What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*****David Hogg Thread***** (1 Viewer)

IvanKaramazov said:
If you choose a pillow based on the political ideology of the person who sold it to you, there's something seriously wrong with you.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people choose to do business with others for different reasons.  If you knew your money was going to a certain cause or certain things...you may avoid that product or service.

Ive said before and still hold on to this...people should be careful with that...it does lead to a lot of hypocrisy.  If you aren't then researching every owner of every place you go to and holding them equally accountable.  Or in relation to Kim Davis from Kentucky...was she only worried about gay marriage, or did she also worry about other sins to deny someone a marriage license (I think we know the answer to that).

I will say that if I know the owners of an establishment are jackbags...I am less likely to give that establishment my money.  I don't boycott or organize to do so...but if I think about going to 2 different place for lunch...and I already know something about one of the owners, I will choose the other place.  As an example a few years ago..if a Jersey Mikes and Jimmy Johns were in the same area...Id choose Jersey Mikes as I already know that the Jimmy John's guy was hunting big game years ago...and that has stuck in my head as a reason if I had a choice of something similar...Id avoid his product.  Of course now, there isn't a Jimmy John's all that close to me any longer.

With my pillow...doubt I was ever giving him business anyway...I like the pillows we have already.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Thanks.  I hadn't seen this particular article because I didn't imagine that I would be devoting any time to the political orientation of competing pillow manufacturers, but this is the latest in an increasingly-long series about politics taking on an unhealthy prominence in everyday life.  

How crazy is it that if I tell you that I shop at Whole Foods, you can reasonably assume that I'm left-of-center?  How do we end up with grocery stores, sports leagues, restaurant chains, and now pillow companies (!) stratified by partisan affiliation?  It's as if everybody just sort of woke up crazy all of the sudden, like some partisan remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something.

Maybe I'm immune to this particular type of brain worm because of my upbringing.  If I selected my favorite music, books, movies and so on based on the ideology of the people who made it, I would consume basically no media.  You just learn to not care about this sort of thing after a while.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that politics has taken a really unhealthy prominence in everyday life. I'm not sure how to stop that. People should be invested. They should care. But they shouldn't be so tribal. It's like we only learned about the part of government where one should be represented and heard and forgot about the part where that means compromise with others that don't agree with you. It's a basic tenet of democracy, liberal toleration of dissenting views. That a large segment of the population seem willing to forego democratic means to achieve ends says a lot about our culture right now and the deep divide it is in. (Though I will say this -- it doesn't seem to be anything like 1968. That's a country on the brink, for sure. Three assassinations and the Chicago DNC, mixed in with race riots in urban areas. Ugly. But that's a digression.) So yes, things are really politically personalized in all walks of life. It's conspicuous consumption, only done with a political lifestyle in mind. I chalk it up to two things: the loss of religion in our daily lives that used to be the overriding passion of the majority of Americans, and the acceptance that the personal was political. If indeed, that is true, and we are a consumerist society that defines our personality by how we purchase, we find an almost neat syllogism whereupon purchasing will be political, too.

But I can't remember the last time I consumed something that agreed with my politics, either. From music and other entertainment to corporate America's bizarre embrace of the BLM arguments from this summer, I find myself really out of place when it comes to my own consumption. My favorite rap artists of the year just put out an album that has them on the run from the law, killing cops on the opening track. Weird fantasy to have and write about, possibly weirder to listen to and find merit in. But yes, if you tend to come at things from the right-of-center, then you'll generally have to leave your otherwise pop-literate tastes at the door, because they're not really welcome.

 
Rich Conway said:
I was thinking along the lines of treatment of workers, charitable causes, organic/pesticide/GMO, etc.  Maybe something as simple as "Made in the USA".  Company X donates a significant amount of money to a charitable cause I support?  Maybe I'll be more likely to spend my money with them.  Maybe I don't care for Apple's practices re: foreign wages?
Click to expand...
Sure. Thanks for clearing that up. Makes sense.

 
rockaction said:
I called him a useless activist. Yes, he saw something horrible. I have great sympathy for the survivors of that shooting and do not think, unlike Alex Jones, that it was a hoax. I am also open to newer gun control arguments regarding policy.

