Matt Waldman: 75% chance Bridgwater falls due to racism (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

are you saying its possible FBG is being racist by not hiring someone black or could it be something else? Lets say, hypothetically speaking FBG was being racist, would this be happening unconsciously or not

For what it's worth, when FBG hired me they had no idea whether I was white or black. They'd never met me. I was just a username on the internet. I believe the same is true for nearly every other FBG staffer.

So what exactly are you saying, that black people can't write well enough on a fantasy football website to be member/contributor/employee? For shame...

I know you're just kidding, but putting ugly words in other people's mouths is not a strategy.

 

[cobalt_27]

Open letter to Matt Waldman:

Matt, I'm a regular subscriber to your RSP. Your comments about Bridgewater are concerning, not because they are factually incorrect, necessarily, but because they don't correspond very well with recent history (i.e., say, the last 20 years). Furthermore, unlike how you approach all of your other opinions about quarterbacks, such as their footwork, their arm strength, their pocket presence, character concerns, etc., you have taken the stance that this opinion, which you shared freely and anticipated would generate a reaction, you chose to keep the rationale and context to yourself.

I am reaching out because I am not sure you fully appreciate what you've done here. You have played the race card, which is provocative, but failed to provide context. In particular, how/why the issue of race applies to Bridgewater but not other recent black QBs is important. Perhaps you feel it has, and it would help to know who you feel was under-drafted because of skin color. Nonetheless, clearly, it was important enough that you to brought it up. Your response in the thread discussing this issue indicates you've thought about it and researched this quite a bit. Furthermore, your anticipation that it might generate some discussion, including both praise and critique, suggests this has been on your mind and that your comments were calculated.

I think it is fair to ask that you approach this topic in the same objective way you try to approach all other opinions. Please provide a little context, support, data, tidbits from discussions with NFL personnel (omitting identity, organizations, etc).

Your expansion on these thoughts could be illuminating and should be part of the discussion you chose to initiate.

 

[dehaven123]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

So you were purposely trying to be provocative? That wasn't smart as it backfired on you pretty badly. It's going to backfire on your wallet and credibility as well, I'm afraid.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

Potential. That's the problem with your ilk. You have zero proof that your comment is based on anything other than race baiting BS. We dislike your view not because we are saying that racism doesn't exist, we hate your view because it's completely baseless, unfactual and laced with hateful rhetoric in order to propagate a stereotype that doesn't need to be propagated where it doesn't belong. It CLEARLY doesn't belong here. You injected it in here on purpose. You owe us all an apology.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

1) Mystery conversations with "people" in the NFL? Really? Are you really trying to say that there are people in the NFL that have specific documented examples of racism coming from the highest levels, whom haven't ratted those executives out yet? Are you really saying that you are the sole lucky person for those NFL "people" to talk to and that is why this information hasn't gotten out? Or are you saying that you aren't the only one that "knows" and it's just one big racist conspiracy? Are we to believe that you have knowledge of racist activity and haven't gone to the media to report it yourself? What better way to make yourself famous and move on from FBG to the "big-time"? Knowing how serious you believe this nonsense I find it impossible to believe that you would help hide those proven racist tendencies by the white ownership elite. Nice theory bro. Tell your story walkin'!

2) Your own personal experiences? Has your skin color changed in the last 48 hours?

3) Discussions who you have discussed this topic with in detail. Now THAT I believe. I also believe you need to expand your friends and their political views of the world.

some of you guys are just so much better at putting your thoughts into actual written words than i am. i am really so thankful that you took the time to post your thoughts above. if i was as capable a writer and communicator as this fine poster here, in this case, i would hope it came out exactly like your post. you could not sum up my personal feelings and my own objections any better than you did here. thank you. i hope your post actually gets the time and audience it truly deserves.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe he just doesnt know the difference between being a racist and using sterotyping or prejudice, both of which are done all the time without race being involved.

If someone doesn't want Djax right now because he is a thug gangbanger or whatever people are calling him, that doesn't mean they dont want him because he is black. It means they dont want him cause he is a thug gangbanger. Lot of WHITE thug gangbangers out there, too.

