Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Kamara Arrested


BurnNChinn
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

they are known democrat operatives. doesn't mean dems are always wrong but these people are baised as hell and pretend to be fact checkers. may as well get your news from SNL. 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

Plagiarism is indeed highly unethical, and I'm foursquare against it, but does that mean that everyone associated with an organization is a plagiarizer? Moreover, does that mean that the information that's plagiarized is untrue? Seriously.

And let's stop pretending that there are organizations, companies, courts that consist of wholly nonpartisan-minded individuals. People are people with their own beliefs and opinions, and they make up any institution that you can think of. Does that make them all liars about the facts of a situation? 

It's like dumbasses who deny climate change for example. There is sound science behind it--a lot of it straight facts and not theory--and see and experience the increasing effects of it, but still deny it. I have little patience for it. I'd respect them more if they'd just say, "Yes, it exists, but I don't give a damn, because I don't want you upsetting my applecart now." 

I'd respect you more if you just say, "I don't value Snopes because I feel it's made up of people with liberal political leanings, regardless if the facts or true or not." That's a lot more accurate than expressing or intimating, "Snopes is a trash site, and everything Snopes says is a lie." 

Edited by top dawg
  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hes saying they are trash because they're leftist advocates posing as impartial observers. how do I know what to believe from them when they have been shown to put their ideology over a balanced analysis. no different than fox or msnbc or cnn. all shills for the corporate dollars. 

Edited by Panthero
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 3:35 PM, top dawg said:

His ass really needs to be suspended the entire season. Unlike some cases, this seems pretty much cut-and-dried. He took exception to the guy calling his friend ugly and then beat the sh¡t out of him. If they were teens in high school, I promise you that the one who did the beat-down would be expelled for the year.

 

Being a millionaire in this world solves lots of inconvenient problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, top dawg said:

Hey, if it ain't on Fox News, it has to be wrong, right?

Loop Trump GIF

Political views? Do you not think it would be bad for business for a fact checking organization that shares the apolitical facts to swing right or left? What are my political views? Not that I have to tell you, but I will. I am politically unaffiliated. I don't particularly care for Democrats or Republicans, so-called liberals or so-called conservatives, so-called neolibs or so-called neocons. I abhor the current political system in America, but I absolutely have disdain for fascist-supporting simps who are at many times racist as well. I have disdain for people who rail against truth, but devour lies without doing the first bit of research. I hate fascism, and will speak against it at every turn.  If I had my way, people would vote policy over party every single time, indeed parties would be dissolved. I generally think that people whose go-to modus operandi in any thought process or argument is to immediately begin throwing around political labels, or assuming that someone is this or that are basically stupid, and are unwitting pawns of the oligarchs who rule via Plutocrats in Congress (whose goal is to become Oligarchs themselves). 

Believe what you want to believe, but independent journalism, inasmuch as it can be in America, still exists.  Not everything is the truth, and not everything is a lie, but there are organizations that do their best to get to the truth (which is admittedly sometimes a bit tedious to uncover). Snopes and Politifacts are such organizations, whether you acknowledge it or not.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/19/viral-image/no-factcheckorg-didnt-bust-snopescom/

 

I was 100% being sarcastic. Apparently that didn’t come through very well.

Edited by X-Clown
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Panthero said:

hes saying they are trash because they're leftist advocates posing as impartial observers. how do I know what to believe from them when they have been shown to put their ideology over a balanced analysis. no different than fox or msnbc or cnn. all shills for the corporate dollars. 

So this whole thing about snopes got started because a poster in this thread claimed that over half of active players in the NFL have had a felony charge. People rightfully questioned what his source of that data was. He never answered the question, but It piqued my curiosity because it sounded so out there. A quick google search led me to the snopes article. As soon as I posted the link which breaks down where this myth originated (a social media post from a random guy who doesn’t like football players kneeling for the anthem and doesn’t understand math), I got an “lol you trust snopes” response. I haven’t had a single person yet tell me what was wrong specifically with their findings In this article, so am I to take it that the random social media user is who I should believe? What’s more likely?

Edited by X-Clown
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Panthero said:

hes saying they are trash because they're leftist advocates posing as impartial observers. how do I know what to believe from them when they have been shown to put their ideology over a balanced analysis. no different than fox or msnbc or cnn. all shills for the corporate dollars. 

The way you know how is to read what they source. If you don't believe it for one reason or another, so be it.  You don't have to agree with their conclusions to utilize their research, either... Sometimes the research they do (in this case scholarly work) can help point you to other experts etc. For me, fact checkers are as much about what they are citing and summarizing as whatever their opinion is on material.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...