But this person seems to have instigated political activism from the time he was sixteen or seventeen and in should no way have a bully pulpit to talk about these things other than from an experiential trauma point of view. His views on the election are especially useless.

I survived a horrible car wreck once. Made me think about driver safety and the like. It did not give expertise like the NHTSA has, nor did I pretend to know. Nor did I speak out about it, even though it was a behavioral-induced wreck. An off-duty cop was drunk and almost hit me head on if I hadn't swerved at the last second, getting miraculously T-boned instead of head-on. But, again, this does not make me expert about driver anything. I did not go speak out on behalf of MADD. Nor did I speak out about police reform and citizen oversight. Why? Because I'm not an attention hog seeking to cynically use a bully pulpit for activist/leftist causes. This person is.
Click to expand...
I like the kid and am glad he's using his voice to effect change related to gun control.  My hope is the next generation can do better than previous generations have with regards to gun control here.  I deleted my post upon further reflection but it's here now.  The words you're using to attack David Hogg disappoint me and don't give me a very favorable opinion of you.  I'm not backing away from that.  I find your attacks distasteful.  Just one man's opinion. 

 
General Malaise said:
I like the kid and am glad he's using his voice to effect change related to gun control.  My hope is the next generation can do better than previous generations have with regards to gun control here.  I deleted my post upon further reflection but it's here now.  The words you're using to attack David Hogg disappoint me and don't give me a very favorable opinion of you.  I'm not backing away from that.  I find your attacks distasteful.  Just one man's opinion. 
Click to expand...
That's fine. You should read what the guy from Reason called him. He called him a "demagogue" and a "hack" and was ten times harder on him than I was. I think you want kid gloves for somebody in the public eye demanding public solutions to public problems. That's asking for power and influence right there, and that's where I lose the sympathy a bit. And I agree with his right to say it and even might agree with him about guns and gun laws. But...

Perhaps I'm just cynical because I've seen the young activist time and again in college and in D.C. when I worked there. Want a thoughtful answer? Ask somebody older who doesn't really know the right answer for sure. Want a stupid answer that's really self-assured? Ask a young intern. They'll tell you exactly how certain they are about something. And then believe something totally different ten years later, just as self-assured. But everyone's mileage regarding activists varies some, and the ones we don't agree with, we tend not to like. As a collective we do that.

 
rockaction said:
That's fine. You should read what the guy from Reason called him. He called him a "demagogue" and a "hack" and was ten times harder on him than I was. I think you want kid gloves for somebody in the public eye demanding public solutions to public problems. That's asking for power and influence right there, and that's where I lose the sympathy a bit. And I agree with his right to say it and even might agree with him about guns and gun laws. But...

Perhaps I'm just cynical because I've seen the young activist time and again in college and in D.C. when I worked there. Want a thoughtful answer? Ask somebody older who doesn't really know the right answer for sure. Want a stupid answer that's really self-assured? Ask a young intern. They'll tell you exactly how certain they are about something. And then believe something totally different ten years later, just as self-assured. But everyone's mileage regarding activists varies some, and the ones we don't agree with, we tend not to like. As a collective we do that.
Click to expand...
DIsclaimer:  While I am not a parent of anyone in Parkland, many of my friends (both high school and college) are parents of kids who went to school there and one of them had a daughter who was a senior during these events (and is friends with many of the kids in the public eye now).

