Your 2.13.19 Playpen

To kick things off, I have, not a political question, but a question about politics.

What kicked this line of thought off was this Ben Shapiro tweet I saw the other day.

 

Now Shapiro’s just another pseudo-intellectual grifter, so the source isn’t what I’m going into here.  It’s the sentiment.  Is that the mainstream now, or just provocation for provocation’s sake?

I know that Macallanlover and I have lamented that the days when we were growing up and friends could have different political opinions without it affecting the friendship seem to be long gone.  We live in an especially polarizing era when it’s… if not easier, exactly, but more reflexive to demonize than tolerate.

The reason I bring all this up is the number of times I’ve seen people express opinions, both here and at other Dawg sites, that because I’ve expressed certain views on political matters with which they disagree, they don’t enjoy reading the football posts at GTP any more.  As hard as I’ve tried to understand that point of view, I just don’t get it.  I’ve got readers here of every political stripe (okay, almost every political stripe) and nobody’s politics have affected the way I look at and react to their sports comments.

What I’m curious about is whether I’m the outlier here.  Does anyone’s political expressions — mine, commenters here or folks elsewhere — inform the way you process their thoughts on Georgia football?  I’d like to think not, but I have a feeling I’m going to be saddened to hear some of your answers.

Have at it.  Try to be civil about it, though.

209 Comments

Filed under GTP Stuff

209 responses to “Your 2.13.19 Playpen

  1. MooseDawg

    The clip starts off “the only OTHER reason…”. The written summary states “the only reason…”. He previously mentioned other reasons. FWIW.

    Like

    • Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t really want to listen to it.

      Like

      • MooseDawg

        YEP.

        Sign of the times.

        Like

      • Gurkha Dawg

        Why didn’t you want to listen to it? Shapiro can be a real smart ass but he is extremely intelligent and makes some good points. I’m sure you won’t agree with most of what he says but do you have to agree with someone in order to listen to them?

        Like

        • Two reasons, really. One, I’ve listened to and read enough Shapiro to have formed an opinion; I don’t have a lot of interest in his shtick. Second, whether it was the sole opinion expressed or some sort of an alternate explanation really isn’t relevant to the point I’m making with this post, is it?

          Like

          • SpellDawg

            Shapiro is the Used Car Salesman of intellectuals. Fast-talks through all his rehearsed points and cherry-picks the easiest progressive rebuttals to debunk. I have many conservative friends, so I am regularly treated to (obviously edited) Youtube videos with titles like “Watch Ben Shapiro DESTROY socialist college student” on Facebook.

            I don’t know how any individual would devote so much of their life to a blog and never let their personality & belief system creep in. Sounds like one hell of a boring blog for everyone concerned. Whatever keeps you interested Senator, do that. I find your UGA-related posts to be nearly all apolitical.

            Like

      • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

        The irony of this statement is so insanely obvious given the discussion topic above, I can’t tell if you made it as a smartass joke, or if that’s really the reason

        Like

        • Now Shapiro’s just another pseudo-intellectual grifter, so the source isn’t what I’m going into here. It’s the sentiment.

          No irony intended. It’s irrelevant to the point of my post.

          If Shapiro showed up today to comment on a football post, my impression of his politics would have no impact on how I assessed his comment.

          Like

      • Dave

        Senator – it took me 60 seconds to find his reply. Not saying I agree with this dude – but cmon – context matters man:

        LMAO. This is a joke I’ve made approximately one million times in speeches. I usually say there are three reasons to talk to someone on the Left: (1) they want to have an honest discussion; (2) you’re debating them in public (as I say here); or (3) to practice your arguments.

        In fact I say that you might be in a debate with an honest leftist IN THAT SPEECH SECONDS BEFOREHAND. m.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlT_A…

        Like

        • I get all that. As I said, it’s not Shapiro who’s the issue for me here; it’s the sentiment. I appreciate the context, but that’s not relevant to what I’m asking about in the post.

          Like

          • Dave

            Get that. Being mostly
            apolitical, it’s easoer for me to agree with the pint of your post. But the sentiment expressed in your clip changes with the full context. You shouldn’t have that as a lead-in for your sentiment argument as it’s misleading. That said, you can find a million other examples on the right (or left) to use that would do just fine.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Read my post again. All I said what that the tweet was a jumping off point for the post. Accurate or not, the tweet crystallized my concerns.

              Like

              • Dave

                Again, for the second time, got the point of your post. Let’s post it here:

                Now Shapiro’s just another pseudo-intellectual grifter, so the source isn’t what I’m going into here. It’s the sentiment. Is that the mainstream now, or just provocation for provocation’s sake?

                Pretty clear, although that’s not “all you said” BTW. What’s also clear to me at least, is plenty of other examples would have expressed that better.

                Liked by 1 person

                • But this was the one that triggered my thoughts. You seem to agree that Shapiro isn’t the point of my post, so why does this matter?

                  Like

                • Dave

                  Your sentiment is tied to an example that isn’t expressing a similar sentiment. Personally speaking, it doesn’t help the conversation around “Is that the mainstream now, or just provocation for provocation’s sake?” because IMO it is neither. For a conversation, it’s not only about what triggers your thoughts, but what thoughts are triggered in those you are conversing with. It struck me as odd that someone would actually express THAT other sentiment (pure assholery?) in your example, and when you add in the Twitter factor, I figured (correctly) there was more to it than what we saw. Examples tied to the point your making help make your point better. Poor examples distract. That said, I love your Dawg posts, and once a year I comment – pretty much with you, given your ability for genuinely interesting conversations like this one. Keep on keepin’ on and all. Would like to come by the tracks sometime and see you in the fall.

                  Like

                • The language in the tweet — not what Shapiro said in the clip — is what triggered my thoughts.

                  You may think the tweet is assholery (and I certainly do), but, again, I’ve seen similar sentiments pointed in my direction, which is what my post and hopefully this discussion is about.

                  It’s not about Shapiro per se. Never has been.

                  Like

                • Dave

                  Couldn’t reply below (too many I guess),

                  Your point that you have had similar stuff come your way seems absurd to me. I don’t think days are gone when it affects friendship. It’s a people issue, not a political issue. The whole reason you have this playpen is simple: a few people can’t come to grips with other people’s differences of opinion on important things and navigate it in a way that pleases themselves and the group.

                  Your political leanings in no way affect how I look at your Dawg posts. Take it with a grain of salt, as I’m not a party guy, but point stands. Friendships of people with differing opinions boils down to people. People who tweet and misrepresent what others say aren’t going to be types to engage in good conversation – sports, politics, or anything. You’re certainly not that…you’re good people. Once people start behaving like that for their political tribe, then yeah, friendships probably deteriorate. But that makes sense. It’s not the political that causes friendships to go downhill, it’s the actions of the people engaged in it. To that point, be friends with people who don’t do that crap, and question those that do — especially if they are hurling it your way??? Makes no sense to me. I mean, hell, you’re not even in the [political] arena. 🙂

                  Like

                • It’s absurd to me, too. But it happens and more regularly than you’d expect.

                  Like

              • 904Dawg

                I believe that you are an outlier regarding the topic of your post. I’ve come to realize that once a given person’s political beliefs are known, those whom have opposing beliefs will almost certainly dislike or subconsciously delegitimize the point being made whether or not the topic is political in nature. The reader can get hung up on a phrase or statement that was made and find a way to make that the issue when the author wasn’t writing said issue.

                That’s exactly what I’m seeing in the comment thread here, between you and Dave. As I read the comments, I’m wondering how many different ways you have to ask Dave to address the original issue your post was addressing. Yet, it seems as though Dave isn’t actually reading your replies, or more likely, he’s subconsciously blind to your directions back to the actual topic at hand. It’s like once he identified something he disagreed with, that’s the only thing he can see. Regardless of the actual topic.

                I’m not trying to pick on Dave. I’m just as guilty of this as anyone. I grew up in a small town in the south and in a conservative family. I still have some conservative beliefs but I would say I’m much closer to the middle than I used to be. My views have changed for a lot of reasons but there are two that stick out more than others. One reason is due to the ever increasing gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Even though the 1% has enough to buy anything they (and their next 20 generations) could ever even think of having, yet they still believe that they need more. All to the detriment of everyone else and society as we know it. The level of absolute greed is sickening to me when I know there are kids that are going to sleep on the street tonight, hungry and freezing their butts off. Yet the wealthy would rather have their 5th home remodeled than give a little more to help those suffering.

                The second reason I’m more in the middle these days is due to the fact that my wife leans left more times than not. The discussions we’ve had over the years have made me look at some things a different way than I would have originally. And I know that she would say the same thing. It wasn’t exactly easy to start looking at things from multiple viewpoints and still isn’t easy today. But I believe I’m getting better at it and feel that it’s helped me grow intellectually.

                I apologise for going off on a tangent. But I believe that everyone could benefit from learning to actually listen to one another and put some thought and consideration of opposite viewpoints for any given discussion topic.

                Tangent/rant over…

                Like

  2. No. My best friend jokingly calls me a “damned democrat”…even though I am a moderate. Anyway, he loves Trump, I hate Trump, but we still drink, fish and watch CFB together…even though he is a FSU fan. People need to get a grip.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. 202dawg

    It seems to me politics has taken on a decidedly SEC rivalry feel. You’re on that team? Oh, well, screw you and your entire team. It’s not civil, and compromise is a dirty word (which used to be something politicians did for the good of the country). You are now defined by a mob mentality of outrage and immediate and total destruction of the offending party. I know, some things (racism, bigotry, sexual assault and the enabling of it, antisemitism) are not grey areas (or shouldn’t be… thanks alt-right). But many things ARE in the grey. My $.02.

    Like

  4. Gravidy

    Shapiro is just a symptom of the times. Bomb-throwers on both sides garner more clicks, more pundit appearances, and more book sales.

    I hate all of it.

    Like

  5. I usually read your lead-ins to this feature, but I looked at the comments once and care not to revisit. Please know that, while I detect that our political affiliation may be different, Senator, I value your take on the Dawgs too much to be turned off to the site even if we differ. This is top notch and one of two sites I click on throughout the day.

