Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dgreen

  1. 25 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

    I saw somebody else make this point better than I will, but I forget who it was so I can't give credit properly.

    When it comes to protecting speech, we can draw a reasonably bright line between someone making a controversial truth claim vs. someone just being a jerk.  The first is something that we should shrink-wrap with tolerance even if we strongly disagree with the claim being presented.  The second is really more of an action than reasoned speech.  The implication of this standard is that somebody who says something like "Research shows that peaceful protests are more effective than violent protests" or "Research shows that gender imbalances in STEM derive from population-level differences between the sexes" should get way more forbearance than some guy throwing a hissy fit in Costco.  

    The other bright line is between saying "I disagree with your opinion and think less of you for holding it" vs. "Let's see what your employer thinks about this."  The first is fine.  The second is what defines cancel culture.

    Overall I think it would be good if we could avoid conflating all of these things.

    Yeah, there's been a lot of stuff in here that I don't consider to be cancel culture. When people misapply "cancel culture" to an event, I think we should post their real name, home address, cell phone number, and employer in here in an effort to change their behavior and make this world a better place.

    • Like 1
    • Laughing 1

  2. It will be interesting to hear how they message the name change. If they say they are changing everything because it's racist, then it will be interesting to see how the NFL and broadcast partners deal with that in terms of showing past highlights. For example, can they say it's all racist and then still show John Riggins running for a TD in the Super Bowl and Frank Herzog's voice saying "Touchdown, Washington Redskins!"? Will they have a throwback jersey? Will the HOF do something to remove the name from their displays?

    My guess is they don't say it's changing because it's racist. I think they'll continue to say it was always meant to honor, but that it's just time for a change.

    • Like 2

  3. 1 hour ago, Captain Cranks said:

    Florida case count for Sunday

    Over 6K new cases.  Sunday is usually a 'pullback' day, for whatever reason.  

    It's crazy that 2% of people 35-44 end up dead.  Those aren't really odds I like to contend with when my life is on the line.  

    That's not what that graph is saying. It says 2% of all deaths are aged 35-44 (69/3778). The % of 35-44 year olds who have died is 0.2% (69/32987).

    • Thanks 1

  4. 56 minutes ago, timschochet said:

    When I started this thread  I had no idea it would run 6 pages. It’s still incomprehensible to me. I just figured almost everyone at this point would say “yeah we agree” and that would be the end of it. At most I figured somebody who wants to be especially nit picky might write “I think we may have to have some exceptions, but that’s a minor issue and I’m not going to object to the whole idea because of them”. 
    The idea that some folks are actually digging into the “what-ifs” and using worst possible scenarios to try to derail the whole idea tells me that some part of our society has gone looney tunes. If I had started a thread called “jaywalking should be illegal” and received a several page pushback I could not be more disappointed. 

    I haven't read every post in this thread, but from what I've read, I don't see how this is your interpretation of what's being said.

  5. 3 hours ago, tonydead said:

    This is my whole point with this thing - we should be focused on social distancing and not just giving up going to masks which a) aren't as effective and b) people won't follow anyway.

    My experience is that more people are following local mask rules than followed social distancing rules (while in public) before mask rules. Everyone wears masks in stores where I am now. A couple months ago, social distancing in a grocery store was not fully being followed. 

  6. 1 hour ago, timschochet said:

    Because the issue of wearing masks is both too obvious and too minor to allow for carve outs. Until this is over, everybody needs to wear a ####### mask. That’s it. 

    I assume you think carve outs make sense in a world where people will perfectly follow rules but your assumption is people won't follow the rules therefore we need to a zero tolerance policy?

    I disagree we can't allow exceptions (I assume that's what carve outs are) in official policies/statements.

  7. 3 hours ago, shader said:

    I think two things:

    1. Everyone should wear a mask when they leave their home
    2. Lockdowns are still the primary way to stop an outbreak.

    I don't like the idea of using masks as a replacement for lockdowns.  It's risky.  I don't know of another country that did that, so it's a risky proposition in the middle of a pandemic.  


    I thought I heard that Hong Kong did masks without a lockdown with great success.

  8. 16 minutes ago, timschochet said:


    If already had it and have recovered, I'd probably still wear a mask because I think it would make others feel better. But, what's the current evidence about being able to get covid again and spreading it after already having it and recovering? Have there been cases of individuals contracting and spreading it a second time?

