3 ms·

Pardon the sports analogy... You're on a soccer team. You object to your teammates refusing to let the fans or the opposing team have a chance to kick the ball

by burfog 7y ago

Pardon the sports analogy... You're on a soccer team. You object to your teammates refusing to let the fans or the opposing team have a chance to kick the ball. You see this as being spiteful, since everybody should be able to share the experience of kicking the ball. Meanwhile, your teammates are muttering about how you are disloyal and really don't belong on the team. They want to succeed together, even if that means excluding the fans and the opposing team. Being drafted by birth doesn't change the fact that your peers expect you to support the team. They want to win, as a team, without compromise. George Washington didn't share ammunition with the British, even though it would have been a kind gesture. Was he spiteful for not sharing? How about Truman refusing to share nuclear weapons with the rest of the world?

kaesar14 7y ago
This is more like a professional soccer team objecting to someone far better coming into the team because it'll disrupt one of their roles and the team rallies around that individual. Loyal? Sure. Probably means the team is going to be worse in the long run for it.
jhayward 7y ago
We are not at war with people going to college at Dartmouth, and we won't be nuking Dartmouth. What kind of world view does it take to see everyone as the enemy?
- burfog 7y ago
  I'm guessing the campaign promise to "win bigly" didn't resonate with you, but lots of people loved it. I suspect you do have an enemy. It might be rural people, southerners, Christians, or people who want to win bigly. Evolution made humans behave this way. People who supported their tribe against the neighboring tribes got to leave more offspring. Even those killed in battle effectively got more offspring, due to DNA shared with close relatives who benefited from winning the wars. An interesting take on it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
  - jhayward 7y ago
    > I suspect you do have an enemy. It might be rural people, southerners, Christians, or people who want to win bigly. I am not at war with any of those people, although I might disagree with them and oppose their policies. There's a difference between an enemy and someone we disagree with.
mlevental 7y ago
analogy doesn't fit because there's no analogy for immigrants in sports. if the kid lands a job at fb and immigrates permanently he increases the tax base. now you might say that he's taking a spot from an american but i thought america was a meritocracy? if this kid is better than all of the americans competing for that spot then so be it - the americans should work harder.
- burfog 7y ago
  That would be extremist meritocracy. Just like capitalism doesn't mean you can sell cocaine and communism does't mean you have to lease your underwear from the government, meritocracy doesn't mean everybody gets to be on the team. To the extent that there is meritocracy, it exists to benefit the team -- that is, the existing team. We do in fact see complaints about this in sports, particularly with national teams. People want their chance at stardom, which is reduced if shared with the entire rest of the world.
- AvocadoPanic 7y ago
  I think the concern is the the thing the kid is better at is being non-white.

by burfog 7y ago

kaesar14 7y ago

This is more like a professional soccer team objecting to someone far better coming into the team because it'll disrupt one of their roles and the team rallies around that individual. Loyal? Sure. Probably means the team is going to be worse in the long run for it.

jhayward 7y ago

We are not at war with people going to college at Dartmouth, and we won't be nuking Dartmouth. What kind of world view does it take to see everyone as the enemy?

burfog 7y ago
I'm guessing the campaign promise to "win bigly" didn't resonate with you, but lots of people loved it. I suspect you do have an enemy. It might be rural people, southerners, Christians, or people who want to win bigly. Evolution made humans behave this way. People who supported their tribe against the neighboring tribes got to leave more offspring. Even those killed in battle effectively got more offspring, due to DNA shared with close relatives who benefited from winning the wars. An interesting take on it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
- jhayward 7y ago
  > I suspect you do have an enemy. It might be rural people, southerners, Christians, or people who want to win bigly. I am not at war with any of those people, although I might disagree with them and oppose their policies. There's a difference between an enemy and someone we disagree with.

mlevental 7y ago

analogy doesn't fit because there's no analogy for immigrants in sports. if the kid lands a job at fb and immigrates permanently he increases the tax base. now you might say that he's taking a spot from an american but i thought america was a meritocracy? if this kid is better than all of the americans competing for that spot then so be it - the americans should work harder.

burfog 7y ago
That would be extremist meritocracy. Just like capitalism doesn't mean you can sell cocaine and communism does't mean you have to lease your underwear from the government, meritocracy doesn't mean everybody gets to be on the team. To the extent that there is meritocracy, it exists to benefit the team -- that is, the existing team. We do in fact see complaints about this in sports, particularly with national teams. People want their chance at stardom, which is reduced if shared with the entire rest of the world.
AvocadoPanic 7y ago
I think the concern is the the thing the kid is better at is being non-white.