    I agree, though. Civil discourse seems to be as dead as the dinosaur. I tend to believe that our political leadership is so self-consumed and catering to special interests that I have little confidence they are concerned about the well being of the people anymore, so I dont really bother to get involved in political conversations these days.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Debby Balcer

    I want friends who disagree with me about politics. I don’t need yes men in my life; I need people who make me grow. I also don’t need to focus on what we disagree about in life but to find out commanalitirs. We are all more alike then we are different. The polarizing world we live in is not good for America or us personally. The forces that strive to divide us do not want what is best for our country. Compromise and working together are better ways to live. We should not let all of those yelling take over.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. TheCasey

    I agree with both of your sentiments here. Just because I disagree with someone on one topic, doesn’t mean that things they say on completely unrelated subjects are inherently garbage.

    Also, I feel like that is not the case for lots of people. It’s become like religion, as in “either you believe what I believe, or you’re going to Hell.” It’s disappointing, and I’m afraid it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

    Like

  8. CPark58

    I have the same sentiment. I come here because of the elevated conversation over UGA football and college football as a whole. I don’t mind respectfully discussing a differing point of political view with those who can still identify our commonality but it always ends up morphing into a tradefloor of open ended venom and eventually sinks to personal attacks. I could go to the comment section of any news outlet for that garbage.

    I’d rather people just not talk politics in mixed company and let your vote speak for you.

    With that said, given the cannon fodder of the initial post, get down with the sickness in 3…2…1…take it way,( you know who you are)

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I don’t care about someone’s political leanings or opinions when I read their comments about Georgia football.

    To take it in the context of Shapiro, this country has become so tribal politically that I engage in less discussion of politics and issues even with people I know well because of the impact on the relationship. If I’m the rule rather than the exception, that’s probably sad for our country and its discourse. I think about President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill leaving their political differences at the door to enjoy each other’s company leading to solutions … you don’t see that today.

    If we removed the plank from our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s (I include myself in that), our political discourse would probably be a lot more valuable and maybe even find some common ground. When a person is immediately labeled as an extremist or worse (immoral or evil) by the other side for his or her leanings, the true meaning of those words gets lost.

    Just my $.02.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ASEF

      Agreed. Even internal dialogues within political communities are largely scathing attacks on non-adherents and the ideologically impure. I grew up in a town dedicated to blowing things up from far away and attending evangelical churches twice a week. Bible Belt military town, though and through. Turned 12 when Reagan was elected. And now I am routinely blasted on this site by two usual suspects as a “liberal.” No effort to find common ground at all. Just pointing how I think wrong and therefore have nothing valuable to say and would I just please shut up.

      It’s a purification dynamic, and purification politics rarely end well for anyone concerned.

      Everything is defensive listening now. Looking for angles of attack rather than understanding.

      Like

  10. mwo

    The way the current climate is I find it comforting we all can agree on UGA football. It seems some people cannot agree on anything else. The back and forth on here between some of the more passionate people on opposing sides is something I really enjoy reading. Name calling and generalizations not so much. Kind of like a large family reunion every Wednesday. Thanks for the playpen and Go Dawgs!

    Like

  11. Derek

    1) I have many friends who disagree with anything I have to say on politics. Some are fine to argue, others would rather not.

    2) I think the biggest reason political discussions get heated is because people want their own facts to support their conclusions. It’s not supposed to work that way. This problem knows no ideology.

    3) ideologies get adopted based on superficial matters and then become pseudo-religious tenets. It’s like arguing with someone who believes the Bible is to be taken literally. What productive conversation can you have with such a person? If they think Noah got 1 male and 1 female platypus from Australia before the flood, why talk to them about anything substantive?

    4) some people are conflict adverse. For what ever reason they’d rather everybody just shut up and talk about puppies and flowers or binge watch Friends. I have little use for such people.

    5) as to the point Shapiro is making the grain of wisdom in it is this: most political discussions involve people who are completely unwilling to reconsider their own bs. At all. The only usefulness of the discussion is to point out that they’re an idiot, or to completely ignore them. That does at least further your agenda, in a way as no other thing can be achieved. I don’t endorse faking friendships in order to do this. That’s shitty.

    6) one of the reasons that politics is so emotional right now is that with the country being drawn apart on identity questions it’s easy to get people where they live, for good or for bad. People today aren’t voting on pocket book issues. They are voting on:

    What is my racial/cultural identity?
    Am I evangelical?
    Am I urban or rural?

    So your not arguing about policy you’re arguing about who and what people are. Very easy in that context to get anger or adoration depending on what you’re going for.

    You can say that’s bullshit all day long, but I guarantee you that you could gather up people who voted in the last election and we could just based on how they look and a very few basic questions on address, gun ownership and church attendence identify who they voted for in 2016 st a 95% accuracy.

    That needs to change. I don’t think you could have done that in 1976. I don’t think you could have done that in 1956.

    We need to get back to being Americans who don’t feel under threat who have honest disagreements on policy matters. There are honest disagreements to be had. My supposition is that some at the top don’t want people voting on economic issues because the numbers in a democracy are against them, so it’s better to divide and conquer on race, religion, guns etc…

    Liked by 1 person

    • The bible IS to be taken literally in my book…at least when I debate its validity. You can’t just pick and choose which stories actually happened and which are meant as some allegorical lesson because SCIENCE pulled our heads out of our asses and the stories that seemed reasonable to bronze age people seem ridiculous now. That’s bullshit IMO. Jonah really did live in the belly of a whale. Lazarus did come back to life. Noah got every species of butterfly on that ark. That is what it says.

      Like

      • Derek

        I really can’t tell if you or your post is intended to be absurd.

        Like

      • graftongsr

        EXACTLY! Everyone knows that bronze age story tellers lacked the ability to be full of shit.

        Like

      • Cojones

        Took a Bible course in 1960 (required by the school) and the instructor, Dean of Men, for my course was Jewish. He emphasized the Old Testament as a collection of allegories and never proselytized, which explained why most students in the class were from the nawth and had jockeyed to be in his class. Other classes taught at the same time had Christian instructors and their approach was evident on the combined final exam(over 300 students that semester) where, after reading subjective religious questions before the exam began, he declared “Gaawod Damn!”, got up, marched down front and dropped it on the front desk. I figured he had been in my class and wasn’t prepared past the Old Testament.

        He has always been a hero of mine since he reinforced my feelings arising from early teachings that had been conflicted by my interest in science. It ranked right up there with a fishing buddy in the same time period whose response to a nearby lightning strike while we were fishing was to leap to his feet, thrust his fist into the air and exclaiming, “Yaaa! Ya missed again!” as smoke arose from the strike on the old dead pine that was on the lake’s edge.

        Like

        • Not trying to patronize here, but Jews don’t proselytize. In fact, one story repeatedly told in my younger days was the rabbi who, faced with someone who wanted to convert to Judaism, responded, “are you sure?” and when the person answered in the affirmative, responded by asking, “why?”, not in the philosophical sense, but in the “what in the world are you thinking?” sense.

          Like

          • Cojones

            Upon rereading my post, my apologies for missing the syntax at least twice. Just letting you know that I know the difference and proofreading is hit or miss, (mostly miss) when replying hurriedly. Either the Grammar Nazis are absent today or everyone has just gotten used to reading my goofs and can fill in the lines.

            Like

          • Butler Reynolds

            Yeah, you get the feeling that they really don’t want outsiders in their club, which kind of makes Judaism appealing:

            “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”
            –Groucho

            Like

    • Got Cowdog

      Oh no I’m a (4)! I like dogs, kids and old people. DGAS about one side or the other’s. Political leanings or rants. The insults among the warring parties here could be better/ more creative though, IMO.
      Someone used “cock holster” which should be a top ten insult out of context, yet did not qualify it. I expect better. Y’all need to tighten up.

      Like

  12. Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

    The focal point of what was once the Left has moved so far to the left and closer to totalitarian instincts that demand lockstep groupthink (much like those on the right who declare anyone willing to work with the other side as RINOs), that those who would’ve voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore in presidential elections no longer recognize the Democratic Party. So there’s a great, tribeless middle of people literally thrown out of the Left for not believing in this neo-progressivism combined with others who the people further on the right consider RINOs or whatever.

    We now live in an age where toughtcrime and facecrime (remember the kid and the asshole American Indian from a few weeks back) are an actual thing, and it’s being driven by the LEFT, not the right as Orwell feared.

    What was once the big tent of the Democratic party now only accepts members who never stray from the narrative. If you believe in gay and trans rights, but don’t think trans-women who were once men should be allowed to fight in the MMA and beat the crap out of women with their stronger bodies, heavier bone and muscle density, and faster reflexes, or think that trans-women who were once men should be allowed to compete in sports in women at all (which they shouldn’t), then you are obviously a bigot. If you believe in abortion rights more akin to how countries in Europe handle it (only within 10-12 weeks), and think New York’s new abortion laws are barbaric and tantamount to murder, well, you obviously hate women. If you believe that gender is not a social construct, because biological science doesn’t care about your psychology or feelings but still think people should have the right to live how they want to live if that means getting surgery or whatever, it doesn’t matter, that first part means you’re a bigot. If you believe in equity (objective) but not equality (subjective) and reject the ridiculousness of intersectionalism and identity politics, you’re definitely a racist, misogynist, homophobe. If you have the temerity to question the wisdom of socialism and point out that capitalism, while imperfect, is the best economic system ever devised yet, you obviously hate the poor. If you believe Antifa is a dangerous terrorist group that pretends to be anti-fascist but is actually more fascist than those they portend to fight, then you’re obviously a Nazi. And if didn’t vote for Trump but also refused to vote for Hillary (but would’ve voted for Biden), you’re also obviously a Nazi MAGAt and probably a misogynist, too. Oh, and if you think Believe All Women is a ridiculous, anti-American, un-Constitutional movement that circumvents due process, then you’re a rape apologist.

    10 years ago I was a Lefty. Now many people on the Left have moved so far to the left that they’re just as bad as those on the far right, that I have no tribe. No political home. I’m sad for the level of discourse in the country. I’ve lost people I thought were friends because I refused to follow them down the paths of ideological madness. Their choice, not mine. I’d still be friends with them today, but they want nothing to do with me. They changed. I didn’t.