Now, do I think there is racism in the NFL?? Of course there is. There is racism in some form or another everywhere. Does this racism in the NFL go so far that you wouldn't pick a QB in the top of the first round because the guy is black??? Umm, no. Unless Waldman heard some owner say "this organization will never have a black QB as long as I am alive and the owner", it is pure uninformed speculation.

It really wouldnt be a shocker to me to see some billionaire white owners in the 60s and 70s that are fairly racist. But it would shock me that their racism is so deep that they are not willing to draft players based on race, specifically a QB that they think will take them to super bowls.

Probably the most riduclous part of what Waldman said had to do with Bridgewater specifically, and even his awesome post on here did not address that at all. Some owner who truly thinks Teddy will take them to super bowls..............is passing on him because he is black. Uh huh

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Open letter to Matt Waldman:

Matt, I'm a regular subscriber to your RSP. Your comments about Bridgewater are concerning, not because they are factually incorrect, necessarily, but because they don't correspond very well with recent history (i.e., say, the last 20 years). Furthermore, unlike how you approach all of your other opinions about quarterbacks, such as their footwork, their arm strength, their pocket presence, character concerns, etc., you have taken the stance that this opinion, which you shared freely and anticipated would generate a reaction, you chose to keep the rationale and context to yourself.

I am reaching out because I am not sure you fully appreciate what you've done here. You have played the race card, which is provocative, but failed to provide context. In particular, how/why the issue of race applies to Bridgewater but not other recent black QBs is important. Perhaps you feel it has, and it would help to know who you feel was under-drafted because of skin color. Nonetheless, clearly, it was important enough that you to brought it up. Your response in the thread discussing this issue indicates you've thought about it and researched this quite a bit. Furthermore, your anticipation that it might generate some discussion, including both praise and critique, suggests this has been on your mind and that your comments were calculated.

I think it is fair to ask that you approach this topic in the same objective way you try to approach all other opinions. Please provide a little context, support, data, tidbits from discussions with NFL personnel (omitting identity, organizations, etc).

Your expansion on these thoughts could be illuminating and should be part of the discussion you chose to initiate.

Who wrote that?

 

[cobalt_27]

Open letter to Matt Waldman:

Matt, I'm a regular subscriber to your RSP. Your comments about Bridgewater are concerning, not because they are factually incorrect, necessarily, but because they don't correspond very well with recent history (i.e., say, the last 20 years). Furthermore, unlike how you approach all of your other opinions about quarterbacks, such as their footwork, their arm strength, their pocket presence, character concerns, etc., you have taken the stance that this opinion, which you shared freely and anticipated would generate a reaction, you chose to keep the rationale and context to yourself.

I am reaching out because I am not sure you fully appreciate what you've done here. You have played the race card, which is provocative, but failed to provide context. In particular, how/why the issue of race applies to Bridgewater but not other recent black QBs is important. Perhaps you feel it has, and it would help to know who you feel was under-drafted because of skin color. Nonetheless, clearly, it was important enough that you to brought it up. Your response in the thread discussing this issue indicates you've thought about it and researched this quite a bit. Furthermore, your anticipation that it might generate some discussion, including both praise and critique, suggests this has been on your mind and that your comments were calculated.

I think it is fair to ask that you approach this topic in the same objective way you try to approach all other opinions. Please provide a little context, support, data, tidbits from discussions with NFL personnel (omitting identity, organizations, etc).

Your expansion on these thoughts could be illuminating and should be part of the discussion you chose to initiate.

Who wrote that?

I did and sent it last night.

 

[ghostguy123]

Open letter to Matt Waldman:

Matt, I'm a regular subscriber to your RSP. Your comments about Bridgewater are concerning, not because they are factually incorrect, necessarily, but because they don't correspond very well with recent history (i.e., say, the last 20 years). Furthermore, unlike how you approach all of your other opinions about quarterbacks, such as their footwork, their arm strength, their pocket presence, character concerns, etc., you have taken the stance that this opinion, which you shared freely and anticipated would generate a reaction, you chose to keep the rationale and context to yourself.

