2020 MLB thread

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

The Brewers will be following the Bucks’ lead and not play tonight.

This is the shit that needs to happen. This is how you fuck the man. Hit him in the pocket

[Jas_lov]

Packers boycotting their first game would get attention. Wonder if these leagues just pull the plug on this year. NBA seems headed that way.

[JPhillips]

Nah. The NBA playoffs will resume soon.

[Ksyrup]

What exactly are they wanting? The leagues to do/say something? If that's the case, it would seem the NBA is more in line with their players than the other sports. If they are refusing to play until "society" does something, I don't see an end game. Nothing is going to change - it's just going to feed into the Trump campaign's and a certain segment of the white population's views on people of color.

[molson]

It's one of the more abrupt, noticeable things they can do without really impacting people in a negative way. It's not like shutting down a freeway or something. I think the idea is just, this is something that is very newsworthy, so even if you're not a sports fan, you'll probably hear about this because it's so unusual, and you'll know the reason for it.

In a sense it's "better", if that's the right term, than a protest because you don't have the risks of escalations that can negatively impact lives, but it's a still a pretty huge statement that can't help but be noticed. It's like a super-protest by those who have the power to do that.

So I don't think boycott is the right word. It has nothing to do with the sports or the leagues. It's a protest. It's just like marching downtown, but safer. And a lot louder than wearing a T-shirt or making a twitter post.

[ISiddiqui]

I think molson is right on, but I also think it's a sense of it's not right to play games tonight. A lot of players have indicated the pain they feel. The Bucks especially.

[sterlingice]

The Seattle Mariners will not play tonight's game against the San Diego Padres after Mariners players agreed to postpone it.

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) August 26, 2020

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Packers boycotting their first game would get attention. Wonder if these leagues just pull the plug on this year. NBA seems headed that way.

I'd support that .. as long as they void contracts and permanently bar every player involved for life.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd support that .. as long as they void contracts and permanently bar every player involved for life.

Hot take

[Butter]

I sometimes wonder if Jon ever writes like steamy right wing vigilante fanfic.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd support that .. as long as they void contracts and permanently bar every player involved for life.

You’ve gone soft. Wouldn’t that warrant execution?

[spleen1015]

I support them in any action they want to take as long as it is lawful.

I just don't know if it will make much difference. I don't know if the people who are the ones that can really do anything about it are willing to do anything about it.

[BillyMadison]

I mean, this has got to be the end for Rob Manfred, right? How can he go on after this?

For those not paying attention: Mets GM Brodie Van Wagenen unknowingly on a hot mike telling an associate that Manfred asked him privately saying "and this doesn't leave the room" that the Mets should protest for an hour, then take the field so they can get the game in because scheduling will be hard if they protest. Virtue signaling to the nth degree. Shows that behind closed doors, those with power and money really don't give a shit about the players and their push for social justice.

Here's video of Mets GM Brodie Van Wagenen discussing a plan in which he says MLB wanted the Mets to take the field, leave it and return an hour later. Van Wagenen is critical of the idea and commissioner Rob Manfred, saying: "He just doesn’t get it." (Video via @NickCocco18) pic.twitter.com/46Z9neVkJt

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) August 27, 2020

so yeah, when you throw the mets, rob manfred and hot mic together, whew...you'd expect to get a doozy, yes.

— bomani (@bomani_jones) August 27, 2020

[BYU 14]

That has to be at least close to the final nail and props to the Met's GM for pushing back.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh God, Manfred made BvW look good. I thought it impossible

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Sonny Gray has gone 40 starts giving up six hits or fewer.

[miami_fan]

From the "It wasn't him......IT WAS HIM OVER THERE!" file

Mets' Brodie Van Wagenen calls comments about Rob Manfred 'unfounded,' clarifies plan wasn't his

"Jeff Wilpon called Commissioner Manfred this afternoon to notify him that our players voted not to play," Van Wagenen said in the statement. "They discussed the challenges of rescheduling the game. Jeff proposed an idea of playing the game an hour later. I misunderstood that this was the Commissioner's idea. In actuality, this was Jeff's suggestion. The players had already made their decision so I felt the suggestion was not helpful. My frustration with the Commissioner was wrong and unfounded."

That is hilarious!

[BillyMadison]

2 things:

1. OK, still the same 'ol Mets after all.
2. Jeff Wilson to BVW: "You better go tell the media that it was me, not the commissioner since I'm selling the team anyway or else you're fired."

[Lathum]

Being a Mets fan is like being a Trump supporter but with awareness...

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I support them in any action they want to take as long as it is lawful.

I just don't know if it will make much difference. I don't know if the people who are the ones that can really do anything about it are willing to do anything about it.

My issue with it is the complete lack of self-awareness by these players. Last year, the combined salaries of the NFL, NBA and MLB totaled $14.1 billion dollars. That's just one year and that is just player salaries, not total team or league revenues. Think of the difference that these monies could make if going to the proper places that need them.