    It’s why I like people like Dave Rubin. He defines himself as a Classical Liberal. In the sense of John F. Kennedy. Harry Truman. Maybe not quite as much to the left as FDR. But definitely closer to that than the Eugene Debs, Trotsky-like move to the far left of modern Democrats.
    The election of Bad Orange Man should be owned by the modern Left, because it was very much their fault for embracing and celebrating their own worst instincts that led to the country electing that guy. Obama did what he set out to day. He changed the country by helping to radicalize his own party, by propping up this neo-progressivism and the victimhood-grievance celebration of identity politics, but it got out of control from him. He actually tried to slow that train down in the end, but it literally ran away from him. When people say, “That’s why you got Trump,” well, people, THAT is why you got Trump. And God help me, if the Democrats don’t reign back the AOC’s (who has said far dumber things and much bigger lies than Trump has) and the new wave of anti-Semites in their party like this nutjob from Minnesota, he’s gonna freaking win again. While my paycheck may like that, I’m not sure my internal pride in my country, that made me want to serve in the Marine Corps, could survive through 2024.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hunkering Hank

      Now that is a rant. I agree with a lot of it. Great post. But I like the bad orange man too. Can we still fucking have a conversation that doesn’t devolve into fuck you no fuck you?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mick Jagger

        Yes, both parties are too extreme and there is a huge ocean (of mostly common sense people) in the middle.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I tend to agree with both of the above to one degree or another. I don’t care for Trump as a person, but do think his efforts to create policy are far more beneficial to the country as a whole than the policies espoused by the rising leaders on the far left.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

        Not so much a rant, but a lament. I’m sad. To think that Classical Liberal ideas of individual rights and free speech are now considered the providence of the RIGHT??? And that these neo-progressive Leftists have hijacked the Democratic Party and routinely demand that people have fundamental rights taken away simply because they disagree.

        It’s like I’ve stepped through the looking glass into an insane world where nothing makes sense.

        How is saying, “I’m happy that you get to live as the chosen gender you feel like you need to be, but since you spent 20 years as a male, you should not be allowed to compete as a woman because of the factual advantages that imparts on you,” considered “hate speech” or a “Far right” position?

        All these Leftists screaming about the Right being “science deniers,” are also “science deniers” when it comes to biological fact that doesn’t mesh with their ideological feelings.

        I literally feel like I’m taking crazy pills. It’s insane. There’s little to no difference in neo-progressives and the far-right. None. They’re both authoritarian. They’re both, in their own way, prejudiced. The big difference is the far right doesn’t have 90% of the media on their side. They got FoxNews. The neo-progressives have everyone else.

        Like

        • To think that Classical Liberal ideas of individual rights and free speech are now considered the providence of the RIGHT???

          Surely you jest. The Senate just passed on a bi-partisan basis an unconstitutional bill that would allow government to discriminate on the basis of political speech. Both parties have been ardent advocates of the War on Drugs, which has been the primary excuse over four decades to strip people of individual rights. And the War on Terrorism is right behind…

          Like

          • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

            I jest not. Are you paying attention to how the neo-progressives approach the ideas of individual rights and free speech, not only from a protected standpoint but from a philosophical standpoint? Who is doing more shouting down of speech and controlling speech on campus, online, in the media, and in the corporate world? Who are the overwhelming people demanding people be fired, and in many times getting their way, for holding opinions they don’t agree with? Look at this latest thing with the actor from Empire, who certainly lied about being attacked by MAGA hat wearing racist homophobes. If you even suggest his story lacked credibility, you’re a Nazi.

            There will always be social conservatives doing their idiot things, but if you still think they’re more of a danger than the neo-progressives, who have the full brunt of media and entertainment and tech companies that control social media in their corner, you’re sadly mistaken. The social conservatives have lost every fight they staked a claim to: gay rights, abortion, Civil Rights. You name it, they eventually lost it. The neo-progressives however, are winning. They’re getting their way. And it’s scary. Look at the things happening around the country with young people who not only refuse to listen to different points of view, they literally demand those who hold those views be destroyed, economically or otherwise. It’s akin to what happened in China under Mao. People are going to jail, but they’re being silenced or suffer very real economic consequences. How is that just? Social justice has nothing to do with actual justice. And you think the social conservatives are the equal to what we’re seeing from the Leftists?

            This is what I mean by “they left me, I didn’t leave them.” This is not the Democratic Party of my youth.

            Liked by 1 person

        • dawgtor

          It was definitely a rant that was chock full of right wing talking points. I think that, in general, people on both sides want to be left alone to do what they want. You keep saying that leftists/liberals/neoliberals say or think something that you misrepresent, then attack the thing you attributed to them. Exactly what fundamental rights are liberals trying to remove from people? I see blatant attempts by the right to legislate barriers to voting (which I consider a right).
          Saying that transgender women shouldn’t be able to compete as female athletes because there is a competitive advantage doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable position. It would be relatively easy to study the issue and I don’t think that asking the question or having an observational opinion about it is unreasonable or bigoted in the least. Transgender issues are relatively new and there isn’t much data for us to really examine.
          The science denial/anti intellectual thing is based on the denial of climate change (science), evolution (science), attacks on scientists, attacks on educators, attacks on those who are educated (remember Romney getting shredded just for knowing another language?), etc. Further, your example of “leftist science deniers” is denial of social science.
          As far as media goes, have you ever heard of Sinclair? They are the largest television broadcast group in the US, highly conservative, and they require their broadcasters to read right wing scripts during their news reports. To me, your right wing victimhood about the “liberal media” rings hollow.
          I am interested in discussing any and all of the topics that you bring up, but I think that the way you presented things today is part of the problem. I am happy to discuss my positions or change them if new information comes to light. If I had to label myself, I would call myself a technocrat with current democrats being closer to representing my values. I respect your intelligence, but question your source(s) of information. We are not enemies.

          Like

          • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

            “It was definitely a rant that was chock full of right wing talking points.”

            This statement alone proves my point.

            None of what I said ten years ago would even remotely be considered right wing. That you classify my lament as “full of right-wing talking points,” proves how far to the left the neo-progressives have moved the Democratic Party and the “maintream” political left in this country.

            I believe in reproductive rights, but that New York laws are barbaric. That is a perfectly liberal position to take.

            I believe in gay and trans rights, but that trans-women who were once men shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports, ESPECIALLY combat sports, given all we know of biological science. Again, 10 years ago this was a liberal position.

            Thank you for proving my point.

            Like

            • dawgtor

              They are right wing talking points, period. You go as far as lamenting the lack of more foxnews. Simply saying, “Gotcha, you proved my point!,” and declaring victory is not the same thing as proving a point. I would go as far as to say that it qualifies as presidential these days though… Pick a subject and let’s discuss it.

              Like

              • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

                I did no such thing. I stated a fact that the Left has been pushed further to the Left with no pushback from the media, because the right only has Fox, while the Left has everything else. That’s not saying I want more rightwing media. I want more unbiased media total.

                But again, thank you for making my point for me. No single point I made is a non-liberal point. They’re non neo-progressive, Leftist points. But they are very much in the realm of liberalism regardless of the current state of leftist politics in America today.

                That is my entire point. I am a liberal. The left is no longer liberal. Thank you, again, for making my point.

                Like

                • dawgtor

                  The media is left = right wing talking point
                  the left science denies too = right wing talking point
                  the left wing is super radical now = right wing talking point
                  the left loves identity politics = right wing talking point
                  they think im a homophobe/misogynist/bigot = right wing talking point
                  antifa is actually fascist = right wing talking point
                  Trump isn’t extreme, he is a reaction to left being extreme = right wing talking point
                  thoughtcrime and facecrime are a thing and it is driven by the left = right wing talking point

                  I’m sorry, but in this day and age, I tend to believe my eyes more than what someone tells me I am seeing. You still haven’t bothered to pick a subject to discuss, but you’re getting a lot of exercise running victory laps.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  You can’t simply declare everything under the sun to be a right wing talking point. It doesn’t work that way. The right wing hasn’t declared testosterone to be a myth. The left did. The right hasn’t tried to limit free speech to certain zones. The left did. And if you consider fox to be right wing but cnn, abc, CBS, nbc, MSNBC, new York times, etc., to be nonpartisan and unbiased, you’re not being honest.

                  We now have all the presidential candidates for one party endorsing an economic plan that would literally bankrupt the world. But they’re not the extremists. It’s the other guys who want to limit illegal immigration who are the extremists? Agree to disagree.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  I didn’t declare everything under the sun to be a right wing talking point. I was clear about their talking points that he cited. With which do you disagree?
                  What are you referring to regarding attempted left wing limitations of free speech?
                  Like corch, you state a position for me, then attack it regarding what I do or don’t “consider.” Same with your immigrant comment. Why don’t we discuss what you think (something you can discuss with authority) instead of what you think that I think? Isn’t this presumptive stuff you’re doing part of the problem?

                  Like

                • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

                  Again dawgtor, declaring the points I made as right wing is FACTUALLY WRONG.

                  When has the right wing been a firm believer in gay and trans rights? When has the right wing been for reproductive rights in any way? When has the right wing been for ANY of the things I said?

                  You are, again, illustrating my point better than I ever could. Everything I said are LIBERAL points of view. You are saying these liberal points of view are right wing, thus proving me right: the neo-progressives have moved the Left so far to the left that traditional liberal beliefs are considered to be right wing by their fanatical adherents.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  College campuses, which are almost exclusively administered by leftists, fret about free speech. That’s why free speech zones have been a popular notion with college administrators. And why do they want free speech limited on campus? So that students aren’t exposed to speech that isn’t leftist. Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter have made livings off being banned from speaking on campus, or from trying to speak, only to have leftists riot. You don’t similar activities by the right.