  9. 3 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

    Yeah, I am not saying you go hiking in the woods by yourself you need a mask but you go into town and walk main street, etc. you should have a mask on.  Chance you are going to walk by someone you should have a mask on.  Look at cases in Asia compared to here.   Most of those countries never did full lockdowns like us but they have such lower cases.   There is one clear difference - they wear masks everywhere.   


    Yes, agree. My only point was that there are places that are outdoors that masks aren't needed and that our country is large and has a variety of landscapes where a person might be outdoors. On Broadway in NYC, wear masks. Hiking in the woods by yourself, no mask needed. Somewhere in between, there's a line.

    I usually go on multiple 10-20 minute walks, either by myself or with the dog, each day in my suburban townhouse neighborhood. I can easily do that without coming within 50 or even 100+ feet of another person. There just aren't that many people outside at any given time. So far, I've been doing those walks without even taking a mask with me. I probably should start to at least have one with me because, yes, there are rare times that I might cross paths at a closer distance of maybe like 20 feet. 

    In my neighborhood, I think I've only seen one older Asian woman who always has a mask on outside. There's one particular neighborhood nearby that I drive through a lot that has what I assume is a high immigrant/foreign-born population (mostly East Asian and Middle Eastern and Indian). That neighborhood has noticeably more masks outside, but still less than half of the people. Again, these are suburban neighborhoods with plenty of space and there's really no reason people can't keep their distance on these walks.

    As far as I can tell, my county's numbers are looking ok. Pretty much 100% compliance in indoor public spaces (grocery stores, Wal Mart, Target, etc). But, like I said, I don't see much outside. I haven't taken a stroll down any local main streets where there might be a little more pedestrian traffic. Maybe I'll do that soon or at least take a drive through one to see what I see.

    • Like 1

  10. Just now, Redwes25 said:

    Because it is very clear that it works. You look at Asian countries with high mask compliance and they have very low Case levels. NYC also had massive protests and  NYC case levels are lower then when they started. Compare that with places with low compliance and you have high spread. 

    I'm specifically talking about outdoor areas. In NYC, outdoor areas have a lot of people in close proximity. In many areas of the country, outdoor areas don't have a lot of people in close proximity.

    Until this thread, I honestly haven't heard people arguing that masks should be worn at all times outside. It makes sense in NYC.

  11. 10 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

    Seems to work in NYC.  Not sure why there is resistance. Would say there is almost 95 percent compliance outside and 100 percent inside. 

    NYC is a unique place in our country. I don't understand the reason for needing high compliance in outdoor areas in most of the country.

  12. Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

    What if the vaccine isn't available to everyone?  What if some decide they don't want the vaccine?

    Why wouldn’t it be available to everyone? Just short supply? In that case, I assume we keep masks until we have enough supply, however much “enough” is.

    I don’t know enough about this to know if Covid vaccine refusal should be treated like flu vaccine refusal or the vaccines that, for example, are required for kids to attend school. My guess is we’d treat it more like the flu vaccine and encourage it but not make a huge deal about and stop using masks even if we know people are refusing. Maybe local ordinances will be based on percentage of population who have been vaccined.

  13. 13 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

    What's the move if you see someone in a store without a mask despite being in a mask- mandated municipality?  Say something to them?  Tell an employee?  Give 'em the old stink eye?

    For me, I do the same thing I do when I see people break other rules: Nothing. 

    • Like 2

  14. 35 minutes ago, East Coast Bias said:

    Just saw this as well. Likely dropping it as I don’t watch enough to justify $65 a month.

    I haven't watched YouTube TV in about 3 weeks. One kid has watched a handful of episodes of a show since then. I'll likely pause/cancel and then figure out what to do once sports are back.

    • Like 2

  15. 54 minutes ago, woodstock said:

    That's certainly a moral problem on the parts of both, but I would hold the politicians more culpable than the companies for some reason. I don't expect profit-seekers to not seek more profit or rent, but I sure expect a public servant to hold the line on his or her own benefit from the transaction. 

    I didn't study it too much in college, but I believe this gets into Public Choice Economics. That's an area of econ that applies econ principles to the public sector/politics. It applies market economics to areas that have traditionally been thought to be outside of the market. But, it recognizes that markets are everywhere and all the same economic rules apply. Public servants are humans who respond to incentives just like humans who aren't public servants.

    • Like 2

  16. I've always found it interesting when complaints that a company doesn't pay enough in taxes are directed at the company and not at the government. I'm sure the companies have done immoral things to help create those loopholes (or whatever causes this), but IMO more blame should be on government. It's government's job to not allow that to happen if it's bad for society.

    • Like 4
    • Love 1