I am reaching out because I am not sure you fully appreciate what you've done here. You have played the race card, which is provocative, but failed to provide context. In particular, how/why the issue of race applies to Bridgewater but not other recent black QBs is important. Perhaps you feel it has, and it would help to know who you feel was under-drafted because of skin color. Nonetheless, clearly, it was important enough that you to brought it up. Your response in the thread discussing this issue indicates you've thought about it and researched this quite a bit. Furthermore, your anticipation that it might generate some discussion, including both praise and critique, suggests this has been on your mind and that your comments were calculated.

I think it is fair to ask that you approach this topic in the same objective way you try to approach all other opinions. Please provide a little context, support, data, tidbits from discussions with NFL personnel (omitting identity, organizations, etc).

Your expansion on these thoughts could be illuminating and should be part of the discussion you chose to initiate.

Who wrote that?

I did and sent it last night.

It's very good...............but I don't see a response coming

 

[RushHour]

I don't know why some people in here are so invested in this. Matt made the comment he made, there may be truth to it, or it may be unfounded speculation. It really doesn't matter. You may think the comments were misguided or wrong, but he is just voicing an opinion, something he obviously has some strong feelings about. If you think there wasn't enough context provided or whatever, then that's fine, but I don't think that means Matt owes you an explanation for what he said or has to defend his comments to a bunch of posters on here who are in no better position than anyone else to assess the validity of what was said. IMO some people are being a bit precious about this. Matt said what he said, time to move on.

 

[GridironMenace]

I don't know why some people in here are so invested in this. Matt made the comment he made, there may be truth to it, or it may be unfounded speculation. It really doesn't matter. You may think the comments were misguided or wrong, but he is just voicing an opinion, something he obviously has some strong feelings about. If you think there wasn't enough context provided or whatever, then that's fine, but I don't think that means Matt owes you an explanation for what he said or has to defend his comments to a bunch of posters on here who are in no better position than anyone else to assess the validity of what was said. IMO some people are being a bit precious about this. Matt said what he said, time to move on.

Are you really saying that it doesn't matter whether Waldman's opinion has truth to it? Of course it matters. Everyone has a right to the own opinion, sure, but no one has a right to their own set of facts. Waldman is clearly putting off his opinion as fact and the problem with that is that he has no fact to back it up. If I say 2+2=3, does it make it so, because that is exactly what he is doing.

If Waldman was an everyday schmuck on the street then no one would really care what he says. But Waldman isn't an everyday schmuck on the street. He is a large cog in the wheel of a public money making operation and because of that, he owes us a whole lot more than what he has given us.

It's a good thing for Waldman that FBG llc., is not a fortune 500 company. If it was, people would be screaming for Waldman's head on a platter and he would have been suspended or fired for making such baseless claims. Since the people that come to this site are everyday schmucks on the street, Bryant and Co. will just try to weather the storm and give him a tap on the wrist because no one here has a loud enough voice to make it hurt in FBG's wallet. I can guarantee you one thing, Waldman won't make this mistake again.

Until Waldman offers a legit apology, I would urge everyone to stop paying for a membership over at RSP. That is the only way that Waldman will get the message.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't know why some people in here are so invested in this. Matt made the comment he made, there may be truth to it, or it may be unfounded speculation. It really doesn't matter. You may think the comments were misguided or wrong, but he is just voicing an opinion, something he obviously has some strong feelings about. If you think there wasn't enough context provided or whatever, then that's fine, but I don't think that means Matt owes you an explanation for what he said or has to defend his comments to a bunch of posters on here who are in no better position than anyone else to assess the validity of what was said. IMO some people are being a bit precious about this. Matt said what he said, time to move on.

Are you really saying that it doesn't matter whether Waldman's opinion has truth to it? Of course it matters. Everyone has a right to the own opinion, sure, but no one has a right to their own set of facts. Waldman is clearly putting off his opinion as fact and the problem with that is that he has no fact to back it up. If I say 2+2=3, does it make it so, because that is exactly what he is doing.

If Waldman was an everyday schmuck on the street then no one would really care what he says. But Waldman isn't an everyday schmuck on the street. He is a large cog in the wheel of a public money making operation and because of that, he owes us a whole lot more than what he has given us.