                  And again, leftists dominating the media really isn’t arguable. And of course the right will make it a talking point. The left is quite satisfied with the existing media bias. But that doesn’t mean the right is automatically wrong, as you seem to be assuming.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  I listed the various points you made. Those are right wing talking points that get trotted out regularly on fox…maybe you spontaneously came to the same conclusions as fox I guess. Please tell me which ones you think are not. You’re ignoring what I say, making up things I didn’t say, then saying the thing that you said I said is wrong… Please point out to me where I said that the right wing was for gay or trans rights? I can’t tell whether you’re even reading what I’ve written because your answers are so far out in left field. What you are calling “liberal views” are generally bundled in with right wing anti-pc talking points. Those aren’t liberal views, they are right wing pundits’ distortions of liberal views. When people start off conversations by saying what the other side thinks instead of what they personally think, it erodes the ability to discuss issues. I don’t think you understand liberals’ points of view well enough to speak for them.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  People are allowed to protest. Rioting is not ok. Those are my views.
                  I think that the issue gets really thorny when you get a highly polarizing figure like Richard Spencer giving a speech at a university or somewhere similar. Security gets really expensive and I’m not sure how to ethically deal with the expenses that are involved.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  Another thing is that my understanding of free speech is different from yours. My understanding is that you are protected from the government preventing you from exercising free speech. You are not entitled to the government helping you get your message out nor are you shielded from the consequences of your speech. The reason the university thing even touches on free speech is that they are public. For you to call protests “anti free speech” is not accurate. Anyway, I am interested to read what you think would be a reasonable solution.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  I’m not talking about a guy like Richard Spencer giving a speech. I’m talking about Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter or Clarence Thomas (remember when UGA faculty protested his giving the commencement address?).

                  These aren’t right wing bomb throwers or Nazis. They’re just people who think taxes are too high and infanticide is morally wrong. But those aren’t allowable opinions to leftists. It’s thoughtcrime.

                  And while I’m not saying the protests themselves are illegal, it is illegal for a government university to adopt the position that only leftist speech will be tolerated on campus. How to “solve” the issue? Stop trying to police thought and speech. If a leftist wants to burn down a building because Ben Shapiro is giving a speech there, put him in prison. The solution is not to shrug one’s shoulders and declare that free speech is just too expensive and difficult to bother with anymore.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  Thomas gave his address, Shapiro gave his speech, Cal backpedalled and extended Coulter an invitation that she declined. In each of these cases, free speech was maintained. Those who engage in destruction of property or other illegal activity should be punished. It seems to me that free speech has been maintained.
                  Infanticide…really?
                  I can understand being upset if universities were blocking people from speaking. In the cases where it has happened there has been considerable backlash. As far as I can tell, this isn’t a widespread problem and it certainly isn’t a liberal platform or policy. I’m sure fox would tell me different, but I just don’t see it. People get to protest. Noone is “policing speech” or attempting to criminalize it. Citizens are protesting people and ideals they dislike. That’s American. Just like all the protests around abortion clinics are legal and an American expression of disagreement, but bombing the abortion clinic is not.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  sigh
                  Yes. Some of the disinvitations were later rescinded. Is that what you call a victory for free speech? That leftist campus administrators tried to censor speech on campus, but were ultimately unsuccessful, so nothing to see here? What about the administers who were successful. Since every right winger hasn’t been barred from every campus, should we just not worry about it?

                  And yes, Governor Northam of Virginia described, quite vividly, the act of infanticide when discussing the abortion bill at issue in that state. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that a child at 40 weeks gestation is “just a clump of cells.” It’s not only dishonest, it’s reprehensible.

                  And yes, it’s widespread. There have been hundreds of well publicized cases of speakers being disinvited from campuses across the country. On top of that, there are numerous more cases where speakers aren’t approved in the first place. Or the funding is denied. Or a campus club isn’t allowed to participate in events, or even form in the first place. Remember the case last year where Stanford banned the College Republicans’ logo because it featured the American flag? That’s the kind of thing that pervades leftist spaces today that you’re refusing to see. And the solution is not to shrug and simply declare that one side is just going to have to fight harder to be heard over systemic abuses than the other.

                  Like

                • When someone states what they say and it is an opinoin is a fact-they have lost the ground. Kinda like Shapiro and his rants.

                  Like

  13. DawgPhan

    Depends on the context. If its another “should the players get more freedom?” post I know who I am going to agree with. Am I going to judge whatever racist dog whistle non-sense argument that someone types up for the 100th time fairly, probably not.

    If its should the dawgs have punted in that situation, also still not going to listen to their argument because everyone knows you shouldnt punt. 😉

    Like

  14. Biggus Rickus

    Some people can compartmentalize and some can’t. I’ve encountered people from all sides that can’t stand someone’s music or movies or books because of their political views. I assume they at least sometimes react the same in their personal lives.

    A note on the tweet, there seems to be some context missing. The quoted text reads, “The only reason….” His remark opens with, “The only OTHER reason….” ‘Other’ makes a pretty big difference to the statement. I’d also need to know how he’s defining the left here. There are certainly people on the other side (either one) you absolutely can’t convince and with whom it would be fruitless to converse. Maintaining friendships with interests outside of politics is a different matter.

    Like

    • Biggus Rickus

      Sure, I could have read the first comment, but who reads anymore?

      Like

    • AthensHomerDawg

      Per lack of context….it was his response to what one could achieve from an on campus debate. Ben hasn’t been well received on some campuses. I do think Derrick’s response was spot on. On another note my youngest son’s politics are more like Bluto’ s than mine. That does lead to interesting exchanges . He is much more skilled in debate and repartee than I. 😉

      Like

  15. John

    The main thing is the attitude.

    Most political posts on blogs drip with disdain or assumptions of self righteousness. I don’t know Ben Shapiro well enough to evaluate your description of him as a “pseudo-intellectual grifter” but I think some people likely view this comment as disdainful of their political viewpoint.

    Its hard to take your lament that “[w]e live in an especially polarizing era when it’s… if not easier, exactly, but more reflexive to demonize than tolerate.” After you open the post in that fashion, for example.

    If you believe someone is simply disdainful of your views it probably impacts your ability to enjoy their other content. There are precious few good spaces for political discourse remaining in the world. Unfortunately, the internet was never one of those spaces to begin with.

    Like

    • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

      Calling Ben Shapiro, with whom I disagree a lot on things like gay and trans rights, a pseudo-intellectual grifter, says far more about the Senator than it does Shapiro.

      Ben Shapiro is literally a genius. You may disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth, but he’s also someone who has the courage of his convictions as conservative orthodox Jew.

      So calling him pseudo-intellectual and a grifter are both patently false statements that when combined are laughably biased.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

          Senator, THAT is your proof he’s a grifter? Every podcaster in America with sponsors then qualify. I listen to Bill Burr’s podcast and he’s hawking all kinds of stuff. Joe Rogan hawks MCT oil. I hear adds for just about everything under the sun for every podcast I download.

          Capitalism is not grifterism. Hah!

          Like

          • No, I was just responding to your “literally a genius” comment.

            You like the guy, more power to you. He’s not what the post is about.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

              I don’t like or dislike the guy. I mean, factually, Ben Shapiro is a LITERAL genius. As in, literally, he is a genius. Not his ideas or whatever. His IQ.

              He’s not a pseudo-intellectual. He comes by his personal ideology from a thoughtful, researched perspective. He not simply regurgitating what others tell him. There’s a lot I don’t agree with him personally, but I respect the thought he’s put behind his POV and the reason why he usually makes his political opponents look foolish is because he comes to debates loaded with fact, not feeling. Whenever he goes up against someone from the Left who approaches it the same way he does, which isn’t often, he can hold his own but doesn’t come off as well as he normally does. The problem is the anti-intellectual streak of the Left which demands hegemony and believes feelings = reality and don’t have the facts and statistics to back-up their arguments, while Shapiro does and has almost perfect recall.

              And he’s not a grifter, because again, he believes what he says with conviction. By definition, grifters don’t. He’s not Hannity or Limbaugh. You don’t have to listen to him or like him, it’s all good, but lets at least respect him for what he actually is and not what the narrative says he is.

              Liked by 1 person

              • dawgtor

                Where is your proof of his IQ?

                Like

                • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

                  He’s a violin prodigy, skipped two grades, was the youngest syndicated columnist in American history at 17, graduated from UCLA 20, graduated from Harvard Law three years later, and built everything he has, his businesses and his brand, on the strength of his own intellect, whether you agree with him or disagree. He’s also, if you actually take the time to listen to him, an amazing debater with perfect recall, and doesn’t often come out the worst of an argument.

                  I happen to disagree with him a lot, on many issues, but I do not make the mistake of believing him to be a “pseudo intellectual grifter.” That is an inaccurate statement made with personal feelings, not fact. Remember the days when you could respect your ideological opponents? I don’t have to run down his obvious intellect or his honest convictions just because I disagree with him.

                  Call me old-fashioned, I guess.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  Those are good proof points, but are not proof of his having a genius IQ. If he was gifted (IQ 130-145) and came from a highly driven family that pushed him, these accomplishments would be within reach. He is definitely at least gifted. That being said, you don’t know. Further, being smart makes it easier to be both pseudointellectual and to grift. Being smart doesn’t mean you don’t take advantage of those less smart than you. At the end of the day, you have no idea about the sincerity of his publicly stated convictions, you just know that you find him convincing.

                  Like

                • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

                  I don’t find them personally convincing, but yes, I do believe him to be sincere in his beliefs in the way I believe Hannity not to be.

                  His intelligence, is again, above reproach. That could lead him to be a grifter, but everything we’ve seen from him for the entirety of his public life, which he’s been living since he is 17 tells me, as good a judge of character as I know, that he actually does believe what he says and walks the walk of what he believes in his everyday life as an orthodox jew.

                  Now, YMMV if you think his intelligence has me snowed under. It may.

                  Someone answered a quora question I saw awhile back that estimated his intelligence, given his accomplishments as beyond 99.9% of Americans. It seemed as good as explanation as any. I was tested as a kid and spent my life in various gifted programs. I know what gifted kids look like and I also know what overachievers look like and I know what people who are smarter than I am look like. He is smarter than I am. And if he is that, than he would qualify in the 140 IQ club. Call it the Justice Potter rule. I know it when I see it.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  Good, we can agree that you are convinced, but that you don’t know. Contextually, we know that he was in an environment that would allow for him to study violin. We also know that he skipped two grades, 6 years apart. Like I said, it appears that he was in a supportive environment that pushed him. I don’t know this with certainty, but that’s what it looks like. 140 = gifted. 145+=genius. Both are capable of this. My point with this is that you keep putting yourself above feelings when your firm assertions about his IQ are based on your belief, not your knowledge. You say you know about gifted vs overachieving…why not both?

