent to the super bowl. I don’t have time to watch sports and I honestly had no idea who was playing this year. I didn’t start to focus until last week when I heard people supposedly lining up against the patriots because of their ties to President Donald J Trump.

    Others justified it by claiming that the QB on the patriots is a cheater.

    I pretty much knew the Patriots were GOING TO WIN based on the people lining up against them. Trump’s unstoppable and just about everyone who goes against him fails (look at all the stores that boycotted him – their stocks have mostly plummeted).

    It’s a shame watching politics in national sports driving even more wedges between the nation – but I believe it’s all necessary.

    I was elated when the Patriots won – simply because I felt it was a win for Trump.

    And as little sense as that makes – it makes perfect sense.

    I left my response to the win in the clickable link.

    1. Regardless of all the external things you could say about Tom Brady, Brady was the 199th draft pick the year he was drafted. No one thought he’d become the greatest quarterback of all time.

      In the world of politics, Donald Trump got drafted 199th, didn’t he?

    2. Big Trucks,

      Was that you just addressing the nation on EIB? It sounded like you, with that Long Island accent from your videos.


  5. 84 was not allowed to show the complete commercial because it was deemed too political by Fox, it wasn’t for lack of trying.

    Also, why do you hate capitalism? If advertisers want to spend money (which is what paid for the “free” broadcast you enjoyed) on virtue signaling, what’s it to you? Given that a Superbowl commercial costs $5 million for 30 seconds, they must have thought it was worthwhile.

    1. Because she’s as whiny, if nit more so, as anyone on the left.

      It’s getting embarrassing for her kind.

      The non-NeoConservative, leftist-rejecting, Populist”RealMiddleAmericaPopulistCommonSenseTrumpSupporting,” anti-Establishment are genuinely aghast at how corporations and other average Americans can’t seem to embrace their unassailable and wholly logical ‘Murican values.

      As a mere small ‘l’ libertarian here who has disdain for both “different” political parties (genuinely), I predict that if this level of whiny butt-hurt keeps up from the reactive, populist right, they’ll be on the same, irrational, emotionally-charged (“the feelz “) level as ANY Social Justice Warrior that they have ever mocked.

      This is literally the kind of shit that hurts one’s brain to try and decipher and reconcile (with their other positions).

      As a bonus, she goes off on a bizarre tirade about Tom Brady’s relationship history and dietary habits.

      Take a lithium, some Aripiprazol, and a dose of Clozapine, and call us in the morning.

      1. Also, let us make sure to keep a list of all he companies and products that her, Mark and others like her now claim that they will ‘definitely boycott,” as these campaigns are so predictably hilarious in how they quickly collapse, no matter what ideological/political grouphive starts such a movement.

        The Trumptardians may go on to become the most delicate shrinking violets, highly sensitive to “assaultive” virtue signaling that trampled all over and rips down their groupminds’ “safe space,” of all time.

        1. Here, I’ll do it for you:


          Not that tough. I only ever bought one VAG product new, and that was my 1994 VW Jetta III. Airbnb I’ve only used once (with great success for NYIAS last year), so I won’t miss them. And I don’t drink coffee, so no problem turning down the occasional chai tea latte.

          1. You are going to need to expand your boycott company/product list by 94, as these companies did something even more aggressive than ‘virtue signal’ (through advertising); they have filed legal pleadings through counsel formally opposing Trump’s immigration policy, asking for a permanent legal order striking down Trump’s policy:

            1. AdRoll, Inc.

            2. Aeris Communications, Inc.

            3. Airbnb, Inc.

            4. AltSchool, PBC

            5., LLC

            6. Appboy, Inc.

            7. Apple Inc.

            8. AppNexus Inc.

            9. Asana, Inc.

            10. Atlassian Corp Plc

            11. Autodesk, Inc.

            12. Automattic Inc.

            13. Box, Inc.

            14. Brightcove Inc.

            15. Brit + Co

            16. CareZone Inc.

            17. Castlight Health

            18. Checkr, Inc.

            19. Chobani, LLC

            20. Citrix Systems, Inc.

            21. Cloudera, Inc.

            22. Cloudflare, Inc.

            23. Copia Institute

            24. DocuSign, Inc.

            25. DoorDash, Inc.

            26. Dropbox, Inc.

            27. Dynatrace LLC

            28. eBay Inc.

            29. Engine Advocacy

            30. Etsy Inc.

            31. Facebook, Inc.

            32. Fastly, Inc.

            33. Flipboard, Inc.

            34. Foursquare Labs, Inc.

            35. Fuze, Inc.

            36. General Assembly

            37. GitHub

            38. Glassdoor, Inc.

            39. Google Inc.

            40. GoPro, Inc.

            41. Harmonic Inc.

            42. Hipmunk, Inc.

            43. Indiegogo, Inc.

            44. Intel Corporation

            45. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker

            46. Kargo Global, Inc.

            47. Kickstarter, PBC

            48. KIND, LLC

            49. Knotel

            50. Levi Strauss & Co.

            51. LinkedIn Corporation

            52. Lithium Technologies, Inc.

            53. Lyft, Inc.

            54. Mapbox, Inc.

            55. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

            56. Marin Software Incorporated

            57. Medallia, Inc.

            58. A Medium Corporation

            59. Meetup, Inc.

            60. Microsoft Corporation

            61. Motivate International Inc.

            62. Mozilla Corporation

            63. Netflix, Inc.

            64. NETGEAR, Inc.

            65. NewsCred, Inc.

            66. Patreon, Inc.

            67. PayPal Holdings, Inc.

            68. Pinterest, Inc.

            69. Quora, Inc.

            70. Reddit, Inc.

            71. Rocket Fuel Inc.

            72. SaaStr Inc.

            73., Inc.

            74. Scopely, Inc.

            75. Shutterstock, Inc.

            76. Snap Inc.

            77. Spokeo, Inc.

            78. Spotify USA Inc.

            79. Square, Inc.

            80. Squarespace, Inc.

            81. Strava, Inc.

            82. Stripe, Inc.

            83. SurveyMonkey Inc.

            84. TaskRabbit, Inc

            85. Tech:NYC

            86. Thumbtack, Inc.

            87. Turn Inc.

            88. Twilio Inc.

            89. Twitter Inc.

            90. Turn Inc.

            91. Uber Technologies, Inc.

            92. Via

            93. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

            94. Workday

            95. Y Combinator Management, LLC

            96. Yelp Inc.

            97. Zynga Inc.


          2. You know what’s amazing?

            There are maybe three companies on that list that actually MAKE something. The rest is navel-gazing software-as-a-service bullshit.