It's a good thing for Waldman that FBG llc., is not a fortune 500 company. If it was, people would be screaming for Waldman's head on a platter and he would have been suspended or fired for making such baseless claims. Since the people that come to this site are everyday schmucks on the street, Bryant and Co. will just try to weather the storm and give him a tap on the wrist because no one here has a loud enough voice to make it hurt in FBG's wallet. I can guarantee you one thing, Waldman won't make this mistake again.

Until Waldman offers a legit apology, I would urge everyone to stop paying for a membership over at RSP. That is the only way that Waldman will get the message.

Fight the power.

Maybe we can start a support group for those that he offended or better yet we should send the money we would have spent on the RSP directly to those poor NFL owners and GMs that Waldman has discredited.

The faux outrage over this is ridiculous. I doubt most people even listened, read or thought about what was actually said. People just read the inaccurate and sensationalized title of the thread and pile on.

As I said, I do not beleive Bridgewater will even fall out of the top 10, nor do I think if he does it will be due to direct or indirect racism - but why is anyone so offended that some one expressed an opinion that it could happen. Who exactly are we fighting the good fight for.

There's been a lot more offensive things said about an individual in this thread and far more outrageous positions taken than Waldman's. People are funny. They see the word racism and get so offended about any implication that it just am still have some kind of bearing on otherwise rational and successful people's decision making.

If people truly want to boycott this site or the RSP over this, it's they're right. It's a little misguided in my opinion, but heck, we all must stand for something I guess.

Find some other cause to champion. There's issues more deserving of everyone's time.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I don't know why some people in here are so invested in this. Matt made the comment he made, there may be truth to it, or it may be unfounded speculation. It really doesn't matter. You may think the comments were misguided or wrong, but he is just voicing an opinion, something he obviously has some strong feelings about. If you think there wasn't enough context provided or whatever, then that's fine, but I don't think that means Matt owes you an explanation for what he said or has to defend his comments to a bunch of posters on here who are in no better position than anyone else to assess the validity of what was said. IMO some people are being a bit precious about this. Matt said what he said, time to move on.

Are you really saying that it doesn't matter whether Waldman's opinion has truth to it? Of course it matters. Everyone has a right to the own opinion, sure, but no one has a right to their own set of facts. Waldman is clearly putting off his opinion as fact and the problem with that is that he has no fact to back it up. If I say 2+2=3, does it make it so, because that is exactly what he is doing.

If Waldman was an everyday schmuck on the street then no one would really care what he says. But Waldman isn't an everyday schmuck on the street. He is a large cog in the wheel of a public money making operation and because of that, he owes us a whole lot more than what he has given us.

It's a good thing for Waldman that FBG llc., is not a fortune 500 company. If it was, people would be screaming for Waldman's head on a platter and he would have been suspended or fired for making such baseless claims. Since the people that come to this site are everyday schmucks on the street, Bryant and Co. will just try to weather the storm and give him a tap on the wrist because no one here has a loud enough voice to make it hurt in FBG's wallet. I can guarantee you one thing, Waldman won't make this mistake again.

Until Waldman offers a legit apology, I would urge everyone to stop paying for a membership over at RSP. That is the only way that Waldman will get the message.

Fight the power.Maybe we can start a support group for those that he offended or better yet we should send the money we would have spent on the RSP directly to those poor NFL owners and GMs that Waldman has discredited.

The faux outrage over this is ridiculous. I doubt most people even listened, read or thought about what was actually said. People just read the inaccurate and sensationalized title of the thread and pile on.

As I said, I do not beleive Bridgewater will even fall out of the top 10, nor do I think if he does it will be due to direct or indirect racism - but why is anyone so offended that some one expressed an opinion that it could happen. Who exactly are we fighting the good fight for.

There's been a lot more offensive things said about an individual in this thread and far more outrageous positions taken than Waldman's. People are funny. They see the word racism and get so offended about any implication that it just am still have some kind of bearing on otherwise rational and successful people's decision making.

If people truly want to boycott this site or the RSP over this, it's they're right. It's a little misguided in my opinion, but heck, we all must stand for something I guess.

Find some other cause to champion. There's issues more deserving of everyone's time.

You miss Matt's follow on in this thread? The guy said something stupid and is getting called on it. The longer he takes that stance the more he will probably be called on it. He should really stick to football and not bring his desire to be a white Al Sharpton here making up issues about race.

