Twatheads Twittering

[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.

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.

If only being called a crybaby was the worst thing people heard from strangers on the web.

[PenFoe]

Maybe everyone should just stop tweeting for a bit.

[SKO]

Maybe everyone should just stop tweeting for a bit.

This is always the correct answer, but yet here we are.

[R-V]

It's also worth pointing out that guys like Jesse and Gordo are among the handful of humans who have actual access to the team that we follow. So it's frustrating when they are dumb or misinformed or covering some angle that none of us care about, because each dumbass beat writer reduces our access to relevant/interesting information.

Julie does scoreboard updates. Her bad opinions don't impact what Cubs news is available for me to consume.

[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.

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?

Do I keep missing the part where somebody is stopping you from doing anything?  Tweet away.  Randoms might yell at you or you might get blocked. Welcome to the internet.

But if what's stopping you is basic empathy, maybe listen to that.

[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.

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.

I'm not opposed to pointing out anybody's stupidity, including my own. It's just that in this one particular case, a lot of people have circled the wagons based on previous shit that causes them to be very protective. Not to mention, all the shit she got tweeted at her kind of makes it hard to make it look like you're punching up.

So there are still 8,999,999 people tweeting dumb things that you can go after without having to deal with this particular type of blowback.

[SKO]

It's also worth pointing out that guys like Jesse and Gordo are among the handful of humans who have actual access to the team that we follow. So it's frustrating when they are dumb or misinformed or covering some angle that none of us care about, because each dumbass beat writer reduces our access to relevant/interesting information.

Julie does scoreboard updates. Her bad opinions don't impact what Cubs news is available for me to consume.

This is a fair point. I tend to just conflate all "sports media" together and snark them all equally as a "be better" kind of thing but I suppose I am holding her to a higher standard than her position actually merits.

[Eli]

#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.

I basically agree with this and what Slaky said upthread. The quote-tweet is a provocation because you're taking it out into your whole world of followers, which is exactly why I used it to to tell Huey to eat shit last night (sorry about that, Huey).

Slaky also made a good point about the women/teenagers thing. Like, the BFIB Twitter account is usually pretty funny, but I feel kind of uncomfortable when they're very publicly embarrassing kids who are obviously 15 years old. Thank God there was no Twitter when I was that age, because I'm sure I would have run my mouth into all sorts of problems.

[Canadouche]

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.

It's basically reverse-sexism. People are sensitive to the issues that women face in the media, so they treat them differently in a nice way (i.e., ignoring it when they do something stupid), which in and of itself further propagates sexism in the media. In a fair world, people would be able to shit all over each other all the time, but do so without attacking each other personally, targeting flaws that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

But what do I know. I'm Canadian now, and all that maple syrup-soaked Canadian bacon is clogging my brain arteries.

[SKO]

#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.

I basically agree with this and what Slaky said upthread. The quote-tweet is a provocation because you're taking it out into your whole world of followers, which is exactly why I used it to to tell Huey to eat shit last night (sorry about that, Huey).

Slaky also made a good point about the women/teenagers thing. Like, the BFIB Twitter account is usually pretty funny, but I feel kind of uncomfortable when they're very publicly embarrassing kids who are obviously 15 years old. Thank God there was no Twitter when I was that age, because I'm sure I would have run my mouth into all sorts of problems.

Yeah, and after I tweeted that to Julie I nearly deleted it, because I expected the reaction I got and figured it wasn't worth the trouble, then a tiny part of me said "you wouldn't delete this if this wasn't a woman" so I stuck to my asshole guns. I will resume my normal pattern of non-interaction with her bad takes from now on.

And I stopped following the BFIB twitter account for that exact reason. Early on he seemed like he mostly retweeted idiotic beat writers and media types who parroted the BFIB line, or he retweeted Cardinals fans who specifically bragged about their classiness before immediately playing themselves with a racist tweet or homophobic tweet right after.

Now he mostly just retweets a bunch of teenage assholes, and that's not good for anyone.

[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?

Do I keep missing the part where somebody is stopping you from doing anything?  Tweet away.  Randoms might yell at you or you might get blocked. Welcome to the internet.

But if what's stopping you is basic empathy, maybe listen to that.

I think you're being a tad disingenuous, buddy, and I'm not sure why you're singling me out when Eli and SKO have both pointed out that they refrain from posting things due to reasons that have nothing to do with empathy.  I generally have no problem "tweeting away" and have been blocked by plenty of folks (including your buddies at TCI).  What does stop me, though, is getting dragged down into suddenly having to defend myself against people who may well assume I'm "mansplaining" (which I'm still not sure what the definition of is...best I can tell it's simply disagreeing with a woman...either way it's not worth the rhetorical energy to forge ahead because it's a no-win situation).

I disengaged in the conversation last night because even I'm not that stupid and know where that leads and it's honestly not worth it.  So that's what's stopping me (to answer your question)

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

DPD....and I'm not oblivious to my privilege.  I call people out quite a bit for failing to check their own.  And I do empathize with Julie's situation and can't pretend I know what it's like because I've had every advantage from jump street.  I just thought it was a dumb opinion and it should be okay to fairly point that out to someone with her intellect, experience and exposure.

[Canadouche]

DPD....and I'm not oblivious to my privilege.  I call people out quite a bit for failing to check their own.  And I do empathize with Julie's situation and can't pretend I know what it's like because I've had every advantage from jump street.  I just thought it was a dumb opinion and it should be okay to fairly point that out to someone with her intellect, experience and exposure.

Perhaps a fairer point is that she was making a throwaway line that she herself didn't even take all that seriously.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

DPD....and I'm not oblivious to my privilege.  I call people out quite a bit for failing to check their own.  And I do empathize with Julie's situation and can't pretend I know what it's like because I've had every advantage from jump street.  I just thought it was a dumb opinion and it should be okay to fairly point that out to someone with her intellect, experience and exposure.

Perhaps a fairer point is that she was making a throwaway line that she herself didn't even take all that seriously.

That is fair, but you could say that about some of the things Nick Vlahos says and nobody gives that asshat a pass.

[Eli]

DPD....and I'm not oblivious to my privilege.  I call people out quite a bit for failing to check their own.  And I do empathize with Julie's situation and can't pretend I know what it's like because I've had every advantage from jump street.  I just thought it was a dumb opinion and it should be okay to fairly point that out to someone with her intellect, experience and exposure.

Perhaps a fairer point is that she was making a throwaway line that she herself didn't even take all that seriously.

That is fair, but you could say that about some of the things Nick Vlahos says and nobody gives that asshat a pass.

And that dude has leukemia, which is almost worse than being a woman in America.