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Arguing that Shapiro’s IQ may be 140 rather than 150 is petty. You can more simply and more honestly state #JewishManBad.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  You’re missing my point altogether. What I am saying is that it is not a good thing to state something that you don’t know as fact. We live in a time when “facts aren’t facts” and “alternative facts” are peddled as truth. I see this as part of that problem. Being incurious, inflexible, and dogmatic are the main barriers to substantive discussion.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  I’m getting your point very clearly. I’m simply pointing out that you’re misguided. Bluto’s statement that Shapiro was anti-intellectual is factual inaccurate. Shapiro is, by any measure, extremely intelligent. Corch pointed that out and your response is to pedantically argue over whether Shapiro is a genius, or merely a near-genius. Again, it’s petty.

                  Like

                • dawgtor

                  Bluto’s statement that Shapiro was anti-intellectual is factual inaccurate. Shapiro is, by any measure, extremely intelligent.

                  Being intelligent and anti-intellectual aren’t mutually exclusive. When someone makes a claim of knowledge (“LITERAL genius”), it’s reasonable to ask how they know. I’m not arguing whether or not he is a genius. I’m saying that calling opinions facts is a problem. Maybe in your world that makes me petty, but, again, I think it is especially important with all the gaslighting and lying that is going on these days.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Yes. It’s petty. Shapiro is extremely intelligent. And the anti-intellectual smear was simply opinion. To my knowledge, Shapiro has never expressed any statements that intelligent or intellectual people are bad. To the contrary. He usually criticizes his political opponents for ignorance.

                  You joined the fray by insisting that the term genius must be reserved only for people we know the precise IQ scores for. But that’s petty. By your own standard, Isaac Newton must not be called a genius. After all, I suppose any above average student could invent calculus. Einstein never took an IQ test, either. So I guess he’s merely gifted.

                  And as long as we’re indulging in meaningless pedantry, I’ll point out that IQ tests are inaccurate at the extremes of the scale. One can measure the IQ of an average person with great confidence. But at the very high or low percentiles, the variance increases and accuracy suffers. So one could be a genius one day, but merely gifted the next.

                  Like

    • I’m not arguing about whether people are justified in disliking my political takes. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. What I’m asking is whether political differences bleed into sports.

      Like

      • John

        Seems like the answer is probably “yes.” Politics is polarizing and the trend in modern society seems to be that anything that politics touches becomes polarized and politicized. ESPN is probably a good example. Perhaps its coincidence that their flagship evening program got political and flopped. The NFL got infected by politics and it impacted viewership etc.

        Right or wrong that seems to be the answer.

        Also, I think the manner in which you state your “political takes” probably has an impact on whether the differences bleed over. If the takes are alienating and disdainful of those who disagree it increases the chance of a bleed over increase.

        Like

      • sniffer

        For me, no. I enjoy a good debate on most any subject. I have found that my opinion has little effect on others the deeper the subject. I can be persuaded regarding Kirby’s use of tight ends but abortion, not so much. I come here to enjoy BulldogNation. That occasionally includes politics.

        Like

  16. Hogbody Spradlin

    Nobody’s perfect, but I generally don’t let anyone’s political views dissuade me from reading their football comments. Even on football posts some commenters get a little tiresome with their certitude, ad hominems, and trying to be smarter than everybody else, but that still doesn’t keep me from reading them.
    I generally try to avoid the Playpens, with occasional lapses.

    Like

  17. Highway

    That’s a really old clip. That sentiment has been updated a bit and I think it can be more accurately stated that there’s no reason to speak with a “leftist”. IMO the distinction between a leftist and a liberal is an increasingly important one. Although both the right and left are tribal in some respects, leftists have taken on an almost religious fervor. Liberals believe in free speech. Leftists want to label the opposition as haters so that their speech can be limited.

    Eric Weinstein (a liberal) compares cable news to WWF wrestling. I think he’s right. The tribalism that it foments is good for no one.

    Although I disagree with liberals on most points, I think it is essential to engage in honest speech with them. Our best course as a society in found in that healthy exchange.

    That said, I despise what ESPN has become. I do not want my sports mixed with leftist propaganda. But that is not what I see you doing. You are just making honest conversation. That is why I’ve been coming here for years.

    Finally, I think you should give Shapiro another chance. He’s certainly well placed on the right, but he’s not a pseudo intellectual grifter – there are plenty of those (looking at you, Hannity). I think he’s trying to go about it honestly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

      The Left is no longer Liberal.

      Everyday I try to get people to realize that real, actual liberalism and conservatism are actually kissing-cousins. They’re very close, politically speaking. Being a liberal is not the same as what the Left in this country has become, which is so progressive they’re actually regressive in the same way that a conservative and a social conservative have very little in common.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dawgtor

        Liberals in general lobby against discrimination in the social realm. Gay/LGBTQ and women’s rights meet that requirement on the social side. On the economic side “neoliberals” are for less market regulation and, generally, more free market principles. This is a movement to the right, not a movement so far left that it becomes right. Democrats in general have moved to the right over the last few decades (at least economically) and that pendulum is swinging back toward their more traditional values, not away from it. In the democratic party, there is a current movement toward liberalism and away from centrism. Do you think that the current state of conservatism is unchanged from 30 years ago? What did they do to attract your support?

        Like

      • I will agree that Corch keeps trying. All of it is your opinion. That is acceptable, it is not fact-except to you. Pretty much all parties are not the same as they were 20 years ago, that I will agree on.

        Like

    • There are conservative opinion makers that I follow because I think they provide genuine thought and insight that comes honestly. Shapiro isn’t one of those types. And I’ve seen nothing from him lately that makes me change my thoughts about him.

      Like

  18. Hogbody Spradlin

    Shapiro a pseudo-intellectual grifter huh?

    Like

  19. JoshG

    One problem I have is that I’m a voluntaryist. So, I see no difference between right statists and left statists. Nothing will get you unfriended faster than making fun of someone’s religion. And statism is the most dogmatic, violent religion. I’ve lost a few friends on the right and the left. The entire goal of the so called “right” and “left” paradigm is to keep people pointing the finger at each other instead of the sociopathic parasitic ruling class. And they have 97% of the country right where they want them: at each other’s throats.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Mad Mike

    I’ve learned to compartmentalize. Unless someone that I disagree with is just constantly an asshole about politics I try not to let it color my opinion of them as a person, nor their ideas on a common interest.

    Side note, anyone else here headed to Athens this weekend for the DBTs?

    Like

  21. CB

    I’m fully aware that many (if not most) of the commenters on this blog go to church on Sundays and defend Donald Trump Monday – Saturday (and probably Sundays too). They also will argue tooth and nail that Civil War monuments are important historical artifacts that aren’t hurting anyone.

    I’m basically the exact opposite both in action and belief (except I do go to church), but that doesn’t effect the way a process and have conversations about Georgia football. In fact, some of the commenters I tend to agree with more frequently on politics (Derek comes to mind, at least with regard to Donald Trump being a fool) I have also had completely different views regarding football content. I could say that the inverse is also true, but I must admit that screen names tend to run together after a while.

    I love Richt, hate Trump just as much as Hillary, see the right as being just as foolish and hypocritical as the left. I was skeptical of Kirby after 2016 but he’s really grown on me, I think college athletes should be paid (and likely will be at some point) and wouldn’t like to see Georgia football go to a DIII model because I’ve watched DIII football and it’s not entertaining unless you have a family member playing.

    I will argue all the above points often to the point that my opponent gets angry and insults me, and I’m not the only. But we’re all still here aren’t we?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Derek

      You can’t try to immunize seemingly innocuous objects or gestures by ignoring their contexts, assuming you give a rat’s ass about the people who’d rather not be reminded of that ignominious past.

      The swastika was not an issue, until it was. You can wave one around if you like and say its “historical” and transcends the use by the Nazis, and while that is all true, it is really unacceptable.

      We need to remember that the south’s fight, or its defeat, didn’t have to be about racial superiority/inferiority. They chose that cause explicitly both before and after the war. They could have acknowledged the depravity of the institution of slavery at anytime before the war or after, but instead doubled down. They rightly should suffer for that choice.

      Just as I am sure there were German soldiers who fought for country and not for Holocaust, they get no quarter from me. They should have aimed their rifles at their superiors not at the Allies, period. Having repeatedly failed the test of decency and humanity, what is there left to honor?

      If there were any heroes of note after the war, their descendants ruined any chance for respecting them by reaffirming and declaring that they proudly fought/died in order to protect the white race.

      There’s nothing to honor here. There is only shame.

      If anyone wants to change that, start with an apology rather than righteous indignation drivel that despite their clear words to the contrary that the fight was over something else. They fucking wrote it down in clear words. Those words remain for anyone interested. I won’t be ignorant of them.

      Like

  22. GospelDawg

    First time poster here, long time reader. Discourse is basically dead in Western culture. It was essential in the classical education model. But the progressive education model adopted after the turn of the 20th century believed it held no value. Ironically, the American philosophy of Pragmatism killed philosophical teaching in America. Unfortunately, the media personality who is abrasive tends to get the clicks. To borrow a phrase, that may just be apating to the environment.

    Like

  23. Gurkha Dawg

    I could not care less what your politics are Senator. Hell, I enjoy reading Derek’s football comments. His football comments are usually insightful and intelligent. As far as politics he is obviously clinically insane, but that’s ok.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Derek

      Just curious. How can both be true?

      BTW, feel free to try to use your words to argue that I’m wrong anytime.

      Always up for an honest debate on football or politics and I have no requirement of kindness or of agreement. Just try and avoid patent stupidity as best you can.

      Like

      • Mad Mike

        Well, maybe he was saying you’re like John F Nash, dude was a certifiable mathematics genius, and a certifiable schizophrenic. So smart AND crazy.

        Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        Anybody using words, facts, and logic to argue against Derek’s politics can eat a bag of dicks. Those things are just code for racism and thoughtcrime. And we don’t have to respond to that. So fuck off, shitlords.

        Like

  24. Hunkering Hank

    You and I are far, far apart on politics. Like, waaaay far.

    But I love your football insight and posts.

    Go DAWGS!

    Like

  25. Yurdle

    I can get along with anybody no matter what their opinions and positions, so long as they agree that my opinions are right.

    Like

  26. Mason Garrison

    I’m quite sure you don’t care about my politics so why should I care about yours.

    Like

      • Gurkha Dawg

        That’s what I don’t understand about all this social media stuff. People always posting or twittering or instagraming their thoughts and opinions. I’m sure they don’t give a shit about my opinions and I don’t care about theirs. Except of course Ga football.