          3. If you – Mark & Jack – are to be pious & righteous, you have to be consistent.

            You can’t just pick and choose which companies and their products you’ll boycott!

            How lame! Too convenient! #Sad!

            No Microsoft, Apple, Levi-Strauss, etc. products for you two!

          4. Except that I don’t. I recommend that you read Jack’s recent Shinola article. It’s excellent.

          5. ThatIis an amazing list of companies that claim to need a steady influx of Somalis for their business. As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing stopping them from hiring Somalis in Somalia. In their line of business it frankly doesn’t matter much where their employees live.

            Their motions should be dismissed for lack of standing.

          6. Is boycotting companies who you never or very rarely patronize not also virtue signalling?

            Or is it only virtue-signalling when you don’t agree with their views?

            I’m a little curious as to your reasons for boycotting the three above?

          7. It’s virtue signaling if I stand outside their doors with signs and post about it on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. If I just vote with my feet and dollars and opt not to use their services, then it’s not.

            That’s how I see it, anyway.

          8. Yes, but by your own admission, you already infrequently, or never gave your $$ or traffic to those businesses.

            I’m still curious as to why, VW, if because of the emissions scandal, makes sense to me…but the other two?

          9. I don’t give a shit about emissions. I carbon-foul with the best of ’em. I object to Audi’s and Airbnb’s Super Bowl ads, and I object to Starbucks’ position on refugees.

        2. Deadweight – A word of advice. Say what you want about me – frankly, I was waiting for your response, and I’m disappointed, because I really think you can do better.

          HOWEVER, Do not EVER use any form of the word “Retard”. Ever. It makes you look like, you know….an asshole. I do a lot of work with the Special Olympics – it’s a fantastic organization started by Eunice Kennedy Shriver……an honest to God Democrat and one of the greatest advocates in modern day times. Maybe go volunteer or something. It will make you feel better.

          1. Unless one is really, really PC, which I’m definitely not, “retard” has it’s proper place in our American (‘Murican) Lexicon.

            We used that word gratuitously, along with “that’s/you’re/it’s gay,” while growing up in white bread American suburbs, and I am not offended by either.

            You should make up a while list of words that you think are micro or macro-aggressive. Maybe we can even get a list for a good, old-fashioned book burning, works of Mark Twain et al. included!

            I suppose you’re going to tell me ‘Blazing Saddles’ and ‘There’s Something About Mary’ are verbotten, next?

            Who’s zooming who, Lizzie?

            Donald J. Trump, your ostensible, righteous leader, seems to be fine with the term, so there’s that.

          2. Somebody’s feeling triggered today!

            I encourage you to go to a Special Olympics event and call the children “retards.” Let us know how it goes.

          3. Let him use it. It makes his entire post invalid to any person with half a soul. He uses it often–shows his true intellect. The beauty of Free Speech, Lizzie!

          4. The irony of Trumptardians lecturing others on using offensive terms could not be greater

            I could not write a more surreal & hilarious script if I actually tried!


            Trump for hurt-word censorship 2016!

            Call Ray Bradbury & the firefighters, stat.


          5. It must be so awesome for stand for nothing so that you can take shots at people who actually have positions.

            Regardless, this is what you fail to understand about the world in 2017. Voting for somebody is not an endorsement of his or her entire platform or his entire life’s behavior. As the CFO of my company said, “We’ve endorsed liars and cheats in the past, and we’ll do it again in the future.”

            And there’s a clear difference between the vomiting you do wherever you post and actual literature, and even more of a difference between asking somebody to be polite and respectful with speech and book burning. But, then again, nuance has never really been your thing. You still think I sell software.

          6. “It must be so awesome for stand for nothing so that you can take shots at people who actually have positions. ”

            That’s libertarians for you.

          7. Everything is relative.

            Lizzie finds the translation of America The Beautiful deplorable, George Carlin rocked the social establishment by uttering 7 words in 1972, and both establishment Republicans and liberals were simply aghast that Trump talked openly of grabbing women by the pussy (even, as far as I can tell, it was in reference to a consensual act).

            Here’s some great literature that may help Lizzie, you and many others (including apparently even Jack, now) in these trying times, where you’re collectively so sensitive:

            Sticks and stones may break my bones
            But words can never hurt me

            I think it’s a good thing to remember this, particularly in response to an essay whereby the author was apparently deeply offended/disturbed by viewpoints different than her own.

            It’s very liberating to be able to hear words that may be subjectively (or even objectively?) hurtful, and be exposed to differing opinions, and not get stressed out as a result.

          8. DW, I also grew up using the word retard as a mild pejorative so I can understand why you feel like you should be able to bandy the term about. I will state, however, that you are doing the word a disservice by using it that way. You’re just using it as a shorthand for “person I disagree with who I think is an idiot.”

            I happen to have a younger brother who experienced a traumatic brain injury in his mid-teens and he is literally retarded (from normal to quite handicapped after about a month in a coma) so I am not entirely detached about the pejorative use of the term or the conflation of it with just plain old stupid.

          9. I’m just relieved that present and future generations are “protected” from seeing/reading/hearing the “n word,” as Huckleberry Finn has now been sanitized.

            After all, the “n word” is deeply offensive to some.


            I start a petition to sanitize ‘The Catcher In The Rye,’ even though IT’S ALREADY BEEN BANNED.

            Up next: Finish killing off ‘To Kill A Mockingbird.’

          10. You know, you’re not a bad guy, DW, but when you get like this, the best course of action any of us have is to ignore you until you go away.

          11. One guy somewhere creates a version of a book with a word censored and that’s what you are worried about?

            Give me a break, there are more important things to be talking about, thinking about and worrying about.

            Its his right to make that book. Its your right to not buy it. The original form is still on the shelves. Buy it. Read it. Enjoy it.

            Making a big issue out of it is a strawman. That’s part of the problem today. When a liberal thinks ‘conservative’ they see a strawman ghoul that was painted for them by their friends and Facebook feeds. When a conservative think ‘liberal’ they see a strawman social justice warrior or communist or anarchist that was painted for them by their friends and Facebook feeds.

            If you stick to the middle of the bell curve, you’ll find a bunch of reasonable-minded people that you can agree with. If you stray to the fringes you’ll find monsters.

          12. Get like what?

            This is not personal.

            I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisies inherent in this essay

            I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone who ostensibly supported/supports and defended/defends Trump against charges that he was/is insensitive in words and mannerisms goes to such great lengths to vent about how advertisements and other virtual signaling during the 51st Super Bowl so deeply offended, bothered and otherwise triggered her.