While people think this is a police racial bias issue, the deeper issue is the socio-economic disparity that drives these encounters between those that are impoverished and police. Defunding the police is not the solution. Providing proper training and resources is needed and defunding will not do anything to address that.

Even more so however, if we truly want to address the root causes of these issues, we need to look at addressing funding towards education, health care, mental health, addictions, social services and a myriad of other issues that factor into the social marginalization of minorities.

Now imagine how far a large portion of that $14.1 billion would go every year in America towards helping to address these root causes? Think of how fucked up it as that only this small percentage of the population is able to earn this income, simply from winning the genetic lottery, both from a talent perspective and being born the correct sex. I could have dedicated my whole life towards playing in the NBA from the time I was two years old and still never would have come close.

Now I know that there are some counter-arguments here. The first being that it is simply players taking advantage of a free market and that they are simply being paid a portion of league revenues. Sure, but players have a ton of leverage here and if they REALLY believe in the cause, they can truly impact how these programs are funded through the next collective bargaining agreements.

Let's start with capping salaries at say $1 million per year, which I think is a completely reasonable number. Even if we were to make a flat salary of $1 million per year for every player, that equates to only $1.8 billion. We are still talking over $12 billion towards social programs. That's only the start of it. Demand that owners cough up a significant portion of these income towards these programs. We could arguably double that $12 billion and that number is probably going to fall somewhere closer to $20-$24 billion. Imagine the change that would make.

If players aren't willing to go that route, we should demand more as fans. Player salaries are generally driven by revenues, which include TV contracts (themselves driven by how much advertising revenue companies will pay), ticket sales, etc.

IF society as a whole TRULY cares about change, let's speak with our dollar. We need to stop supporting sports, movies, video games, etc. We also need to stop the consumer driven accumulation of goods which drives this class divide. Refuse to give your money to the NFL, NBA, etc. Refuse to go to movies. Refuse to buy a new Ford, Honda, etc. And then on top of that, take that money and give it to charitable programs to support education, mental health, addiction, etc.

Essentially force fund these programs through professional sport or stop supporting sports, entertainment, etc. and take the money that you save from there and directly fund social programs.

As an aside, this isn't even getting into taxpayer funded stadiums (or sponsorship money players receive). Should we defund the Atlanta police because of the shooting of Rayshard Brooks? Or should we ask, instead of spending $700 million towards the building a new stadium wouldn't it have been better to have spent that money on programs that needed them?

None of this will happen of course. Players do not care enough about change to push this agenda nor do the Twitter warriors, Black Lives Matters protesters or anyone else for that matter.

[BYU 14]

I think you underestimate how much some of these players give to their communities Carmen. For many, it is more than just words or kneeling.

[albionmoonlight]

I would have never expected baseball players to care.

I underestimated them.

[JPhillips]

I'm a big believer in social pressure to demand more from the top 1%, so in that sense, I agree some players and owners could and should do a lot more.

Your economics, though, are off. If salaries are 14 billion, that means maybe ten billion or so is left after taxes and agent fees. A lot of athletes don't come close to making 1 mil a year, so take all of that out of the equation.
There's not as much as you state, and some of that is used to pay various staff, so cutting that off is counter productive.

Finally, a lot of athletes are giving big amounts of money and that shouldn't be discounted. Some can and should give more, but you're just wrong to imply that nobody cares enough to give money.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I would have never expected baseball players to care.

I underestimated them.

They have been playing almost every day. Needed a day off!

A lot of people care(other than athletes) but how do we change everything to please everyone? I shouldnt question their reasons for the "boycott" but I cant understand how they think this will change or help anything?

If anything it will hurt the athletes as they will lose a few fans because of it.

I watch sports to be entertained by something Ive always loved. I dont watch sports to hear about the news. If that is what I wanted I would watch a news channel.

What comes next? A 30 minute promo prior to each movie about politics?

[spleen1015]

For many its not politics. It's real life.

[JPhillips]

And they don't owe you anything.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

For many its not politics. It's real life.

True! But the next question I would ask makes it politics....

The hard truth is the entire world isnt fair... People are born in better or worse situations and given more or less opportunity. Without wiping out society as we know how can we give everyone a clean slate?

I wish people could be rewarded fairly according to their contributions to society but that is a wish I know I will never see.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And they don't owe you anything.

No, but they owe the person that pays them to honor their contract or retire from the game if they choose.

[JPhillips]

Your previous post certainly made you out to be the injured party.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Your previous post certainly made you out to be the injured party.

Yes I like sports. I would prefer they play. If they choose not to, I would survive as their are plenty of college and high school sporting events.

