Twatheads Twittering

[Chuck to Chuck]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

[Quality Start Machine]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

Besides, you can't catch every fish in the pond. Let Julie's takes go.

[SKO]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

[Chuck to Chuck]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

Yes. And, in my view, using the word "always" in a medium with a 140 character limit while watching a frustrating game is on the end of ignorable.  But, hey. You really got her.

[SKO]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

Yes. And, in my view, using the word "always" in a medium with a 140 character limit while watching a frustrating game is on the end of ignorable.  But, hey. You really got her.

I did, yes. *fist pumps*

[CT III]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

[Slaky]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

As someone who picks on a lot of people on the internet, I try to make sure my targets are men and usually in the media or purveyors of horrible blog content. Personally, I think it's poor form to go after women and teenagers. I am not perfect but that's my semi-rigid code.

BUT if you are feeling the need to correct Julie or anyone who's been attacked for stupid shit I would kindly suggest that you dont' quote RT her with your Actually. Just reply to her. The quote RT is most likely universally considered a provocation.

You can ignore pretty much everything I've said here but these are things that being on that stupid goddamn website so often have taught me.

Thank's

[SKO]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice!  

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

No she never said anything in response, I just thought it was a dumb tweet and responded to it the way I respond to must dumb taeks by media people I follow. I was content to just leave it at the one tweet and move on. Huey, humorously, compiled a list of every crappy pitcher the Cubs have beaten up on this year and tweeted it at her because he is Huey.

I'm not even mad about the person who came to her defense, I get why they do it given the shit she takes, I was posting on here about it as a follow up to an earlier comment I had made about how I respect Julie's advocacy and stuff but how she's actually kind of a meatball with her actual sports opinions.

Then this got out of hand here because I find it weird that Chuck and Fork are suddenly opposed to pointing out stupid tweets by media personalities, because I've never really seen them raise objections to the other 9 million people we've done that to.

[Eli]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice!  

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

You just made CT's list, Eli.  Way to go, crybaby.

[Slaky]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

As stupid as Jesse Rogers is, no one has probably told him they want to rape his corpse.

[SKO]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

As stupid as Jesse Rogers is, no one has probably told him they want to rape his corpse.

Yeah, it's weird. I would never ever in a million years say she "gets a pass because she is a woman", because she is legitimately harassed by awful people literally any time she says anything. She undoubtedly has it worse than any of us because being a woman in sports has been proven to be an awful thing.

On the other hand, she is a media personality whose actual sports takes are often half-baked and meatball, and I almost never point that out like I would with Jesse (he's a good example of a nice, harmless idiot we often mock) because of the reflexive response a lot of people have when it comes to defending her.

So basically assholes being, like, scary rapist assholes have made it difficult for smarmy, internet assholes like me to just be a smarmy internet asshole to her the way I am to Chuck. I long for a utopian future where no one ever interprets me being a smarmy  internet asshole as anything more than just smarmy, gender-neutral assholery.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

As stupid as Jesse Rogers is, no one has probably told him they want to rape his corpse.

And while this true, it's also conflating 2 separate issues.  Because Julie is more likely to get attacked ad hominem by dipshits, does that mean taking apart something she says on merit is off-limits?  I mean Dan Bernstein faces some vile retorts because he's a public figure who can be incendiary.  Because of that, should we lay off saying something to him that he says on the merits of what he says? And if not, why?

[Slaky]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

As stupid as Jesse Rogers is, no one has probably told him they want to rape his corpse.

And while this true, it's also conflating 2 separate issues.  Because Julie is more likely to get attacked ad hominem by dipshits, does that mean taking apart something she says on merit is off-limits?  I mean Dan Bernstein faces some vile retorts because he's a public figure who can be incendiary.  Because of that, should we lay off saying something to him that he says on the merits of what he says? And if not, why?

You can do whatever you want. I gave my philosophy on it a few replies ago. It doesn't have to apply to anyone else but that's how I try and do things with my account.

[CT III]

A little internet hyperbole during a frustrating game and what do we get? The SKOPolice! 

Thank the lord you are here to point out that "always" not only isn't a great word choice, but but WRONG FOR ALL TIME!!!  Because, if you hadn't pointed that out... the universe gets sucked down a giant black hole vortex into a singularity?

Chuck prefers to live in a world where half-baked, petulant, knee-jerk (and utterly wrong) opinions go unchecked.  His life would be infinitely less complicated as a result.

There are bad takes and bad takes.  Julie's "Always make bad pitchers look great" vs. Bayless' "Kobe's rape gave him sizzle" are two different levels of bad take. One should be sloughed off.  The other never should be forgotten and should disqualify a person from being in broadcasting.

I would say there's a comfortable middle ground of "one tweet pointing out how dumb that tweet was" in between "sloughed off" and "perpetually reminding a dude that he's a rape apologist".

I for one will be following Huey's crusade to make sure that no dumb comment on the internet go unchallenged with great interest.

So, I was looking at this and wondering, did Julie say something to you and I missed it?  Because this shit didn't just happen in a vacuum. Julie's got a lot of people who simply attack her reflexively for almost any comment, and as a result there are now a lot of people who will automatically jump to her defense for any perceived attack, regardless of your intent.

I mean, basically Huey and SKO are mad because if they randomly say something to Julie some other randos might yell at them.

My question is, why are they such crybabies?

I guess I feel like SKO does raise an interesting larger issue. Yes, Julie endures an unbelievable amount of unfair shit from people. But there have been times with her where I've thought about replying/arguing/discussing something and ended up X'ing out of the window. Whereas if Jesse Rogers had said the same thing, I wouldn't have thought twice about sending it. I'm not really sure that means, but it certainly means something.

As stupid as Jesse Rogers is, no one has probably told him they want to rape his corpse.

Yeah, it's weird. I would never ever in a million years say she "gets a pass because she is a woman", because she is legitimately harassed by awful people literally any time she says anything. She undoubtedly has it worse than any of us because being a woman in sports has been proven to be an awful thing.

On the other hand, she is a media personality whose actual sports takes are often half-baked and meatball, and I almost never point that out like I would with Jesse (he's a good example of a nice, harmless idiot we often mock) because of the reflexive response a lot of people have when it comes to defending her.

So basically assholes being, like, scary rapist assholes have made it difficult for smarmy, internet assholes like me to just be a smarmy internet asshole to her the way I am to Chuck. I long for a utopian future where no one ever interprets me being a smarmy  internet asshole as anything more than just smarmy, gender-neutral assholery.

#notallassholes

I get that. And I didn't think what you guys said was out of line either (and in Huey's case it was funny), although I would agree with Slak that the quote tweet is generally interpreted as a provocation.

So yeah, if we had standard rules of order for the internet in which everything was level and fair and balanced, it'd be fine. Instead somebody yelled at you guys.

Because it turns out the rules aren't always the same for everybody and life might not be fair.



And Huey is butthurt that I called him a crybaby.