            Scott Adams wasn’t the least bit bothered (I’d bet).

      2. “from the reactive, populist right, they’ll be on the same, irrational, emotionally-charged (“the feelz “) level as ANY Social Justice Warrior that they have ever mocked.”

        I’m down for that. The tone will be different, but appeals to emotion tend to be successful when dealing with a population of millions. In this case I think the left knows what it’s doing.

        Giving libertarians headaches is a good start.

  6. Greatest game in history, won by the greatest coach and QB in history. That’s my takeaway, and I think what 99% of people saw.

    If some people saw politics, maybe that’s what they came to see. I just saw the greatest Super Bowl performance ever, and it made me really happy.

  7. I don’t see how this year was really any different than years past when it comes to the NFL and some sort of PC message. (“Pink” Charities that do little in the way of actual donations to those who need them, or concussion safety, or anti-discrimination, or anti-domestic violence, or supporting youths… you get the idea.)

    I didn’t find much in terms of politics this year, but I guess if you’re really looking for it you could find something to gripe about. Both sides of the politic spectrum are pretty sensitive at the moment… and angry. The coin toss and “virtue signaling” is about as much a stretch as the left pointing out Lady Gaga choosing to sing “Born this way” and “This Land is your Land”.

    It was a great game, with little in the way of politics or anything different on the PC front.

    Its the current state of the NFL and the same effort to pander to a larger viewing audience.

  8. I’d rather politicized ads I can skip via a fridge run or piss break (don’t get those two mixed up) than some of the other tripe the league and networks have defecated out. Like a few years ago during a pre-game show they spent a non-zero amount of time talking about whether Tom Brady or Justin Bieber had better hair.

    who the fuck was that for?

    1. I largely agree. The one bright side about the garbage ads is I never felt like I was missing anything when I left the room. Super Bowl Commercials used to be good but I was not overly impressed with any of the ones I saw yesterday.

    2. Yes, segregate the crap in its own bucket and switch channels or leave the room for that part.

      They diluted the NASCAR brand too much and would intrude on flag-to-flag coverage with social mission – any social mission – and started losing audience numbers.

    1. I once told a friend of mine who taught computer science at Michigan State, “Well, B students do need some place to go to college.” His response, “Would that they were B students.”

      Neighbors and friends of mine both have degrees from OSU, in his case from the med school. He’s a pediatrician who’s the medical director of a clinic and he’s treated my children when they were young. They both regard UofM as a better school than their alma mater.

      As screwed up politically as the academic world is, and Ann Arbor is certainly part of that Berkeley-Madison-Austin bubble, the fact remains that Michigan is one of a handful of elite public universities that’s on par with Chicago, Stanford and the better Ivies. UofM is a fairly unique college. I’ve never been to Palo Alto but my guess is that Michigan is a lot like Stanford, a place where smart jocks like Tom Brady can go.

  9. Lizzie, the diference between Buckeye fans and Michigan fans is that when Jack drives his Accord, with Ohio plates, to the R&T office in Ann Arbor, he doesn’t have to worry about his car getting vandalized.

    I’m well aware of how much money Woody donated to OSU and of his status as a pretty decent military historian. It was also great fun watching him lose his shit in the Big House.

    Buckeyes and Spartans take the rivalries way too seriously. My dad went to Michigan State’s veterinary school when it was still Michigan State College. I’d like MSU to go 11-1 every year and it’s good for the Big 10 for OSU to be strong too, so 10-2 is fine with me for them.

    I still won’t park my car in Columbus and when I’m in Ohio I drive with the awareness that cops in Ohio really like to give tickets to Michigan drivers.

    1. someone in my R/C club was seriously thinking of getting a moonroof on his new car so he could more effectively flip the bird to the “Welcome to Ohio” sign on I-75.

  10. I’m a long time reader of Jack’s and I’ve enjoyed almost everything I’ve read of his stuff. Lizzie is an interesting new voice and I’m happy to read her stuff too. I don’t always agree with what I read on this site but it almost always makes me think and I appreciate that. I have noticed a change in tone over the past few months, more bitterness and anger – but I think that’s common across the country at this point so I guess the Baruth’s aren’t immune.

    I am honestly confused by a few things in this article and in the comment thread. My understanding is that if you are anti-PC it’s because you think people should be able to say/do what they want even if it is emotionally hurtful. It doesn’t extend to being able to cause physical harm, but because of free speech you should be able to speak your mind and the listener should be tough enough to take it without being ‘triggered’ – whatever that means.

    So why is it no OK to say **tard, in that context?

    I am a careful, considerate communicator, so I would never say it personally – I think its offensive. But I’ve come to the conclusion that I am not normal. I don’t swear, I care about other’s feelings, I try to have compassion for others and I feel good when I help other people. These traits seem increasingly rare in a world that focuses on alpha, winning at all costs, selfishness over selfless service, etc.

    At the same time I think safe spaces and all the lovey-dovey new age stuff is silly. Yeah the intention is good and I can appreciate that, but it can be taken too far and become downright ridiculous. I’m no SJ Warrior. When I see a SJ Warrior I have trouble connecting with their anger and lack of respect. Maybe that’s privilege? Maybe I just don’t see why I’d ever want to act that way.

    So for someone like me, please explain. Why is it ok to insult others, be rabidly anti-pc, etc. but then take offense when someone insults you?

    Either you stand up for civil discourse or you don’t. Be consistent. I stand up for it, would you consider doing the same?

    1. Lizzie & Mark (and Jack?) absolutely, relentlessly mock “safe spaces” (as I do), yet uttering PARTICULAR WORDS THAT MAY SUBJECTIVELY TRIGGER THEM BASED ON THEIR OWN LIFE EXPERIENCES, such as “retard,” is going too far, MAN!

      Maybe we need vetted lists of pre-approved words, acceptable to persons on the left, the right, and everywhere in-between.

      I’m not sure how many lists this would entail creating, not how workable communication would be in every day life, in the aftermath, BUT AT LEAST IT MIGHT PREVENT SOME PEOPLE FROM BEING OFFENDED.

      1. When communicating with other people, especially those who you disagree with, you can choose to make enemies or to make allies.

        Using insults makes enemies. What’s your goal?
        – Every has something to teach, do you want to learn?
        – Jack, Bark and Lizzie appear to be good people with good hearts. Do you want to engage in a dialog with them?
        – OR do you want to vent frustration and make people mad?

        Some of these options have the possibility of making the world a better place. Some will make it worse. What would you choose?