Many kids involved in the parkland shooting have dealt with it in different ways, as to be expected. The activists to the cause are adjacent to my Fraternity Brothers' daughter and they chose to take the trauma of this event and try to do something about it.  I would not belittle them for doing so, especially when you hear their story of knowing for years that the Shooter was a "troubled kid" who had many red flags before the Feb 14th shooting occurred.  Many of the "March for our lives" platform has more to do with red flag laws and counseling than it has to do with actual "gun confiscation en mass"

My buddy's daughter did not become an activist.  She internalized a lot of it and is likely still dealing with it. She is a super intelligent young woman but decided to keep moving forward with her life despite this trauma.  I'm not her dad, but I applaud her and worry about her at the same time.  

I do say that if one of my kids was a victim here and someone tried to gaslight the issue my response would be a lot more "burn the place to the ground" than David Hogg's idea of a competing business..

 
This is another PM that sounds like rippingly bad faith.

Ferris Bueller Fan 66

Replied: 11 minutes ago

It was instructive to learn you think David Hogg would be more useful had he died in a school shooting that try to prevent more of them going forward.

And when you see that video of Marjorie Taylor Greene harassing Hogg on the street, you’re rooting for Greene to shoot him.

 
sho nuff said:
Yet boycotts have happened and have caused things to spring past those who are just that into politics.  Dixie Chicks, Chick Fil A did have a short term effect(of course, the opposite side to the boycott also "took to the streets" to support them)..in addition they did change a few things as well.  So that boycott, seemed to be big enough to cause change.

He has already previously been removed from QVC (that was last year I believe)...and now from Kohls, Bed Bath and Beyond, Wayfair,   Hurting himself being able to advertise on social media as well using the company twitter for his personal BS got it banned as well.

How many are carrying his advertising anymore outside of Fox where he bought a ton over the years (and right after Hogg and his friends went after Laura Ingraham)?

I think enough by now have paid attention including retailers that would be selling his product.  Another difference between he and chick fil a...they don't rely on other retailers.  Only advertising and they did enough to keep all that (and their advertising has been pretty damn good for years)
Click to expand...
It’s best we just let it go, we will never agree on some things. What was done to the Dixie chicks was in my opinion absolutely ridiculous

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cowboysfan8 said:
It’s best we just let it go, we will never agree on some things. What was done to the Dixie chicks was in my opinion absolutely ridiculousIt’s best we just let it go, we will never agree on some things. What was done to the Dixie chicks was in my opinion absolutely ridiculous
Click to expand...
I dont think my point is what is ridiculous or mot.  The point is people often do speak with their wallets.  Where they shop or eat or who they give business to.

 
rockaction said:
That's fine. You should read what the guy from Reason called him. He called him a "demagogue" and a "hack" and was ten times harder on him than I was. I think you want kid gloves for somebody in the public eye demanding public solutions to public problems. That's asking for power and influence right there, and that's where I lose the sympathy a bit. And I agree with his right to say it and even might agree with him about guns and gun laws. But...

Perhaps I'm just cynical because I've seen the young activist time and again in college and in D.C. when I worked there. Want a thoughtful answer? Ask somebody older who doesn't really know the right answer for sure. Want a stupid answer that's really self-assured? Ask a young intern. They'll tell you exactly how certain they are about something. And then believe something totally different ten years later, just as self-assured. But everyone's mileage regarding activists varies some, and the ones we don't agree with, we tend not to like. As a collective we do that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand there are critics of David Hogg and the movement he supports.  I have no interest in reading those opinions.  I certainly am not going to read an article where the author calls David Hogg a "hack". 

I find your comments about him distasteful and I am disappointed in the language you've chosen to use discussing him, his movement and young people overall. I find it ironic that you have criticized an entire age group of people for thinking they know better because, well, YOU KNOW BETTER.  Give me a break. 

Fight on, soldier.  My mind on gun law reform was made up long ago and if you think Hogg is a whacked for his thoughts on the matters mine would flabergast you.  

 
General Malaise said:
Yes, I understand there are critics of David Hogg and the movement he supports.  I have no interest in reading those opinions.  I certainly am not going to read an article where the author calls David Hogg a "hack". 

