WAR ROOM LOUNGE V21: ♫♪ Tom Lehrer Awareness Week ♪♫

[Trotsky]

Jesus Christ, this feminine power grab is something else.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/kobe-b...val-jury-2003-rape-allegations-000612450.html

"Power grab"?

Anyways, he's the best basketball player my adult lifetime, but I recall the facts against Bryant being substantial.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Based on my history of interaction with you, it's likely you will ignore the above. Please tell me why you think Ford is credible.

I went over all this in a lot of detail in the original thread, and I don't really care to relitigate it. What brought this all up again was that I said that while I rejected your bet, it does appear that your prediction of more accusers coming up was wrong. Then I noted that contrary to your claims that allegations were uncritically accepted, the press and lawmakers mostly made a clear distinction between credible allegations like Ford's and less credible ones, like the ones I hadn't heard about. That seems fatal to your point.

Also, this is your weekly reminder that I think you should stop attacking people's motivations for their stated views and start putting more effort into attacking arguments.

See, I believe this is in bad faith, too. In these threads, we have a bunch of interchangeable posters making the same posts. I'll respond to a couple, making careful arguments and clearly expressing them, and then I get more of the hivemind demanding the same consideration all over again. Selectivity is a necessity, even with a large ignore list (probably into triple digits by now).

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Power grab"?

Anyways, he's the best basketball player my adult lifetime, but I recall the facts against Bryant being substantial.

Wrong on both counts. He's not even close to the best player of your adult lifetime, and it looks like a consensual encounter.

Also, I can't relate to that kind of gender-based tribalism (Cubo's). I think it was kind of fucked up what happened to Bryant, but it wasn't some kind of plot by the female overlords.

 

[Trotsky]

Wrong on both counts. He's not even close to the best player of your adult lifetime, and it looks like a consensual encounter.

Bryant is #1 post-Jordan. Lebron is a paper tiger who hamstrings his teams by bottlenecking the offense through him. You put Kobe on those Heat teams and they win more championships. You put Kobe on those Cavalier teams (pre and post-Heat) and they have at minimum the same amount of success.

But maybe I'm not remembering the case correctly.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Bryant is #1 post-Jordan. Lebron is a paper tiger who hamstrings his teams by bottlenecking the offense through him. You put Kobe on those Heat teams and they win more championships. You put Kobe on those Cavalier teams (pre and post-Heat) and they have at minimum the same amount of success.

But maybe I'm not remembering the case correctly.

Tim Duncan.

 

[Trotsky]

Tim Duncan.

Is the only other guy in the conversation, I would agree.

But Kobe unbelievable clutchness puts him on a different level imo. Early in his career, it seemed like it was impossible for him not to make a last second shot. As a Sacramento Kings fan, I was all too astutely aware.

This game, which was for the #2 WC playoff seed, sticks out in my mind most vividly. TWO impossible shots.

 

[HomerThompson]

Bryant is #1 post-Jordan. Lebron is a paper tiger who hamstrings his teams by bottlenecking the offense through him. You put Kobe on those Heat teams and they win more championships. You put Kobe on those Cavalier teams (pre and post-Heat) and they have at minimum the same amount of success.

But maybe I'm not remembering the case correctly.

 

[waiguoren]

it does appear that your prediction of more accusers coming up was wrong.

Again, the prediction was correct. Two new accusers hit the national media after Ford's testimony. Your ignorance of that fact is no excuse.

QUOTE="waiguoren, post: 145816069, member: 232154"]Also, this is your weekly reminder that I think you should stop attacking people's motivations for their stated views and start putting more effort into attacking arguments.[/QUOTE]

See, I believe this is in bad faith, too. In these threads, we have a bunch of interchangeable posters making the same posts. I'll respond to a couple, making careful arguments and clearly expressing them, and then I get more of the hivemind demanding the same consideration all over again. Selectivity is a necessity, even with a large ignore list (probably into triple digits by now).

• No posters are interchangeable. That's pretty dehumanizing. I'm starting to understand how your worldview leads you to block over 100 posters here.
• Of course one man's time and energy are limited. You don't need to respond to everyone.

Then I noted that contrary to your claims that allegations were uncritically accepted...

Here again your use of the passive voice hurts your argument. Obviously some people (I can list examples if you wish) appeared to accept the credibility of Ramirez, Ford and Swetnick without distinguishing between them. Never did I claim that any of the people you say you respect (e.g., Krugman, Yglesias) made no such distinctions.

Then I noted .... the press and lawmakers mostly made a clear distinction between credible allegations like Ford's and less credible ones, like the ones I hadn't heard about.

You won't be able to reproduce a post in which you mentioned the "press and lawmakers", because you never made such a post. In fact, the post to which you refer again used the passive voice and then included a parenthetical "(well, some of us)". The active voice is superior for most purposes, and if you would use the active voice more your arguments (and probably your reasoning) would improve.