        Its harder to be mature, respectful and considerate of other opinions. It requires real effort to figure out a perspective or set of values that’s different than your own. Its worthy work, give it a shot.

    2. You can make the argument that mentally handicapped people, like children, are beyond the Pale in that regard.

      Very few people think it’s free speech to post child pornography or for adults to harass children. Arguably, “libtard” and its derivatives are similar cruel to defenseless people.

      1. Jack, I’d say the same thing to you that I said to DeadWeight – but with you I feel more dissapointment.

        You are a super smart guy, I respect you, I really do. But everytime I see you hurl an insult (like libtard) I struggle to reconcile the respect I have for you with the easy-out insult you just used.

        Liberals aren’t tards. Neither are conservatives. Painting an entire group with one brush is intellectual laziness and I know you can do better.

        I hear you about calling kids and especially disabled kids insults. Its a low blow and it shouldn’t be done. But I’d say the same about any knee-jerk insult. Why do it? What’s your goal?

        I’d love to see you rise above and use your voice to find common ground. There’s enough people out there sowing division – you can do better with your insight and analytical skills.

        1. I think you’re misreading the thread.

          I’ve never called anybody a “libtard” or a “trumptard”. I was discussing why the use of “retard” as an insult is not a particularly admirable use of free speech.

          1. In which case I agree with you 100%. Thanks for the clarification Jack.

            BTW – please write more about your 993. I love those stories :).

      2. “Very few people think it’s free speech to post child pornography or for adults to harass children.”

        There could not be a wider gulf than saying or writing a potentially offensive word to a child, adult, whomever, and engaging in an act of harassment upon a child or actively posting images of child pornography.

        This is both a ludicrous straw man and red herring that you’ve thrown out there, Jack, and I’m confident that you did so knowingly, which makes you look really disingenuous and/or desperate.

        1. “There could not be a wider gulf than saying or writing a potentially offensive word to a child, adult, whomever,”

          Going to stop you right there.

          Civilized human beings do not play by the same rules as regards children and adults.

          If you walk up to a bunch of black adults and say the “n-word” again and again, you’re engaging in free speech.

          If you walk up to a bunch of black children and do the same thing, you’re a piece of shit.

          Leave children alone.
          Leave the mentally handicapped alone.
          There shouldn’t be anything difficult or troubling about that.

          1. Books are being banned in schools from coast to coast because they have offensive words (the “n word,” etc.).

            Let me alter the order of that sentence ever so slightly since you are (I believe) intentionally misinterpreting it – due to your weak position:

            “There could not be a wider gulf than saying or writing a word *that may be potentially offensive to a child, adult, whomever*, and engaging in an act of harassment upon a child or actively posting images of child pornography.”

            REALLY weak logical retort, Jack. The “upon” is an important preposition that just missed, conveniently.

          2. I’m not misinterpreting your comment, deliberately or accidentally.

            I’m telling you that “child, adult, whomever” is not an acceptable turn of phrase in this discussion, because we don’t observe the same societal conventions as regards children and adults.

            When you use a word or phrase that is deliberately designed to offend or prey upon the differently abled, who are very close to children in many respects, you’ve gone too far.

            It’s not the same as making fun of black people, fat people, gay people, Camaro owners, or any other adult who is in (at least somewhat) full possession of his faculties.

            Using “retard” as an insult isn’t free speech, because you’re not really insulting the person to whom you’re speaking. You’re depending on him to recognize the implicit message; that “retards” aren’t really human beings. And it further supports the use of “retard” to refer to the mentally handicapped.

          3. I think either behavior is reprehensible, honestly. Just because someone is an adult doesn’t mean you get a pass to be a jerk to them. Yes they have more ability to defend themselves, that’s great, but it doesn’t mean you should do it,.

            Free speech gives you the right to be an offensive jerk without being thrown in jail. But if you act like an offensive jerk, you are still an offensive jerk and people will judge you accordingly.

            Free speech only means you have a right for the government to refrain from judging you, not your fellow citizen.

            I think you wrote something similar once Jack and I really appreciated it at the time. Stuck with me.

          4. Book banning is short sighted and silly. Any book can be used as a teaching instrument for children (or adults). We shouldn’t be so afraid of our past that we censor it.

            I honestly don’t know if book banning is a real problem or another straw man? I imagine its probably the latter, but I have trouble sorting it out these days. The media makes everything look like an epidemic, even if its an outlier.

          5. “It’s not the same as making fun of black people, fat people, gay people, Camaro owners, or any other adult who is in (at least somewhat) full possession of his faculties.”

            I believe that you really are trying to divide the line between what are known as immutable characteristics (those acquired before birth, as a result of genetics), that can’t be altered, such as gender, race, physical appearances (for the most part), intelligence (as distinct from ability to acquire knowledge), etc., and characteristics such as religious beliefs, body weight, and other characteristics driven by or influenced by deliberate actions and choices made.

            In this sense, mental retardation is an immutable characteristic whether acquired by genetics or physical injury.

            “Using “retard” as an insult isn’t free speech, because you’re not really insulting the person to whom you’re speaking. You’re depending on him to recognize the implicit message; that “retards” aren’t really human beings. And it further supports the use of “retard” to refer to the mentally handicapped.”

            This makes zero sense. The most basic definition of free speech is the ability to utter, publish or otherwise express any and all words, insults, compliments, descriptors, ideas, adjectives, notions, etc., without restraint of any kind.

          6. You’re straining mightily to birth a mouse here.

            The distinction between the mentally handicapped and the average human being is one with a long tradition of support in both law and custom. You’re an attorney, right? If so, then you are perfectly aware of this. The mentally handicapped do not have the same freedoms or responsibilities as normal, functioning adults. They are far closer to children in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society.

            The condition of being mentally handicapped (“retarded”, if you insist) is not one with parallels in race, gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or hobby behaviors like being a furry. You’re perfectly aware of this. Stop bandying semantics or splitting hairs that don’t exist in an effort to prove a failed point.

            Then you write “This makes zero sense. The most basic definition of free speech is the ability to utter, publish or otherwise express any and all words, insults, compliments, descriptors, ideas, adjectives, notions, etc., without restraint of any kind.” If that’s the case, then as you well know “Free speech” does not exist anywhere on this planet. But it is not the case. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You can’t go on the Web and claim that Pepsi causes HIV. You cannot walk up to a child and describe your genitalia in loving, explicit detail to them. You cannot acquire a ham radio set, modify it, and start contradicting the air traffic controllers above New York City.

            Free speech is a political construct designed to protect speech that is explicitly political. It is designed to prevent Mr. Trump from extending the concept of sedition to include criticism of “The Apprentice”. It is designed to make it possible for you to express your political views without fear of repercussion.