I find your comments about him distasteful and I am disappointed in the language you've chosen to use discussing him, his movement and young people overall. I find it ironic that you have criticized an entire age group of people for thinking they know better because, well, YOU KNOW BETTER.  Give me a break. 

Fight on, soldier.  My mind on gun law reform was made up long ago and if you think Hogg is a whacked for his thoughts on the matters mine would flabergast you.  
Click to expand...
I don't even think you're reading what I'm writing, GB. I said that I was sympathetic to gun reform and control, which was his main platform.

I never said I knew better. In fact, I find comfort in people that DON'T think they know better than everyone. Especially at the age of eighteen. And my age, too.

That's okay that you find the criticisms distasteful. I'm not sure your reading comprehension isn't being blinded by partisan and/or emotional blinkers on this one.

And did you read that PM that Ferris sent me? That somehow I would be cheering for his death at the hands of Marjorie the QANON lady? That I would have rather he died or something like that? I'm pretty sure you guys are decentralized and looped about what I'm really saying here.  

I'm actually going to give you a pass, contrary to how you're viewing the exchange. 

 
rockaction said:
I agree with you that politics has taken a really unhealthy prominence in everyday life. I'm not sure how to stop that. People should be invested. They should care. But they shouldn't be so tribal.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with this.  In my mind, there is a world of difference between "I care about this issue" and "I refuse to associate with people who disagree with me on this issue."  The first is obviously fine.  The second is something like a self-inflicted mental illness.

 
Boycotts are a very interesting question to me, and I’ve never been quite sure how I’ve felt. I’ve often agreed with @Cowboysfan8’s assertion that they have no real effect; yet it can certainly be argued that back in the 1980s the worldwide boycott of South African products did more to end Apartheid than any other factor. 
Beyond that question I think it’s an issue of personal satisfaction. For several years now I have chosen not to spend any money on a Mel Gibson movie. By doing so I have no illusion that he is hurting in any way because I am boycotting him; but I get to know that, whatever he’s earning, it’s not coming from me. And that’s good enough. 

 
rockaction said:
I don't even think you're reading what I'm writing, GB. I said that I was sympathetic to gun reform and control, which was his main platform.

I never said I knew better. In fact, I find comfort in people that DON'T think they know better than everyone. Especially at the age of eighteen. And my age, too.

That's okay that you find the criticisms distasteful. I'm not sure your reading comprehension isn't being blinded by partisan and/or emotional blinkers on this one.

And did you read that PM that Ferris sent me? That somehow I would be cheering for his death at the hands of Marjorie the QANON lady? That I would have rather he died or something like that? I'm pretty sure you guys are decentralized and looped about what I'm really saying here.  

I'm actually going to give you a pass, contrary to how you're viewing the exchange. 
Click to expand...
I will admit to not reading everything you have written on the matter.  Furthermore, I essentially stopped after reading "useless activist" from you.  I think that's a horrible thing to say regardless of context and sure, emotional blinders are on after reading that.  Yuck.  

I also think posting a PM from another FBG is a bad look.  It was sent privately.  It wasn't intended to be shared.  I wish you wouldn't do that.  

I've got a million things to do today so I will leave the thread now and wish you a Happy Super Bowl Sunday.  Go Bucs, score points, win one for Bruce.  

 
General Malaise said:
I will admit to not reading everything you have written on the matter.  Furthermore, I essentially stopped after reading "useless activist" from you.  I think that's a horrible thing to say regardless of context and sure, emotional blinders are on after reading that.  Yuck.  

I also think posting a PM from another FBG is a bad look.  It was sent privately.  It wasn't intended to be shared.  I wish you wouldn't do that.  

I've got a million things to do today so I will leave the thread now and wish you a Happy Super Bowl Sunday.  Go Bucs, score points, win one for Bruce.  
Click to expand...
Then why bother commenting on what I'm saying if you're not reading it?