Zooming out of the weeds, the basic point here is that none of Kavanaugh's accusers were "credible" by any reasonable definition. That destroys your argument. Ford's accusations were the least bad of the five that went public, but there is a bare minimum standard of credibility that she missed by a country mile. We wouldn't say the HW champion of Say Uncle Promotions is a good fighter just because he can beat the other fighters in his shitty organization.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Bryant is #1 post-Jordan. Lebron is a paper tiger who hamstrings his teams by bottlenecking the offense through him. You put Kobe on those Heat teams and they win more championships. You put Kobe on those Cavalier teams (pre and post-Heat) and they have at minimum the same amount of success.

Dude, no. We've actually kind of undergone an evaluation and analysis revolution, and Kobe's style has gone out of style. In terms of PER, he's not only behind James (2nd all-time), but Paul, Durant, Westbrook, Wade, Curry, and Harden (among others who might have been playing while you were an adult). If you look at career VORP, James is No. 1 all-time and Bryant is 17th.

 

[HomerThompson]

LeBron is vastly superior to Kobe. Vastly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is the only other guy in the conversation, I would agree.

But Kobe unbelievable clutchness puts him on a different level imo. Early in his career, it seemed like it was impossible for him not to make a last second shot. As a Sacramento Kings fan, I was all too astutely aware.

Clutchness also appears to be a myth. But it was pretty much impossible for Bryant not to take shots at all times.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No posters are interchangeable. That's pretty dehumanizing. I'm starting to understand how your worldview leads you to block over 100 posters here.

Many, many posters are interchangeable. At the very least, in the sense that people are parroting the same bad arguments that they saw on Hannity or Breitbart or something. In those kind of troll-feeding frenzy threads, it's really apparent.

 

[Trotsky]

Clutchness also appears to be a myth. But it was pretty much impossible for Bryant not to take shots at all times.

That was before he was the only man on the team. That was when he had Horry, Fox, Fisher, and (in that season) Gary Payton, who were all clutch in their own respect. In fact, when Shaq left and he became the constant focal point of opposing defenses, it seemed (to me) that his clutchness was quickly and severely limited.

Also, clutchness certainly isn't a myth just on the basis that you can't easily quantify it.

Dude, no. We've actually kind of undergone an evaluation and analysis revolution, and Kobe's style has gone out of style. In terms of PER, he's not only behind James (2nd all-time), but Paul, Durant, Westbrook, Wade, Curry, and Harden (among others who might have been playing while you were an adult). If you look at career VORP, James is No. 1 all-time and Bryant is 17th.

I don't know these metrics, and I don't feel any need to familiarize myself with them.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Most people with some minority ancestry still identify with that minority ancestry because that's how they're generally perceived.

Let's say, in all its ambiguity, that's a fact. What guidance does it really offer in the here and now (as it pertains to there being a difference between claiming to be part something and claiming to be something)?

Do you agree that one distant Native American ancestor makes her a minority, in spite of her genetics and cultural upbringing being overwhelmingly white?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Also, clutchness certainly isn't a myth just on the basis that you can't easily quantify it.

I don't know these metrics, and I don't feel any need to familiarize myself with them.

First: The invisible and the non-existent look alike so fair point. But given the work that has been done, I think we can affirmatively state that the effect can't be large if it does exist.

Second: You're missing out, bro.

 

[senri]

LeBron is vastly superior to Kobe. Vastly.

Do you accept Mr. Lebron completely inside of you?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't get why you think this kind of thing is productive. I have no idea about this cookbook thing. As I said, the dispute isn't over the facts, it's whether we should interpret the facts as her claiming something she never claimed and made clear that she wasn't claiming.

What strategies do you use when someone obfuscates the discussion and avoids conclusions by making vague allegations? You're leaving me little choice when you can't agree to an inch of common ground. I'm forced to dumb shit down to square one.

The cookbook stuff is here. I see nothing when I search for her denying it was her. Make of it what you will, as it's simply more evidence of what already exists in your link showing she had UPenn list her as a minority.

This dispute is what I say it is because I'm the guy disputing shit. Here it is again. You said Warren never made any claims that amounted to more than having a distant Native American ancestor. I'm saying that claiming to be a Native American is a greater claim than simply having that component to a small degree. This is more of an exercise in linguistics and a demonstration of your tribalism creating bad-faith arguments than it is anything to do with Warren.

Dude, no. We've actually kind of undergone an evaluation and analysis revolution, and Kobe's style has gone out of style. In terms of PER, he's not only behind James (2nd all-time), but Paul, Durant, Westbrook, Wade, Curry, and Harden (among others who might have been playing while you were an adult). If you look at career VORP, James is No. 1 all-time and Bryant is 17th.

Between the rings and the well-documented respect of his peers, your metrics are of little consequence.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not disputing the research on "clutch" performance, but don't the results imply that elevated adrenaline in high-pressure athletic situations has essentially no effect on performance? That seems so strange.

 

[HomerThompson]

Do you accept Mr. Lebron completely inside of you?

In a metaphysical sense, sure.

 

[senri]

In a metaphysical sense, sure.

Very nice. Such profound conviction constricts the body nicely when in turbulent motion... How often do you shower Mr. Thompson?