            Nowhere in the concept of “free speech” as it is currently constructed, do you have the right to make fun of “retards”. But even if you did, it would be loathsome for you to do. And when you unironically say “Trumptard”, you are conveying two separate but unequal ideas:

            * Trump voters are mentally handicapped;
            * The mentally handicapped are legitimate targets of ridicule.

            The first is protected speech; the second is probably not. But even if it is, saying that sort of thing is repugnant. There is no act of bullying more craven or despicable than targeting people who do not have the mental capacity to understand your attack or defend against it. Furthermore, it is abject cowardice because you are specifically citing a group of people without effective representation. Nobody talks about “Trump-gers” or “Trump-gots” because doing so will result in your banishment from polite society. When you say “retard”, “libtard”, “teatard”, or “Trumptard”, you are broadcasting the fact that you are so frightened of every other group in the world, from gays to furries to anime cosplayers, that you only truly feel safe making fun of the mentally handicapped. It’s beneath anyone with a pulse to do that.

          7. “Nowhere in the concept of “free speech” as it is currently constructed, do you have the right to make fun of “retards”. But even if you did, it would be loathsome for you to do.”

            Jack, for a talented writer, you’re incredibly ignorant when it comes to what constitutes”free speech”in these United States of America, based on existing law. Stick to cars…or banging married women (other than your wife…or lodging Trumpian rants against SJWs….or trying to sell friends’ used cars on TTAC, or whatever it is that you’re doing lately…

            …because you don’t have a fucking clue about the law.

            Here’s the most recent PENDING free speech case before the SCOTUS, and if you want to wager on the outcome (The Slants – plaintiffs here – will prevail) I’ll gladly oblige.

            Offensive speech IS constitutionally protected speech regardless as to whether it’s political in nature or not.

            There are FEW limits on free speech, which include obscenity, child pornography, defamation, and [imminent] incitement to violence and *true* threats of violence.

            I can provide a complete list of landmark SCOTUS cases establishing what the few limits on speech are (exceedingly rare exceptions) in accordance with the 1st Amendment, if you wish, but suffice it to say that the term “retard” is not even a close call, regardless as to your subjective and idiotic (not to mention hypocritical) sensitivities.

            I referenced The Slants case above, as it’s a current test of the offensive aspect of what The Patent & Trademark Office is idiotically claiming is not entitled to 1st Amendment protection (as the government will clearly not be able to make a successful argument that clears the required strict scrutiny litmus test in trying to claim that it’s NOT protected speech).

            You’re talking directly out of your ass, and as legally incorrect your statements, opinions and conclusions are, and as offensive many people find ignorance (especially delivered in a patina of arrogance), your offensive and factually incorrect ignorant speech is fundamentally protected speech.

          8. This entire conversation is, and has been, predicated on the idea that you cannot tell the difference between the mentally handicapped and other “minorities”. Even though the law is very plain on this. It’s not legal to remand Asian-Americans to the custody of an institution. Hasn’t been legal since 1945. Asian-Americans don’t typically have guardians after they reach 18. Asian-Americans are able to sign contracts without the approval of a guardian or trustee.

            If you don’t recognize that distinction personally, that’s fine. But for you to claim that the law does not is ridiculous.

            If you want to make a bet, then let’s do this. Why don’t you put up a sign outside your house, let’s say 10 feet by 5 feet. And on that sign, why don’t you write “Retards not welcome in this neighborhood.” And if you leave it up for a minimum of six months, and you prevail in the legal challenges that follow, whatever they might be, I’ll give you $2,500 towards the cost of the sign and various other expenses you might have.

            This could be your chance to strike an important blow for free speech and have me foot part of the bill. What do you say?

          9. You still don’t understand.

            You keep outright stating (you don’t even have the excuse of implying it) that using the term “retard” is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

            It is.

            The only categories of speech that the government is able to limit or penalize are those that I enumerated above (i.e. obscenity, child pornography, defamation, and [imminent] incitement to violence and *true* threats of violence).

            Offensive speech and offensive words enjoy the same level of constitutional protections against governmental censorship as does “kind speech.”

            I am positively puzzled that you somehow believe that the government has the ability to censor/ban/limit offensive speech.

      3. You can make the argument that mentally handicapped people, like children, are beyond the Pale in that regard.

        except “Lizzie” is not mentally handicapped, she’s being offended on their behalf.

        Just like the “liberal SJWs” you all decry.

        can’t have it both ways, folks. If “political correctness” is bad, and people are “too sensitive,” you can’t complain when someone gores your ox.

      4. Dogs.
        You forgot dogs.
        I would kick your ass, if I found you abusing a mentally handicapped person, child, or a dog.

  11. So, here’s the thing. I once stood on a pool deck and told my high school swim team that they were “acting retarded.” A 15 year old girl in one of the lanes burst into tears, and because I was a hard-headed 23 year old graduate student, I yelled at her for being soft. That night, her Mother called me and invited me over for dinner the following night after practice, which I accepted……because I was hard-headed and a graduate student AND I had no money. When I arrived, my swimmer opened the door with her brother, who was in a wheelchair. He had severe cerebral palsy. He was basically an infant in the body of an 18 year old. To this day, that night remains one of the most humbling nights of my life because NO ONE in the family TOLD me the r-word was unacceptable to use in a flippant way – they showed me. While I am a firm believer in free speech and I definitely think society has gone to extremes regarding what it means to be “offensive,” this is a hot-button word for me. I am a big enough person to admit that here.

    I can see why it would look hypocritical that I call Tom Brady an asshole and then get mad about someone using the r word. We can argue about this, but I don’t see it as the same. If I met Tommy in a bar, I would 100% tell him to his face my personal reasons for thinking he is an asshole, and then I’d high five him because I can respect the fact that that was the greatest Super Bowl comeback of all time. I can even admit that the guy is the GOAT. Maybe. Plus, I like getting a rise out of people. And I like reading things that challenge the way that I think, too. It’s totally cool that you don’t agree with the fact that I was annoyed by all of the commercials about immigration and walls and women’s rights. I look forward to disagreeing with you in the future. Carry on.

    1. Lizzie, I get that and it all makes sense to me. My point is that its worth thinking twice before throwing personal insults. You learned not to say one word, the hard way. For the next one you can think ahead.

      Yes some people have thin skins and its silly. No we shouldn’t be held hostage to others feelings. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t behave ourselves and challenge ourselves, and others, to raise the bar.