        Like

        • Russ

          Amen, Gurkha. I used to follow social media to catch up with old friends, but the “social” part quickly went away. When the FB app crashed on my phone one day, I found I didn’t miss it at all and I’ve basically quit it. I don’t care about people telling me who DESTROYED who, unless it’s the Dawgs DESTROYING the nerds or Gators or whoever.

          Like

  27. Ronald Thomas

    Senator, I consider you a Liberal and not a Leftist, based on your positions in this blog. And Senator, your political leanings are very much a part of what you write. And I don’t care. But there are a lot who do care, and some who care too much.

    Like

  28. We are drowning in political opinions. Everyone has them in abundance. And that only accelerates the polarization. I enjoy sports partly to avoid the political drama. And I prefer not mixing the two. I consider myself open minded (for the most part) and I don’t generally stop reading someone who throws out their political views. But the more one spends my time sharing their political views the less time I care to invest in their sports views. That said, I’ve not paid much attention to your political views but I really enjoy your

    Like

  29. Athens Dog.

    When is G Day? 😂

    Like

  30. ASEF

    The following example is not meant to be representative. It’s extreme. It’s anecdotal. But it highlights something I find really disturbing on this topic.

    4 sets of neighbors, Madison AL. Great friends. They walk together, have each other over for dinners, share each other’s pools. Two of them are almost inseparable, connecting daily.

    During the election, one of them puts up a massive Trump banner. Cul de sac, back of a subdivision.

    There’s a political conversation one evening. Nothing aggressive, just differences of opinion. None of them were voting for Hillary at that point. It was 3 Trump supporters and 5 people supporting other Republican primary opponents. And things got icy fast.

    One of the two inseparable neighbors, who were born in another country and naturalized two decades ago, reached out via text to the Trump couple when her phone calls were not answered. It was a simple request to walk and talk again. The response: Never contact me again. Go back to your country. You don’t belong here.

    That Trump sign is gone. Now it’s motion detector lights and security cameras. An orange line showing the property line with his other neighbor, a guy who was a firm birthed – and who was called a “f-ing liberal pussy” when he refused to cut down an oak tree in his yard depositing leaves on his neigbors.

    There are way more details, but I think the basic principle operates at a lesser scale in so many interactions. My wife and mother can’t talk politics. Incredibly close, survived an alcoholic and abusive spouse together. Political conversations get testy fast. I have politely told my mother in law that we’re not coming over if ANY cable news is blaring on the TV. It creates incredible tension when we should be enjoying each other’s company. She’s a primitive Baptist, and I put it directly in her terms: that stuff is “of the Devil” and exists for no other reason than to tear people – and God’s Kingdom with it – apart.

    Political conversations now generate existential anxieties at the drop of a hat. Escalation is automatic. It’s the way mass media has trained us to think about and react to political opinions. And many make no effort to police themselves. And it only takes 1 in a group to blow up a lot of relationships and create havoc.

    And, NB, the preceding is completely true. You’ve accused me twice now of making stuff like this up. Sorry it bothers you so much.

    Like

  31. Walt

    If you’re looking for the most likely culprit responsible for the “everybody on the other side is the enemy” attitude, I submit Newt Gingrich. When Gingrich became Speaker of the House he instructed Republicans to stop socializing with Democrats and had congressmen spend less time in Washington and more time in their districts raising money. Democrats were no longer colleagues. They were the “liberal” enemy. Newt successfully polarized the two parties and was not above attacking moderate Republicans who disagreed with him, he increased earmark spending, he preached family values while cheating on his wives, he pushed forth the mostly unsuccessful Contract on America, but his most important feat was convincing all the sheep-like Republican congressmen to follow him. Trump has basically used Newt’s tactics to get elected from fomenting severe partisanship to name calling to fear mongering, and like Newt, Republican politicians have slowly followed his lead. Even a lot of “Never Trump” Republicans have fallen in line with Trump. Now Newt’s a walking, talking, MAGA gas bag searching for relevance.

    Like

  32. JB

    I don’t care for your politics but I do enjoy you blog. Soon you will need to publish in Spanish but the majority still rules.

    Like

  33. My chance to be put in time out… all you righteous, think your shit don’t stink, yella dog left leaning sum beechezzz, you no count don’t know which way to go f*5ckin’ independents and all you red neck right wing nut job dip sticks who wouldn’t know it’s raining till they looked up at the dark clouds…..but then again i could be wrong, have a hectic day!

    Like

  34. Ralph C Freeman

    My good friend since I was 17 (and best man at my wedding) dropped me in 2013 because I was a conservative. When we were young I was closer to his political stance. (The quote “if you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at 50, you have no brain” applies here.) My offending post was “if we don’t end these liberal policies, we’ll enter a lengthy dark age”. After 42 years of friendship, I haven’t heard from him in over 5 years.

    Like

  35. NoAxeToGrind

    Democracy is a fulminating cancer that breeds corruption, incompetence and dependence. The current democrat party and its enablers are a prime example. As one prominent post Czarist politician in 1917 said during the Bolshevik uprisings, the Bolsheviks are nothing other then a collection of anarchists, rootles cosmopolitans ( not the term he used) and imbeciles. An accurate description of the current democrat party and their supporters of today. See Volume I of Kotkin’s three volume biography of Stalin: “Paradoxes of Power.” My apologies to Derek et al including the honorable Senator Blutarsky.

    Like

  36. Gurkha Dawg

    I was skimming through my daughter’s Political Science book last night and it was arguing how superior the Parliamentary system is to our Presidential system. How if you have one party in charge, they can get things done and would have to take the blame for its failures. In our system we always have the President blaming Congress or the other way. Now one is accountable. It was saying that Separation of Powers is actually a threat to democracy. Pretty interesting. I don’t know much about the Parliamentary system. Can anyone enlighten me?

    Like

    • paul

      Gurkha, I’m not sure if your daughter is in a public or private school. And you don’t really give the context of the discussion you cite. However, I believe that, as a country, we’ve been doing a very poor job of teaching our children about our form of government and how best to make it function in our best interests. Our system can and does work very well as long as our citizenry stays engaged. Instead, in most elections, a very small percentage of people even bother to vote and do little else than complain thereafter. Democracy requires active and constant participation. It’s hard work and it’s supposed to be. That’s how it’s designed. Unfortunately, we’ve become lazy and apathetic. So, we get exactly what we deserve, a corrupt group of self serving narcissists (both parties) whose only interests are personal. It’s not the system that’s broken. It’s us.

      Like

      • Gurkha Dawg

        The discussion was in the textbook for a college honors introductory political science course. It was under a section on threats to democracy in our country. I was surprised, to say the least, to read that separation of powers and our Presidential system were threats to democracy. It stated that we are the only first world western industrialized country to have a Presidential system. All others have a Parliamentary system. There are plenty of Presidential systems in South America and all have had at least one military coup. The textbook stated our system is a setup for a military coup and the only reason we have escaped one is because of our culture and wealth.

        Like

        • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

          The textbook is philosophically confused and factually in error. It is a perfect example of what happens when Leftist academics infuse history and political reality with their own ideological theories and prejudices.

          The United States is not a democracy. It was never meant to be a democracy, so it was never set-up as one. The founders abhorred democracy as mob rule, which it is.

          The United States is a Republic, and the system by which we are governed, while imperfect, has stood the test of time, weathered the storm, and is the best system of government yet devised. The Constitution says freedoms are a natural state of being endowed by a creator, and it is the government’s job to protect those freedoms. In many parliamentary systems (not all), freedoms are given by the state, and can also be taken away by the state. The state is mother, father, God, healer, teacher, the source of life and happiness itself. Those are systems of government diametrically opposed to the American Ideal, such as it was and still is for many people.

          The closest we came in being a dictatorship like this idiotic text describes was in the 1860’s and again in 1930’s, both times of extreme internal strife in which the sitting President took extraordinary powers unto the Executive Office much akin to the concept of Roman Dictators during the Roman Republican Era. Lincoln was killed a couple of months into his second term, but it is unlikely, given his preferred plan for Reconstruction, that he would’ve run for a third term, and for FDR, because he was elected to four consecutive terms, Congress passed the 22nd Amendment which was then ratified by a 3/4ths plurality of the states to limit Presidents to two terms in office, regardless of consecutively or non-consecutively.

          This Amendment alone proves the idiocy of the text your daughter is forced to read and regurgitate/believe. Also, there’s the fact that the Armed Services, as comprised of volunteers who are citizen soldiers taught to think for themselves and not follow illegal orders, not simply forced-conscripted cannon fodder, will never, en masse, follow a coup. The idea that the United States government could be felled by a military coup is ludicrous; the providence of Trotskyist theoreticians foaming at the mouth with no leg standing in reality.

          If I were you, I’d have discussions with your school board about what they deem to be legitimate texts for education if this is what they’re forcing your daughter to learn.

          Liked by 1 person

          • paul

            Corch, i agree with you about our armed forces. Whenever I ‘m speaking with someone who is getting overheated about the prospect of the GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS I ask the same question. In the exceedingly unlikely event the order to confiscate weapons were to be issued, exactly WHO do you believe will actually carry out those orders? I know quite a few career military and law enforcement. I’ve never spoken to a single one who would carry out such an order. It isn’t ever going to happen. First, you would have to change the constitution. That, by design, is excruciatingly difficult. Should you get that accomplished somebody has to go and take weapons from the populace because I can guarantee you no one is going to turn them in willingly. Just ask the British. That’s a suicide mission. No one would do it.

            Like

            • Gurkha Dawg

              This is a college course, not high school. She is a student at Augusta University. I agree with everything you and corch are saying, especially about the military. I would bet everything I have that the author never served his country. The textbook is “American Democracy in Peril ” by William Hudson, 8th edition. Thanks for the input.

              Like

    • Hogbody Spradlin

      I think it’s an advantage that ground breaking changes are difficult in our three branch government.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Corch Irvin Meyers New WR Corch

        Agree. The best form of government is the government that does the least amount of harm. Government should exist to prop up the individual and protect our rights from threats foreign and domestic.

        Yes, that includes taxes. Yes, that includes some social programs designed to help when people are unable to help themselves. The problem we get into as a society is allowing government to continue to care for us when we can care for ourselves, but that’s another point entirely.