 

[fatness]

Until Waldman offers a legit apology, I would urge everyone to stop paying for a membership over at RSP.

I have a feeling that the waves of people you imagine following your suggestion aren't going to be enough of a wave to get all 10 toes wet.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

 

[johnjohn]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

 

[Christo]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

 

[cstu]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

Who should he apologize to? The only people he would have offended are NFL owners and GM's and I don't think there are any here.

 

[johnjohn]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

Who should he apologize to? The only people he would have offended are NFL owners and GM's and I don't think there are any here.

He insulted every person that doesn't think BW is a top talent worth a top draft spot, he is saying we are all racists for thinking that, not just NFL owners / GMs

 

[Christo]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

Who should he apologize to? The only people he would have offended are NFL owners and GM's and I don't think there are any here.

Get the hook out of your mouth.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Open letter to Matt Waldman:

Matt, I'm a regular subscriber to your RSP. Your comments about Bridgewater are concerning, not because they are factually incorrect, necessarily, but because they don't correspond very well with recent history (i.e., say, the last 20 years). Furthermore, unlike how you approach all of your other opinions about quarterbacks, such as their footwork, their arm strength, their pocket presence, character concerns, etc., you have taken the stance that this opinion, which you shared freely and anticipated would generate a reaction, you chose to keep the rationale and context to yourself.

I am reaching out because I am not sure you fully appreciate what you've done here. You have played the race card, which is provocative, but failed to provide context. In particular, how/why the issue of race applies to Bridgewater but not other recent black QBs is important. Perhaps you feel it has, and it would help to know who you feel was under-drafted because of skin color. Nonetheless, clearly, it was important enough that you to brought it up. Your response in the thread discussing this issue indicates you've thought about it and researched this quite a bit. Furthermore, your anticipation that it might generate some discussion, including both praise and critique, suggests this has been on your mind and that your comments were calculated.

I think it is fair to ask that you approach this topic in the same objective way you try to approach all other opinions. Please provide a little context, support, data, tidbits from discussions with NFL personnel (omitting identity, organizations, etc).

Your expansion on these thoughts could be illuminating and should be part of the discussion you chose to initiate.

Who wrote that?

I did and sent it last night.

Yeah, I was just being dumb there. I do find it so strange that as detailed Waldman is in some things concerning actual football, he is extremely lacking in details to support his social opinions. He should definitely be more consistent.

 

[cobalt_27]

Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.

Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.

 

[squistion]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

Who should he apologize to? The only people he would have offended are NFL owners and GM's and I don't think there are any here.

He insulted every person that doesn't think BW is a top talent worth a top draft spot, he is saying we are all racists for thinking that, not just NFL owners / GMs

Straw Man alert! This mischaracterization of what Waldman had said has now reached almost demented proportions. He is accusing everybody who doesn't think BW is a top talent of racism? Please.

 

[fatness]

He insulted every person that doesn't think BW is a top talent worth a top draft spot, he is saying we are all racists for thinking that, not just NFL owners / GMs

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As demonstrated by my posts, I disagree with Matts views on race and I understand why so many of us are just sooo sick and tired of being called racist (conscious, sub conscious, potato, potahto), victim hood and identity politics. However, he doesn't owe anyone an apology or even and explanation, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how misguided others may feel that opinion is.

If you read Matts 2012 article on race you can see he lives in a world where it is normal\common for people to correct his wife when she refers to herself as black (in the name of political correctness). He didn't mean for it to be, but his anecdote is very revealing about the circles he travels in and the identity politic groupthink that likely permeates that world. Its most definitely not the same (IE real) world the vast majority of us live in. Agree or disagree, none of it means Matt is a bad guy or doesn't do good work with the rsp. It just means he is human and sees the world through his own prism just like the rest of us.

Agree with him or not, state your own opinion and move on; he doesn't owe any of us anything.

He doesn't owe us a thing, just like we don't owe FBG a thing. if FBG allows their staff member to say outrageous offensive things without the decency to apologize for it why should we spend money on this site

So when some one expresses an opinion or comments on something and you don't agree with their position, you demand an apology from them? You truly live you life that way johnjohn?