      Lots of people think its fun and funny to use the word cancer to indicate a spreading problem. E.g. the noobs in this game are cancer. To a cancer survivor or to someone who’s lost a loved one to cancer its not funny at all. It brings back hard memories. Others like to say rape, e.g. that team just got raped. They think its funny and not a big deal. To a survivor of sexual assault its not so funny.

      My point is that you can be a decent human being and part of that is refraining from personal insults or statements that truly have negative impacts on those around you.

      Doing that doesn’t make you a weak virtue signaler, it just makes you a decent, considerate human being.

    2. on the other hand, you did vote for our President who openly mocked a disabled reporter. And did so in front of a crowd, and a camera. “Uhhh, I don’t rememburrrrr!”

      1. Trump did not mock the disability of the reporter. He has publicly used that voice and those hand gestures to convey the state of being flustered. He has used it on himself, Ted Cruse, and a couple other people.

        Streep is either woefully uninformed or a liar.

  12. When I read this article, I can’t help but see the same type of thin-skinned sensitivities the article rages against. The only qualitative differences are the conservative motivations behind the outrage instead of the liberal.

    History will remember Superbowl LI for the amazing comeback orchestrated by Tom Brady and the Patriots, and not much else.

  13. I’ve noticed that the backlash against Politically Correct (PC) has become quite popular in some circles. I think this comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

    PC is not about being polite. It’s not about sugarcoating the truth, or substituting corporate-speak for normal speech. All it means is removing bigotry from our words and actions. That’s all.

    So I find it odd – and oddly disturbing – that so many have embraced this backlash against PC. Because, if you are against PC, you are essentially saying that you are comfortable using racist, misogynist or bigoted words, or even actions, and you don’t want to be criticized for it.

    I’m not saying that isn’t your right, I’m just asking whether this is truly what you stand for.

    1. it ain’t what “Lizzie McGuire” stands for. she wants the right to insult people she doesn’t like, but wants to suppress the rights of others to criticize her.

      just like Jon Stewart said, the same people who complain about political correctness are the first ones to gird for war if you say “happy holidays” to them in December.

    2. Maybe that’s your interpretation. I view PCness as being afraid to state things that are patently obvious for fear of being labeled as “not inclusive.”

      Ask Larry Summers.

        1. I’ve come to a realization.

          Everyone is ‘guilty’ of virtue signaling and political correctness. Its part of normal human behavior.
          – Virtue signaling: taking actions to broadcast your values and beliefs. Especially to cement your group membership or create distance from the ‘other’ groups you are not a member of.
          – Politically correct: self censorship to avoid offending those inside your group. Communication patterns that are shaped by your identity and group membership, political or otherwise.

          When you see it that way, you realize we all do it and we do it all the time. So why accuse others of it?

          I think its a thinly veiled attack on someone else’s values or group membership, as well as confirmation of your own. You are saying, “I don’t like they way you virtue signal or the way in which you are PC and I don’t agree with your reasons for it.”

          Its a shorthand insult that saves you from having to do the work of expressing your actual opinion or engaging with someone who disagrees with you, “You are virtue signaling or you are PC therefore I can discount your views and ignore you.”

          Is that about right?

      1. Well, Bark, I personally don’t fear stating the obvious, so I will reinforce your right to use whatever definition you please for things. But here is wikipedia’s:

        The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC[1] or P.C.) in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.

        I won’t comment further, as I don’t want to trigger another censure.

        1. Do you fear stating that Asians are smarter than Whites? Probably not. Do you fear stating that Whites are smarter than Blacks? I bet so. That Blacks are better wide receivers than Whites? Nope. That Whites might be better quarterbacks? I bet that makes you feel icky.

          1. Personally it doesn’t make me feel icky but it makes me question why you would want to make sweeping generalizations. It feels like intellectual laziness.

            Are Asians smarter? The data doesn’t prove this out. There are other genetic differences – you could pick skin color, stature, hair color, etc. But intelligence doesn’t seem to be one of them. There is a stereotype that Asians are smarter but its just that a stereotype. Where does it come from? Probably from academic and other intellectual achievement. Is that a result of genetic superiority around intelligence? Nope, it appears to be primarily a cultural difference around attitudes toward education and the rewards of hard work. Typical causation/correlation mistake.

            How about the stereotype of blacks as superior athletes. Is that true? It turns out that its not that simple. There is huge genetic diversity in Africa, more than there is for all other races. When we migrated and differentiated we lost genetic diversity and lost some of the adaptations that had worked well for us in Africa but not so well in the plains of northern Europe or the steppes of Mongolia, etc. The result is that there is a wider spread of athletic ability amongst people of African descent. That means in a population you will see some incredible athletes and some terrible athletes, with a lot in the middle. In the typical white population you’ll see a smaller spread. So the long tail of athletic ability for people of African descent is longer. You see it as a preponderance of black football players, but it doesn’t mean that black people are better at football in general, it means that the best black football players tend to be better than the best players of other races statistically speaking.

            There’s also variation amongst people of African descent, its not a monolithic block. West African genetics tend to be better at sprinting, football and basketball. East African genetics tends to be better at distance sports and endurance events.

            My point? Stop with the sweeping generalizations, its lazy. Its much more satisfying, and useful, to understand the distinctions and the incredible complexity that exists in the real world.

          2. not at all. Asians have higher cranial capacity, which is the number one indicator of intelligence. Science actually does bear it out. You’re just not comfortable with it.

          3. Oh, shoot! I really wish I had seen this before leaving to see the parade today. I would have told Julian Edelman, Danny Amendola and Chris Hogan how much they suck, according to some guy on the internet who calls himself ‘Bark’.

            As it turns out, I don’t fear stating any of your race generalizations because I would never say them. Why is that?

            1. It simply doesn’t come up in conversation. No one in real life goes around debating which race does what task better. Certainly not my life.

            2. I recognize that individual performance is much more important than generalizations based on race.

            3. I’m not a complete douche bag (this will take some convincing to your he-mancave followers, I know). If anyone actually started saying these things out loud, his audience would be way more focused on what a d-bag the speaker was than about what insight he might think he was sharing.

          4. You’re a grown man who went to parade for a sports team? And you say you’re NOT a douchebag. Does not compute.

          5. Oh, shoot! I really wish I had seen this before leaving to see the parade today. I would have told Julian Edelman, Danny Amendola and Chris Hogan how much they suck, according to some guy on the internet who calls himself ‘Bark’.

            You think the Patriots may have figured out a market inefficiency and started to exploit it?

            People talk about this stuff in real life all the time. Too many white board members, not enough black quarterbacks, not enough female engineers, the achievement gap. They might not come to the obvious conclusions because it’s rude to do so but the conversations are out there.