        Like

  37. paul

    Politics do not inform sports in my humble opinion. I don’t have to agree with, or even care about your political opinions as long as you enjoy college football. Heck, I don’t even really care who your team is as long as you are a true fan of the game.

    Governance is, by definition, the art of compromise. That’s why nothing gets done anymore. Neither side wants, or even knows how, to compromise. True compromise, a compromise that actually works and can be sustained, requires that you and I know each other. We must understand what each other needs and desires. We must respect each other.

    Today’s politicians do not want to accomplish anything other than getting re-elected. This is true of both parties. Both are equally culpable. Both are equally corrupt in their own way. It makes no difference who is in power. You and I get screwed regardless of who gets elected.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Comin' Down The Track

    I am very thankful for the playpen because it allows us to get out all of our various poisons, and then still be able to interact with each other in the other GTP posts in as friendly a manner as possible. It was a well-thought out (or not 😏) strategy that has probably turned out even better than expected.

    Like

  39. illini84

    If you think this shit is new or the “worst it’s ever been” you weren’t around in 1968.

    Like

    • I was around, and this is worse in some ways. Didn’t have social media or cable TV back in ’68.

      Like

      • ilini84

        In some ways except people were dying all over the damn place, at least in my world.

        Like

        • I guess we’ll just have to settle for locking people up in detention camps and separating them from their children.

          Like

          • ilini84

            But they are illegal and we are a country of lawwwwwws!

            Like

          • ilini84

            It’s horrific but it’s sure as hell no worse than Rolling Thunder.

            Like

            • Yemen is just as bad as ‘Nam… it’s just that we’re involved by proxy instead of directly.

              Like

              • ilini84

                ““We estimate the number killed to be 56,000 civilians and combatants between January 2016 and October 2018,” says Andrea Carboni, who researches Yemen for the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), an independent group formerly associated with the University of Sussex that studies conflicts and is focusing attention on the real casualty level. He told me he expects a total of between 70,000 and 80,000 victims, when he completes research into the casualties, hitherto uncounted, who died between the start of the Saudi-led intervention in the Yemen civil war, in March 2015, and the end of that year. ” Again, horrific but pales by comparison.

                Like

                • Trbodawg

                  I don’t disagree (or agree) that 1968 is worse, but let’s say you (Illini84) are correct, and it was worse then. Does that make today less important or less urgent? Does the overall degree of ‘awfulness’ matter to the one the bomb is dropping on? Today may or may not be ‘worse’ but it’s definitely a faster paced world than 50 years ago, which IMO, contributes to our problems.

                  Like

          • AthensHomerDawg

            Most illegal immigration the past decade was single males from Mexico looking for work. Chavez disapproved of this pactice. According to PEW surrey a third of Mexicans would like to move to the US one day. That is 44 million amigos. Maybe if AOC is effective a mono-rail can be built to encourage this. I digressed, I wanted to respond to the baby comment.

            “There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

            Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

            In April, the New York Times reported:

            Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

            Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

            According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”

            If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.”

            Like

      • ilini84

        Social media? In my world people were dying left and right.

        Like

  40. Morris Day

    Has the fact that the XFL isn’t going to have a “three years after high school” rule been discussed here? Or is the XFL such a novelty league that it doesn’t pose a threat? Link paragraph 5.

    Like

  41. Dylan Dreyer's Booty

    I just want to use the playpen to find out what y’all think about VA and its love for blackface. I am older than most of you, lived all my life in Georgia, have a number of “fergit hell” relatives and I don’t know anybody – literally, not a single person – that did anything to dress up in blackface. The closest to anything similar was a crack about Dean Rusk’s daughter in the Libel Party my second year of law school. Is this something special for VA schools, or have y’all been involved in such shenanigans?

    Like

    • Gurkha Dawg

      Dylan, I think my background is about the same as yours. I had plenty of friends in the 70’s and 80’s who were big time hell raisers and some were definitely rednecks. Yet nobody I have ever know in my life has ever dressed up in blackface. That crossed a line that even my most white trash friends did not cross. And what about that medical school pic in 1984? I was in medical school in Augusta, GA in the 80’s and that shit would not have been tolerated for one second. Senator, what the hell is up with Virginia?

      Like

    • sniffer

      I said the other day that blackface may the only thing I didn’t do in school. Never saw it or heard of it and I grew up in Stone Mountain.

      Like

  42. willypmd

    I find it distasteful that you won’t remove a tweet that is obviously misrepresentating the spirit of another persons words.

    Other than that I could care less about your political leanings.

    I enjoy both your opinions and the aggregations of data that you present here regarding Georgia sports.

    Thanks for all of the work you do on that front

    Like

  43. california_dawg

    The team sports mentality is what’s ruined any chance of respectful political discourse. It isn’t about the country, or making things better for anyone in the long run, it’s about beating the other team, proving them wrong, and the mistaken belief that in order for you to succeed others must fail, or be destroyed.

    That being said, team sports mentality also brings people together in unique ways. What I do enjoy about this blog, and forgive me if this gets cheesy, is regardless of our political affiliations, we all bleed red and black. Coming here to analyze/celebrate/fret about the dawgs has been and will continue to be a daily ritual I enjoy. I don’t really care who you voted for, I’d happily share a beer with anyone here after a big win, or throw one against a wall if we inexplicably faceplant on the road against an SEC west team again this year.

    Tl;dr it’s the dawgs that bind us.

    Like

  44. MLB2

    I rarely agree with you politically but think you have the best UGA football blog in history. I even violated my self imposed comments ban just to answer your question.

    Like

  45. Dawg151

    Being a conservative who just so happens to work on UGA’s campus with and around faculty practically guarantees that, at any given time, 90% – 95% (if not more) of the people that I come into repeated contact with on a daily basis are vehemently and diametrically opposed to my political views.

    That being said, working on UGA’s campus also means we can all (well, most of us anyway; there’s always the random interloper holding on to previous loyalties to another school) find common ground on one thing: We’re all Dawg fans.

    I know who the politically rabid people are in my environment. It’s precisely those people with whom I will choose to discuss nothing other than Georgia football/basketball/tennis/gymnastics/etc.

    Like

    • ilini84

      And I’m a long time Athens resident who happens too be a Vietnam vet and I have a ton of vet friends around town and out at LZ Friendly. I’m not the only liberal in the group but I’m way outnumbered. We can talk about politics but when it comes to “rabid” the right-wingers take a back seat to no one. The don’t like it when I look them in the eye and say “you really can support this fucking draft dodger”?

      Like

    • Slawdawg

      I understand your pain. I thought I had already befriended all of the conservative faculty/staff here. You must not be on north campus.

      Like

  46. Cojones

    Do care for your politics view and follow you for opinions and news of the Dawgs. I would think that your question would have already been answered by the relationship that many of have here when expressing our opinions. Mac and I are at opposite poles in politics, guns, etc, but often agree with each other and are contra to your views sometimes concerning college football.

    I’ve felt for a long time that opposing views were expressed openly by your readership as a whole, political or Dawg views included, and would point you in the direction of Voltaire’s view whereas, I may not agree to a thing that you may say, but will fight to your death your right to say it…oh….wait….

    Your question of readership loss because of your stance on the Dawgs or politics is palpable, but it is not a stance that should drive interested readership away. If you are worried that would be so, I remind you that it is not necessary that all who come here agree with you and anyone who leaves because of disagreements have other places to go with their opinion and the ones that stay are worth a shit to your posts. When numbers wax and wane here the reasons can be pinned to other areas such as time of year, outrageous politician’s stances concerning college football, etc. Don’t change or even consider changing because your unique blend of fact and opinion is not found in duplication elsewhere and that’s something that all of us who participate are in supportive agreement for coming here and voicing our opinions.

    Otherwise, you sometimes are a prick and that’s another quality we all seem to agree to share in our personalities. Stop the “I’m gonna quit soon if the unfair horseshit that befalls college players doesn’t stop.” routine. You have changed a few minds here (from what I’ve read) concerning college sports and football in particular and don’t you dare demure from what you have started!

    P.S.: Michael changed my Christmas cactus present to you this year, but you can’t take it to heart for the unintended slight. My excuse is that I just got back online last month since the devastation in the eyewall was tremendous for those of us within five miles of the inner wall and on the right side. If you google the path as seen by satellite, you can see much of the destruction with downed trees appearing like matchsticks strewn about. Some of us will be into rebuilding for some time and that approach can be taken by you if you think you have erred anywhere in your course with this column; otherwise it’s macht nichts.

    Like

    • ilini84

      My buddy is over in Daytona right now. He and his wife have lived in Paradise for 40 years and, the morning the fire hit, they were in separate cars as they made their escape. They go bogged down in traffic and everything around them was on fire so they decided to get in one car so they could die together. Obviously they made it but they have a renewed perspective on life (he was a rifleman in the 101st so it’s not the first shit he’s been in).

      Like

  47. HiAltDawg

    Your views or the posters’ views don’t interfere with my appreciation of your blog because you generally link to what you opine on and I can read it myself and go from there. I like the PlayPen because I think, for me, it filtered out things and kept other posts from going sideways. Finally, anybody that agrees with me can go to Hell. It interests me to see what others think and how they behaviorally react through their beliefs (please keep it non-violent because I’m delicate). I’m not changing anything about lovin’ the Dawgs based on some post or political view.

    Like

  48. DawgFlan

    Thankfully, the comment section of GTP is as close as I get to social media. No facebook, instagram, and I only click on a twitter graphic/video if linked to here or another news story. I can not recommend strongly enough for people to GET OFF social media, and avoid cable news. Release the disappointment and frustrations of seeing loved ones fall for nonsense, and spread vitriol and hyperbole about the “other.”

    And in person, its easy. It’s pretty easy to figure out when someone is on a soapbox crusade versus someone trying to humbly understand the world in good faith. Either way, it’s easy enough to listen, nod, and either laugh with them or at them. And some variation of “yeah, it’s crazy…” or “interesting times, huhs…” said with wistfully and trailing off while turning attention back to the kids playing, the TV, the menu, or whatever else we were together to do in the first place.