If you were at work and some one said that Seinfeld was the funniest show on television ever but you thought Full House was a lot funnier - would you expect an apology from them? Obviously Matt's comments have more gravity than a banal argument about TV sitcoms, but why is he not allowed to express beliefs that to him are real?

Can you put into words what was outrageous and offensive about it? Why does his belief lack merits, while your's is so special that it requires an apology when some one offers an opposing viewpoint to it?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.

Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.

Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?

His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.

 

[mr roboto]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

 

[cobalt_27]

Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.

Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.

Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?

His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.

If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.

 

[cobalt_27]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

No. I'm pretty certain he didn't say that.

 

[mr roboto]

So why are all the Internet dorks offended?

 

[Da Guru]

What is missing is that there is a huge difference between "opinion" and "fact" Waldman wrote the article like a columnist does giving his "personal" thoughts. There are no facts to back up what he said, no facts at all to back up the 75% figure, but being opinion you don`t need facts. This is one writers non-fact based opinion. No need to get worked up about it.

Why Bridgewater would buck the trend that is going on the last decade or so has to do more with perceived talent than race. In fact from all of what I have read about Bridgewater his character and work ethic is top-notch. Newton did not have nearly the glowing character reviews of Bridgewater. But Newton had arm, talent and body type that the NFL has fallen in love with. Terrell Pryor had the body type but not the arm or talent so he dropped. So that leads to the one thing that trumps all others. Bridgewater has been dicey in his predraft workout in terms of body type and arm strength. Talent prevails.

If you have been watching all the pre-draft shows the consensus seems to be that the is no clear cut "franchise" type QB in this years draft. So it is quite possible Bortles, Manziel and Bridgewater could all be taken high, or all could drop.

 

[monk]

Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.

Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.

And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10 and completely busts ... it will be because he wasn't given a fair chance to succeed because of the color of his skin. So he's got that covered too.

 

[johnjohn]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.

Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

 

[mr roboto]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

He didn't say you were racist for holding that opinion though. So, this is a straw man.

 

[johnjohn]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

He didn't say you were racist for holding that opinion though. So, this is a straw man.

implied - suggested but not directly expressed

 

[squistion]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

He didn't say you were racist for holding that opinion though. So, this is a straw man.

Exactly.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

No No No. it is not because you are racist. There's a 25% chance that you aren't a racist. Twenty five percent!

 

[johnjohn]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

No No No. it is not because you are racist. There's a 25% chance that you aren't a racist. Twenty five percent!

My mistake

 

[mr roboto]

Serious question - did he say that anyone with the opinion that Teddy isn't the best QB prospect in this draft class is motivated by racism? Even dorks on the Internet? I haven't listened to the podcast.

He didnt say it, but its implied. You see the same cheerleaders (squistion + fat) blindly defending Waldman, but think about it, if Waldman says NFL owners + gms are racist if he isn't a top pick, he is then also implying that people that dont think he is a top pick are also racist.Personally, I dont think BW is a top talent, and I'll be damned if I have someone tell me its because im racist and then also tell me, I can't defend myself from being called a racist because I am not even aware its happening.

He didn't say you were racist for holding that opinion though. So, this is a straw man.

implied - suggested but not directly expressed

No. NFL GMs are responsible for the performance of their teams, their draft picks, fan attendance, bottom line profitability and many other factors. You and I and all the other Internet dorks with opinions on players have none of that at stake. So it's entirely reasonable to attribute a GMs evaluation of a prospect to a different set of factors than your evaluation or mine. I do not happen to agree with Waldman's stance, but I also don't make the poorly reasoned leap to think that his stance would apply to you or me.

 

[johnjohn]

"oh those GMs that don't think BW is a top talent like I do are racist, and they don't even know it" blatant use of Ad Hominem by Mr.Waldman, and disgusting at that

I wonder why the two cheerleaders who are claiming im using the strawman fallacy (im not) doesn't care about that ? I wonder why indeed.

 

[mr roboto]

"oh those GMs that don't think BW is a top talent like I do are racist, and they don't even know it" blatant use of Ad Hominem by Mr.Waldman, and disgusting at that

I wonder why the two cheerleaders who are claiming im using the strawman fallacy (im not) doesn't care about that ? I wonder why indeed.

What question?