          6. (WordPress doesn’t seem to allow me to reply to Wren’s comment directly, but this should slot under it as a reply to Mark, so it will be where it should be)

            Not sure the subject has had broad academic study (or if it has, whether it has been widely discussed, it has far too much of a un-PC/third rail character to it) but Jimmy the Greek’s infamous comments weren’t wrong, they’re just a reminder of something which people don’t want to talk about. I’m no genetic investigator nor anthropologist, but it isn’t hard to think that there have been several external sorting events which would contribute to people of African descent being _potentially_ more likely to be athletically inclined.

            they had to survive a less than ideal passage from Africa – this would have also been true to a lesser degree for other immigrants, but they were at least making the trip by choice and paying for it – which would likely weed out the weakest.

            a large percentage of them worked in hard manual labor under difficult conditions, favoring those with superior strength/endurance. there are certainly millions of folks from other races working farms or in factories, but they were part of a larger population which had far more opportunities outside of being slaves to engage in other pursuits. and they would have had opportunities (limited as they might have been) to move up in social station.

            post-reconstruction & Jim Crow, there were (are still, tho not codified in laws, much) huge structural barriers to upward mobility in the black community. there are plenty of programs to get kids into STEM and other fields, but the chance to get into college due to on-field/court performance can make that a much more attractive route up/out. I found this story on how .gov housing/lending policy has stacked the deck massively against blacks since WWII fascinating & sad – . the lack of average family wealth in the lower middle class is pretty easily traced to a few generations of being unable to get into the housing market and pass along the benefits that that provides to one’s children.

            opportunity counts for a lot in the makeup of any profession or sport or hobby, but I think there are some genetic components of performance in sports which can’t be ignored. a generically gifted white kid might end up in lacrosse (hi Jack, for a moment !) or dance or engineering or video games because they are statistically likely to be better off economically so wouldn’t have to go after an only chance to get ahead and would never be part of the equation in terms of the make-up of the NFL or NBA.

          7. @faygo, those are good additional points, thanks for making them.

            I don’t think anyone would argue that there is no such thing as genetic diversity or genetic traits that tend to show up in certain populations. It becomes tough going is when someone makes sweeping generalizations that simplify reality in order to make their point (political or otherwise).

            Sometimes these points are made in an attempt to delegitimize an entire race or religion and that’s where the third-rail element comes in. If the Nazis had never existed, it probably wouldn’t be a third-rail – it wasn’t taboo to debate these topics at all before ww2. But we did have ww2 and there were Nazis and we now know there is a human tendency to take these positions to a tragic extreme. There is an understandable and natural aversion to doing so again.

            Its like getting burnt badly by a fire. Before being burnt, fire is fine and not scary. Afterwards its a threat and you treat it as such, even to the point of over-avoidance. Better to be careful than to be burned again.

          8. @bark. Asians have larger cranial capacity? That’s the first I’ve heard of it. I don’t have comfort or discomfort with racial differences, I’m a realist and I like truth. If Asians are truly more intelligent than whites, on average that’s cool and its something I’d want to know. I’m not offended by truth, just by attempts to spin the truth for an agenda. I’m not saying that’s what you are doing btw – but many people do exactly that and I hate it.

            I’m still not convinced by your argument though. I can’t find any non-biased sources that agree with Asian cranial capacity being larger and I can’t find anything that correlates cranial capacity to intelligence. I’ve known some very large headed people that were dumb as a rock and small headed people that were super smart. That’s anecdotal, but the data appears to prove it out. There just isn’t a correlation.

            What convinced you that this was true? Do you have citations? You are a smart guy and I’m willing to be persuaded if you have good data backing your statements.

            Same is true in other species. Small dogs can be smart. Big dogs can be dumb. Brain size is not indicative.

            To me, that’s honestly fascinating. I’ve often wondering why there _isn’t a correlation. It seems like there should be. It just shows how little we understand about the brain and how intelligence works!

          9. With all due respect, I don’t think you searched incredibly hard. I didn’t have to finish typing “cranial capacity” before my browser took me to the corresponding wiki link.

            “According to a study published by Smith and Beals in 1990, based on measurements of approximately 20,000 crania from 87 populations worldwide, East Asians have the biggest brains in the world, with an average volume of at least 1,443 cm3, followed by Europeans with an average volume of 1,260 cm3.”

          10. @bark, I saw that link (the wordpress site?) and skipped over it. It didn’t seem legit to me. The same with the stormfront site that came up as the first link. Maybe I didn’t dig deep enough but these links both seemed to be to websites with a racial-superiority and/or white-supremacist agenda. I was looking for un-biased sources and these didn’t pass the sniff test.

            Based on your response I dug further and found this:

            So it still doesn’t seem legit to me. That’s before we even consider the fact that cranial capacity doesn’t correlate with intelligence.

            Does it seem legit to you?

            I’m coming at this with no conscious bias. I honestly don’t care if their brain size is bigger or if asians are smarter. If it were true I’d think it was cool and chalk it up as an interesting fact about humans. But it doesn’t seem to be true and I don’t believe in things just because they fit a convenient narrative.

            How about you?

          11. Ok, I think I found your citations.

            Here is beal’s research:

            Here is a more recent refutation:

            My take:
            – There are arguments to be made about the data collection, but if you take it at face value there is a difference of roughly 3% in cranial capacity between North Americans and Asians.
            – There may be other ways to correlate the data other than race. The table shows results in terms of geographic location, which leads to a racial assumption. If you wanted to determine results for race specifically you’d need to do the same data analysis but hold geographic location stable while varying on race alone. In other words, skull size could be related to something other than race and with this data set we wouldn’t be able to tell. For instance maybe you need a bigger brain to live in cold climates or near mountains or near the sea?
            – Apparently brain size _is a predictor of intelligence in humans. I didn’t know that! But it is a weak predictor (r=.4) which means its that less than 5% of variation in intelligence can be predicted based on skull size. So we are talking about 5% of 3% here – not much… it pretty much vanishes in the noise.
            – I also learned that group membership is a weak predictor of head size. So while you can say asians on average have a cranial capacity that is 3% larger than a North American, you can’t use that to predict an individual asian’s head size with more than 7% accuracy.

            I learned some things today, so thanks for that!

          12. @bark, thanks for the Wikipedia link, that was a good read as well. Wish I’d read that first, it was much easier going than the research papers I dove into. I didn’t see anything that changed the conclusions I wrote in the points above. Do you think I got any of that wrong?