    Human nature is always going to fall for the us vs. them trap, but the way WE used and consume media (the content and platform creators are just feeding our demand, after all) is manipulating and exacerbating people’s fear to the point where we are harming ourselves. Scientific studies have shown repeatedly that when people are stressed about money, they make worse financial decisions. And when people are stressed about time, they make worse time management decisions. And when people are stressed about food, they make worse dietary decisions. We are stressing ourselves out about politics so of course we are making worse and worse societal decisions.

    As for this blog, I love Senator Blutarsky, and all of you scamps. Some I laugh with, and some I laugh at, but I’d waive a red pom-pom and bark like a fool next to any of you.

    Like

  49. willtann

    I read you blog every day. I am a Christian and a Conservative and disagree with almost every political point you make, but when it comes to football we couldn’t agree more. Keep up the good work!

    Like

  50. mg4life0331

    Senator, I disagree with most of your politics, not all. Regardless, I visit your site at least twice a day. I find some value in everything you say regardless of whether I like it or not.

    Both sides have wackos, you’re not one of them, and Id like to think I aint either.

    Like

  51. CEPH

    Why did you even bring up Shapiro? You.could have expressed your opinion without using him or anyone else as an example. Is there an underlying cause as in maybe you don’t like him and it was a personal gig!!! I doubt very seriously you or certainly anyone else I know would want to debate him

    Like

  52. Tony Barnfart

    I just want y’all to know that I have a twitter bird or whatever it’s called #conventionalwisdomalert

    Liked by 2 people

  53. TNDAWG

    I try very hard not to let my political views impact my enjoyment of sports, blogs, or comments related to sports. It is when others inject their Politically Correct opinions into the article that really get me exasperated. Your views are your views and I am not changing your mind. But the PC environment is WAY overdone. All sides of the aisle need to chill out.

    Like

    • Cojones

      It’s not politically correct to correct someone’s view of Politically Correct issues. Consider this a warning.

      Jus’ kiddin’.

      Like

  54. 69Dawg

    The Play-pen idea was a great idea. I know I always stay away from this post but had to compliment you for having the good sense to take the politics out of the regular posts. Once again well done.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. Hal Welch

    Wow, i see I’m late to the party. I also see too many folks arguing for the sake of arguing.

    What I take from this and your question is that there are two truths to this. Yes it has become somewhat mainstream, don’t agree politically… attack and defame. Online that is. The second truth and here I think Shapiro is the exception not the norm, most people wouldn’t have the guts or lack of class to say the things in person that they’ll say online in a blog or on facebook or what have you.

    Keyboard commandos if you will.

    I myself like you tend to lean just a tad left of center, I do believe based on your posts that you do tend to lean slightly further left than I and yes I do see your political tendencies creep into your position on sports.

    How?

    Your position on athlete pay, or transferring which you are very passionate about (and good for you by the way), you are simply politically further to the left on those two issues than I am. Not a big deal and it doesn’t change the enjoyment I take from the blog. Frankly I already know your position on the two subjects, I tend to agree with transfers and disagree on pay with you so I almost always skip the post entirely unless I notice something or someone unique about the post.

    There are just certain subjects that are more difficult to keep your political compass away from, if you’re passionate about certain cultural issues they are bound to leach into your sports thoughts as well. One might say that the posts about athlete pay or transfers aren’t even sports posts at all but more of a cultural issue with sports as a backdrop. I don’t know… I do know that in no way does that prevent me from enjoying the blog and reading it daily.

    Personally I seek out views not like mine, I feel like that may be the only way you know beyond any doubt that you are still in your compass center.

    Like

  56. PTC DAWG

    To answer your question no…vote for who you choose for whatever reason you seem fit.

    But leave it out of football talk. 🙂

    Like

  57. Dawglicious

    I agree with 69Dawg…I love reading and discussing Georgia football and the like. I generally skip the Playpen, but am thankful it’s here, as it has filtered the football posts to football, and the political stuff to the ‘Pen. Don’t get me wrong, I love politics, (got my AB in Political Science at UGA). I get my political fix elsewhere, and come here to read about and discuss something I also dearly love. I read this blog everyday, always checking back after I hear about some Dawg or other football news to see what the Senator and the rest of y’all have to say.

    See y’all tomorrow.

    Like

  58. Ohio Dawg

    In my mid-50s, I’m probably older than most that frequent GTP (but certainly not all). Am I the only one that grew up with guidance from my parents that one’s politics are a private matter? Despite living today in far different mainstream and social media worlds where it seems everyone is proselytizing their political views, part of me still thinks the correct answer to “who did you vote for?” is “F*ck Off” or “GO DAWGS”! In fact, given the damage that can come to one’s personal and professional lives from disagreeing with some of today’s more polarizing issues, it is perhaps even more relevant now.

    If you think that’s a chicken shit approach, fine. Most times someone brings up a political issue with me, I can tell by the introduction and tone that they really just want someone to violently agree with them. And the people that most frequently seek those conversations tend to be, on a 0-100 scale, below 10 or above 90 on the ideological nutjob scale. Polite discourse is lost on such people and I’m not into missionary work.

    The reality is that I couldn’t care less about any of your ideologies…but I do enjoy varied perspectives on important issues like whether we should have recruited Justin Fields in the first place or whether Ant-Man is going to lead Crean’s Hoopdawgs to the promised land.

    Like

    • Russ

      I was taught (and still follow) that politics and religion aren’t discussed in polite company. I’ve never had religious discussions crop up in my office (which is good, because my group is like a mini-UN) but I’ve had to squash a few political discussions. Save that shit for the bar or someplace else.

      I used to enjoy discussing politics with my close friends, but now there is no more “discussing”. It’s just people telling me how I should think, and if you have a different opinion, you’re a dumbass. Actual political discourse is dead right now. Social media and cable news are the prime suspects in it’s death. Eventually it will be resurrected but it will take many years and come at a cost.

      Like

  59. dawgxia

    Robert George and Cornell West can be friends but everyone else has to hate each other

    Like

  60. Tommy Perkins

    Once you’ve closed yourself off to people with different opinions, you’re forfeiting any further intellectual growth. At that point, you might as well put your brain in a jar of formaldehyde and take your place in the intellectual caboose of society.

    Like

  61. Former Fan

    Senator, the reason politics makes people so emotional these days is our lives are HIGHLY effected by who gets elected. That hasn’t always been the case. Obamacare ruined my insurance and caused it to become unaffordable for me. I can’t even buy the insurance I want because it is illegal. (Though Trump is helping with that.) I could go on and on about other things. I am tired of the left trying to run my life. Would to God that we could go back to a federalist system where New York could do what they want and Texas could do what they want. That, more than anything, would allow people to be more civil about politics.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Doyle Hargraves

    Oy vey

    Like

  63. Mike Cooley

    Senator I’m late to the party but hopefully not so late that you don’t see this. You and I have locked horns a few times and it got close to being personal one time years back. But I personally absolutely hate the idea that people with different politics can’t be friends. I haven’t read all the posts here but I am confident that this has been discussed far more eloquently than I am able to do it but I love this play pen topic and you have touched on the single most repulsive aspect of modern culture (or is it postmodern culture😀) in my opinion. I am a very traditional guy who was born and raised in Southwest Georgia and I still live here. I served as an enlisted Marine, I’m a born again Southern Baptist, and a constitutionalist in terms of politics. I’m what a bunch of your other readers would doubtlessly call a redneck although I am educated. I say all that only to say, some of the people in this world whose friendship I treasure most are left wing liberals from places like New York, Boston, Connecticut, and Chicago. I’m friends with all kinds of people. Which is my long winded way of saying a person’s politics has no bearing on their football opinions etc for me. There are people of every political stripe and walk of life that are obnoxious jerks. There are also people of every political stripe and walk of life that are awesome. You write a great blog, man. Keep up the good work.

    Like

  64. Jack Klompus

    Damn, I’m so late to the game here.

    I personally think it’s a path of least resistance to not listen and consider someone’s political positions. It requires a helluva lot less intellectual capability to toss them away as idiots that don’t know anything than it is to actually listen to and consider what they’re saying.

    Really taking the time to consider the thoughts and ideas that are contrary to your beliefs is difficult. What is even more difficult is to change your mind and your perspective, particularly when peer pressure is involved.

    If I dismiss the other side’s opinions as dumb or off base I don’t run the risk of upsetting the apple cart that I’ve built all these years.

    I do enjoy reading everyone’s opinions here…stupid or not…;)

    Go Dawgs and Go My Political Side!!

    Like

  65. Kevin Winkler, DVM, DACVS

    Amen. I couldn’t care less about your political views if we are debating sports. Add in politics (either side) and I will probably tune you out. If we are talking politics, then let’s have a debate, no prob. Just a wee bit young than you senator, but still amazed and saddened by the change in tolerance by too many.

    Like

  66. junkyardawg41

    Senator, I have been pondering your question and premise all day. I think I have to break down two of your statements that although seem linked, in my mind are not quite:
    “The reason I bring all this up is the number of times I’ve seen people express opinions, both here and at other Dawg sites, that because I’ve expressed certain views on political matters with which they disagree, they don’t enjoy reading the football posts at GTP any more.”

    An the second, “Does anyone’s political expressions — mine, commenters here or folks elsewhere — inform the way you process their thoughts on Georgia football?”
    To the first, I bucket football posts to be about football in general. The comments and engagement that tend to bring out politics most are discussions around amateurism in college football. I think most people look upon that topic on a sliding scale like politics. I think it brings out a lot of the best/worst in people.
    To the second statement, I don’t think politics really matters to most of us discussing UGA football — not in my years of reading.

    In essence, I think a safe look at this would be to look at legalization of marijuana. I don’t think it is good for a society to endorse legalization while at the same time, I don’t think I should dictate to you your choice. Vis a vis, I don’t think it’s good for the game of college football to pay players but I think the players should be paid. It sounds contradictory and I am not sure it makes any sense, but to me it does.

    Personally, I appreciate commenters like Derek because he forces me reflect on a different view point different from mine in the context of football. So to sum up, I think political points of view in the context of college football actually make me read your blog more. (maybe I am a sadist) 😉

    Like

  67. I will read what ever anyone puts up on your blog, some I agree with, others I do not-even regarding football. That being said, I think football has politics just like anything else. I will not stop reading folks, who I disagree with politically, and their ideas on football. Some of them, on here, have a great deal of knowledge about the game.

    Like