 

[johnjohn]

"oh those GMs that don't think BW is a top talent like I do are racist, and they don't even know it" blatant use of Ad Hominem by Mr.Waldman, and disgusting at that

I wonder why the two cheerleaders who are claiming im using the strawman fallacy (im not) doesn't care about that ? I wonder why indeed.

What question?

Thought the question was obvious but I'll explain it anyways.

Why are you two guys incorrectly calling me out on using straw man fallacy , and not saying a word about Mr.Waldmans Ad Hominem ?

It makes it seem like you two guys have an agenda defending Waldman, and don't really care about that he insulted a bunch of people when throwing out the race card.

 

[mr roboto]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

 

[johnjohn]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with just the same few people defending him

 

[mr roboto]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with the same few people defending him

Talk about bad logic...'A bunch of people are offended. Therefore, it must have been offensive.' Classic Bandwagon Fallacy. Keep trying to keep up.

 

[johnjohn]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with the same few people defending him

Talk about bad logic...'A bunch of people are offended. Therefore, it must have been offensive.' Classic Bandwagon Fallacy. Keep trying to keep up.

Hmm, you said he didn't insult a bunch of people, I pointed out he did in this thread, and then you change the argument to "oh, he insulted a bunch of people, it must have been offensive" Classic Red Herring. Keep trying to keep up

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.

Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.

Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?

His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.

If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.

I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.

Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.

As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?

Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?

 

[mr roboto]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with the same few people defending him

Talk about bad logic...'A bunch of people are offended. Therefore, it must have been offensive.' Classic Bandwagon Fallacy. Keep trying to keep up.

Hmm, you said he didn't insult a bunch of people, I pointed out he did in this thread, and then you change the argument to "oh, he insulted a bunch of people, it must have been offensive" Classic Red Herring. Keep trying to keep up

He didn't insult anyone in this thread unless one of us is an NFL GM.

 

[johnjohn]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with the same few people defending him

Talk about bad logic...'A bunch of people are offended. Therefore, it must have been offensive.' Classic Bandwagon Fallacy. Keep trying to keep up.

Hmm, you said he didn't insult a bunch of people, I pointed out he did in this thread, and then you change the argument to "oh, he insulted a bunch of people, it must have been offensive" Classic Red Herring. Keep trying to keep up

He didn't insult anyone in this thread unless one of us is an NFL GM.

Of course he did, he implied we are 75 percent likely to be racists if we don't agree with him on BW's rankings. LOL, he even said this will upset people before saying it, and said it anyways. guy is ruthless

 

[mr roboto]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with the same few people defending him

Talk about bad logic...'A bunch of people are offended. Therefore, it must have been offensive.' Classic Bandwagon Fallacy. Keep trying to keep up.

Hmm, you said he didn't insult a bunch of people, I pointed out he did in this thread, and then you change the argument to "oh, he insulted a bunch of people, it must have been offensive" Classic Red Herring. Keep trying to keep up

He didn't insult anyone in this thread unless one of us is an NFL GM.

Of course he did, he implied we are 75 percent likely to be racists if we don't agree with him on BW's rankings

No, you inferred that. I'm claiming that's a bad inference.

 

[pghrob]

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/06/27/walk-on-the-wildside-hernandez-deen-paulette-and-orcas/

 

[johnjohn]

I don't think he insulted a bunch of people. I disagree with his opinion and probably agree with you that it is illogical. I still don't see how you think it applies to you. Please show your work.

Yet, this thread is 8 pages full of mostly people upset by his comment, with the same few people defending him

Talk about bad logic...'A bunch of people are offended. Therefore, it must have been offensive.' Classic Bandwagon Fallacy. Keep trying to keep up.

Hmm, you said he didn't insult a bunch of people, I pointed out he did in this thread, and then you change the argument to "oh, he insulted a bunch of people, it must have been offensive" Classic Red Herring. Keep trying to keep up

He didn't insult anyone in this thread unless one of us is an NFL GM.

Of course he did, he implied we are 75 percent likely to be racists if we don't agree with him on BW's rankings

No, you inferred that. I'm claiming that's a bad inference.

I had a late edit, but he said this would offend people, so he knew he was being offensive to regular people, not just NFL GMs, oh, and btw, your claim is wrong, sorry.