            BTW – when I searched that wiki entry didn’t come up. I think its because I searched for “Asian cranial capacity” and I got the racist hits first as a result.

          13. @everybodyhatesscott, the link you shared is a summary of the research paper I linked to above and then gave my analysis on. The summary is interesting but its even better to read the original paper – give it a look, its a good read.

          14. FFS, Bark, you’ve lost your mind.

            You’re essentially advocating eugenics now.

            Good god.

          15. @DW there’s a difference between believing in racial differences and advocating eugenics. I haven’t seen any indication that Bark is a eugenics guy.

            You could make the slippery slope argument, e.g. As soon as you acknowledge racial differences you’ll want to move on to eugenics, genocide, etc. but I don’t think one necessarily follows the other. As long as you restrict yourself to actual facts, backed by real data and leave behind racial superiority rhetoric.

            The differences between us are what make us all interesting, it should be celebrated where it exists, not swept under the covers.

          16. Owned?

            I’m glad that you now have your safe space on your site with Big Bother Jack, Mark, so that you can fly your Trump Nation flag high & proud, and protest against the PC macro transgressions, directly or through surrogates such as Lizzie, that have you so animated.

            It’s good to see you passionate about such important things such as un-American Super Bowl commercials, Wikipedia-based genetics research, and misguided and backwards auto dealerships that can do so much better if they sign up for your wisdom.

            You and Jack, likely the two smartest individuals in any given room, needed this space.

            You are home.

          17. But you are being a big bother.

            You compulsion to equate offensive speech with somehow legally forbidden speech is upsetting George Carlin, Bill Hicks, and your favorite (not mine, though, as he’s deplorable), Katt Williams.

  14. I’ve even heard people say that PC is an existential threat to our country. I really don’t get that… Anyone feel that way and care to explain to me?

    I think the PC backlash is a reaction to the straw man picture of oversensitivity that represents PC taken to an extreme. I say straw man because I’ve never actually witnessed this hypersensitivity in action, though I do read about it. I’ve assumed its the media making an epidemic out of a long-tail again.

    There’s a lot of, “I saw/read X and now I’m really MAD!” going on right now. My recommendation for anyone who wants to get away from the madness: Stop watching/reading the news/facebook-feed and pay attention to your real life.

  15. Jack – thank you for a full throated explanation of why using the insult for the mentally handicapped is loathsome. It’s one of your best. Really, well done.

    Lizzie – I’ll give you a reason to put aside your “hate” of Tom Brady. Google his name and “Best Buddies” and you’ll see that Tom has spent years helping and giving back to the mentally disabled community.

  16. As someone that lives in Atlanta and loves local teams, yes there are a few of us, that was a hard game to watch. Even harder to talk about it now.

    All we had to do, was run the ball three times when we were still up 8 and on their 22 or so. But no, we are so smart we have to throw the ball, instead of hit a field goal that makes it game over. I didn’t get it then and still don’t.

    But the reason I think New England is great team, is their coach believes in fundamentals. Nothing fancy. There is a life lesson there too I think but damn that game hurts.

  17. I didn’t see the Coke ad as I believe it ran prior to the kickoff, but it is my understanding that it is just a re-running of a spot which was shown in 2014. it was also mentioned on twitter by several folks that it is a sad commentary on the overall state of political/cultural discourse that Super Bowl ads which in the past would just have been “hey, look how xxx managed to make sure they ticked all the boxes on the rainbow of people in that spot” Super Bowl ads were all viewed through the lens of “man, look at company xxxx poking fun at Trump”.

    I rooted for the Patriots because Roger Goodell is a hack who tried to take them down a peg by suspending Brady and it was sweet irony for him to have to hand Kraft & Brady the trophy, tho I think that somehow got done by someone else anyway and Goodell made a quick getaway from the stage after the overwhelming boos he got.

    IMO, Belichick is an much easier argument for GOAT as NFL coach vs Brady as QB, given the rotating cast of characters and opponents he’s been able to beat, if only because Brady isn’t on the field for half of the game. I like the fact that the route-jumping pick which beat the Seahawks was a play the Pats specifically planned & practiced against. Belichick put an undrafted rookie in position to make the play of a lifetime with good preparation and coaching.

    the fact that Belichick, Brady & Kraft all have prior-to-political career personal friendship with Trump doesn’t make them awful people. means they happen be rich dudes in the north east who happen to know a rich dude who may or may not share their political views. as Howard Stern noted, he’s friends with Trump and has known him for decades, but doesn’t agree with him politically. with the obsession in the NFL against “being a distraction” and Belichick’s demonstrated aversion for talking about anything other than football, and not even that much, it is unsurprising that they didn’t say much about it during the season & likely won’t later on. even if they do, it’s not going to impact their legacy in their sport.

    1. Oh, call the WHAAAMBULANCE. Try having the Lions as your team.

      The worst part about them moving to Ford Field is that we can’t call them the Pontiac Pussycats anymore.

  18. I know this is several days late, but conservatives boycotting Anheuser-Busch over that ad is probably the dumbest thing. It was a story of the “American Dream”. A legal immigrant leaves his country and goes to America, overcomes adversity and becomes successful. ALSO, you realize that “Anheuser-Busch” is now AB-InBev. If you want to boycott the company, you’re gonna have to be extremely conscious about what brands you are buying, as that company is YUUGE! Not only that, but it isn’t an American company. I could think of dozens of reasons not to drink their base swill brands anyway, but a stupid ad isn’t one.
    As an aspiring microbrewery owner/operator, I implore you buy from your local breweries. You are supporting local business and buying American. Also, if you have some good breweries around, even if you “don’t like IPAs/’dark beers'”, you should be able to find something you like, and something crafted with real love and care. Not something designed to be produced to maximize profit for a multinational, like your corn and rice filled lite lagers.

    1. I love this! Yes. We have tons and tons of microbreweries that we support here in Colorado- they’re the best. I’m personally a huge IPA fan. I love the breweries here in CO because they cater to families – they often have games for the kids on weekend afternoons and it is an awesome weekend “activity.”. Good Luck to you- keep me posted!

  19. Observations:

    DW strikes me as a very unhappy person judging by his behavior here and on TTAC.

    The older non politically motivated ads during the Super Bowl were better.

    The Left has infiltrated and owns Academia, The Media, and Hollywood. Is it any surprise that lefties inspire ads which embody their positions?

    All this nonsense about safe spaces – micro-aggressions, and triggering maes me think we;ve been turned into a nation of weaklings.

    Lastly, I suggest we abandon this thread thread, Google and watch Milo videos.

    Oh, and I liked LM essay which “triggered” DW’s outrage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.