As for the PM, not when they're hostile and threatening, it's not a bad look. Why should I be bound to secrecy when he's in the wrong? What, am I supposed to be complicit in my own private hostilities or shaming? Supposed to stay silent so he can keep sending me dumb, vituperative, lousy ####? #### that.

The bad look today seems to be all yours, GM.

 
timschochet said:
Boycotts are a very interesting question to me, and I’ve never been quite sure how I’ve felt. I’ve often agreed with @Cowboysfan8’s assertion that they have no real effect; yet it can certainly be argued that back in the 1980s the worldwide boycott of South African products did more to end Apartheid than any other factor. 
Beyond that question I think it’s an issue of personal satisfaction. For several years now I have chosen not to spend any money on a Mel Gibson movie. By doing so I have no illusion that he is hurting in any way because I am boycotting him; but I get to know that, whatever he’s earning, it’s not coming from me. And that’s good enough. 
Click to expand...
The funny part to me, is that the people that boycotted chick fil a , or will boycott the pillow guy probably buy #### from China and other crapholes every day that have kids making they’re product for a nickel an hour 

 
rockaction said:
This has truly become the most useless thread about the most useless activist that we have on this board. Good work, squistion. Inquiring minds and all that.
Click to expand...
I have Squistion on ignore. He shares the honors with GG.  I'm not reading their posts so if you need me to read Squis to understand you, well.....that's just not going to happen.  

I still object to you calling Hogg "The most useless activist".  I think that's unfair. You can disagree with me, but the guy wants to stop another school shooting from happening.  I think that is a noble goal and admire that he's using his voice to try and accomplish that. 

I will continue reading your posts to see if I can u understand why you have called him "the most useless activist" but I won't be reading other writers who call Hogg a "hack".   Why would I do that?  I like the kid.  But I'll read your posts because I also like you. 

But I do not like posting PMs out in the open.  The "P" stands for "Private".  If Ferris wanted those out in the open, he would have made them openly.  You are a very smart person and I think you have the mental chops to handle disagreements privately when another poster has taken to that channel.  

That's just my opinion.  Now I'll go back and try to understand why you've called David Hogg the most useless activist. 

 
sho nuff said:
I dont think my point is what is ridiculous or mot.  The point is people often do speak with their wallets.  Where they shop or eat or who they give business to.
Click to expand...
I am all for LBGT as my niece is gay and married. 

That being said when i was with her in Chicago a couple years ago we were walking and she said lets go to Chick-Fil-A for lunch.   I said i thought you/we were supposed to boycott that..she said F-That..I love Chick Fil-A. 😁

 
General Malaise said:
 If Ferris wanted those out in the open, he would have made them openly.
Click to expand...
I gotcha for the rest. This I disagree with. He wanted them private so he wouldn't be banned. That was explicitly in his first email to me. I'm not receiving emails like that and helping the person remain complicit in sending me those. Keeping it private is his intention and method of keeping power over me and he was going to follow up, most likely. So tough ####. Don't want something like that out in the open, don't send it. Preempt yourself. That's why there's no law against disclosure other than a civil tort for public disclosure of private fact, and that comes with a huge bar to hurdle. It has to be something defamatory and so private that it shocks our senses that the person revealed it. It also must cause actual injury to that person and there must be proof that the injury is quantifiable. So, no, I don't really get what you're saying here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate all this stupid drama with all my old friends and no way I’m getting involved.  
 

Except to say that the official rule is that PMs are allowed to be shared unless somebody says in the PM “don’t share.”  Even in the event of a “don’t share” declaration, a specific PM may be shared if it is in any way threatening or malicious.  Disputes about whether a particular PM qualifies under an exception to the “don’t share” declaration must be resolved by a randomly chosen panel of three upper elite tier members.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I hate all this stupid drama with all my old friends and no way I’m getting involved.  
 

Except to say that the official rule is that PMs are allowed to be shared unless somebody says in the PM “don’t share.”  Even in the event of a “don’t share” declaration, a specific PM may be shared if it is in any way threatening or malicious.  Disputes about whether a particular PM qualifies under an exception to the “don’t share” declaration must be resolved by a randomly chosen panel of three upper elite tier members.
Click to expand...
What about all your PMs to Wetdream?  I don't think you want those aired no matter how Mr. Pickles rules.

 
rockaction said:
I gotcha for the rest. This I disagree with. He wanted them private so he wouldn't be banned. That was explicitly in his first email to me. I'm not receiving emails like that and helping the person remain complicit in sending me those. Keeping it private is his intention and method of keeping power over me and he was going to follow up, most likely. So tough ####. Don't want something like that out in the open, don't send it. Preempt yourself. That's why there's no law against disclosure other than a civil tort for public disclosure of private fact, and that comes with a huge bar to hurdle. It has to be something defamatory and so private that it shocks our senses that the person revealed it. It also must cause actual injury to that person and there must be proof that the injury is quantifiable. So, no, I don't really get what you're saying here.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to get into a legal entanglement with you.  I'm not capable.  

But I do think you and Ferris are smart enough to settle your disputes privately. That's my final thought.  

Well, until I finish reading your posts on Hogg....

 
General Malaise said:
I'm not going to get into a legal entanglement with you.  I'm not capable.  

But I do think you and Ferris are smart enough to settle your disputes privately. That's my final thought. 
Click to expand...
Ok. But it wasn't a dispute. It was a PM out of the blue from a guy that hadn't posted here in a long time, and if not, sporadically, telling me to eff off in a hostile way. Coming from an alias of a guy who left the board under bizarre claims and circumstances that sketch me out. It was a verbal drive-by. I did nothing to merit that.

Our opinion on the matter is wildly different. Let's leave it at that.

 
Okay guys, we need to come up a good name for this product, and we've only got one shot at this.  We need a name that tells consumers that this is a good pillow in the sense of being high-quality, and and also that makes them feel good about themselves for having bought it.  Kind of like "good pillow," only obviously something catchier and less heavy-handed.  

(two months later)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you . . . GoodPillow!  

 
Why is there a thread about pillows in the PSF?  Why are tweets copy and pasted about pillows here?  No one cares about anyone's twitter feed here.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Okay guys, we need to come up a good name for this product, and we've only got one shot at this.  We need a name that tells consumers that this is a good pillow in the sense of being high-quality, and and also that makes them feel good about themselves for having bought it.  Kind of like "good pillow," only obviously something catchier and less heavy-handed.  

(two months later)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you . . . GoodPillow!  
Click to expand...
Still pissed they passed on my suggestion of MyHogg. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Thanks.  I hadn't seen this particular article because I didn't imagine that I would be devoting any time to the political orientation of competing pillow manufacturers, but this is the latest in an increasingly-long series about politics taking on an unhealthy prominence in everyday life.  

How crazy is it that if I tell you that I shop at Whole Foods, you can reasonably assume that I'm left-of-center?  How do we end up with grocery stores, sports leagues, restaurant chains, and now pillow companies (!) stratified by partisan affiliation?  It's as if everybody just sort of woke up crazy all of the sudden, like some partisan remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something.

Maybe I'm immune to this particular type of brain worm because of my upbringing.  If I selected my favorite music, books, movies and so on based on the ideology of the people who made it, I would consume basically no media.  You just learn to not care about this sort of thing after a while.
Click to expand...
I essentially refuse to get caught up in this stuff - while I respect someone taking a stance they believe in and think they have every right to do it, I personally don’t have time or mental energy to waste.  Very few people vet every business they support with their money.

I’m helped in this endeavor by not doing any social media.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squistion
Teen eggs Australian senator blaming Muslims for Christchurch attack
2 3
Replies
134
Views
3K
Tom Skerritt
T
randall146
USA Shootings
453 454 455
Replies
23K
Views
396K
Snorkelson
Snorkelson
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top