I mean the reason professionals play is to make money so Id imagine while they dont "owe" anyone anything, they do probably need to play in order to keep their lifestyle and having people "want" to watch them is important in getting that money to pay for that lifestyle.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm a big believer in social pressure to demand more from the top 1%, so in that sense, I agree some players and owners could and should do a lot more.

Your economics, though, are off. If salaries are 14 billion, that means maybe ten billion or so is left after taxes and agent fees. A lot of athletes don't come close to making 1 mil a year, so take all of that out of the equation.
There's not as much as you state, and some of that is used to pay various staff, so cutting that off is counter productive.

Finally, a lot of athletes are giving big amounts of money and that shouldn't be discounted. Some can and should give more, but you're just wrong to imply that nobody cares enough to give money.

I don't think my numbers are that far off. The $14 billion number comes from Sporttrac. And to correct your post, my theory is based on a $1 million flat salary across the board, so many minimum salary players would be getting raises. Now multiply $1 million times 98 players (53 NFL, 15 NBA and 30 MLB) and 92 teams. That gives you a total of $1.8 billion. Thus your $12 billion excess.

And I appreciate that doesn't factor in costs like agents. BUT, if you moved to a flat salary with incremental service raises (ie. like nurses, teachers, etc.) then you really have no need for agents. So players pocket that money themselves.

It also doesn't factor in taxes. I don't even know why that would be a consideration. We all have salary figures and we all pay taxes on those salaries.

The overall net effect of this would mean that superstar players that play for ten plus years are taking home $10+ million. That's a pretty good income for the rest of one's life and they should be able to supplement it with whatever and live very comfortably. Furthermore, those fringe players would actually come out ahead financially as well. An NFL player that currently only plays two years makes a little over a million. Under my scenario, they would now be making $2 million. Not necessarily set for life, but very well off and actually better off than they presently are.

[Butter]

I'm with you on the sports stadiums thing, they shouldn't be using public money.

But as for the players... let's begrudge them making a few billion while the total net worth of all the owners is probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars?

What about the ridiculous Trump tax cuts that took over a trillion dollars out of the government? Wouldn't that be a much better source of funding, to reinstate those taxes? Why do we have to fund this change from their salaries, just because you think they're overpaid?

[molson]

Last year, people seemed to love the cringey choreographed team and ownership approved pregame protest skits before NFL games. I guess the Mets are like the uncool kid who wears last year's trendy clothes.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes I like sports. I would prefer they play. If they choose not to, I would survive as their are plenty of college and high school sporting events.

I mean the reason professionals play is to make money so Id imagine while they dont "owe" anyone anything, they do probably need to play in order to keep their lifestyle and having people "want" to watch them is important in getting that money to pay for that lifestyle.

For all the talk, the NFL is fine. People won't leave their sports teams if the players came and personally shit in their beds. Anybody that leaves will come back at the first whiff of a championship. It works that way with bad coaches, bad owners, bad players, and now these protests. All of the leagues will be fine.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

I don't think my numbers are that far off. The $14 billion number comes from Sporttrac. And to correct your post, my theory is based on a $1 million flat salary across the board, so many minimum salary players would be getting raises. Now multiply $1 million times 98 players (53 NFL, 15 NBA and 30 MLB) and 92 teams. That gives you a total of $1.8 billion. Thus your $12 billion excess.

And I appreciate that doesn't factor in costs like agents. BUT, if you moved to a flat salary with incremental service raises (ie. like nurses, teachers, etc.) then you really have no need for agents. So players pocket that money themselves.

It also doesn't factor in taxes. I don't even know why that would be a consideration. We all have salary figures and we all pay taxes on those salaries.

The overall net effect of this would mean that superstar players that play for ten plus years are taking home $10+ million. That's a pretty good income for the rest of one's life and they should be able to supplement it with whatever and live very comfortably. Furthermore, those fringe players would actually come out ahead financially as well. An NFL player that currently only plays two years makes a little over a million. Under my scenario, they would now be making $2 million. Not necessarily set for life, but very well off and actually better off than they presently are.

It's never going to happen, so why spend a lot of time on it? Pressure the wealthy to contribute more. Raise taxes. Stop spending public money on private business. Those things can be accomplished in small degrees. Your proposal really reads more as a way to punish players for raising social issues than anything else.

But if you want to set a wage cap for every industry, at least it would be more fair.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Butter

I'm with you on the sports stadiums thing, they shouldn't be using public money.

But as for the players... let's begrudge them making a few billion while the total net worth of all the owners is probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars?

What about the ridiculous Trump tax cuts that took over a trillion dollars out of the government? Wouldn't that be a much better source of funding, to reinstate those taxes? Why do we have to fund this change from their salaries, just because you think they're overpaid?

Oh, I completely agree with you. These owners, CEOs, and the like, make far too much money. But in this instance, it's the players "taking a stance." And as I noted, the money should come from their pocket and owner revenue. So not just the players.

And further to JPhillips previous message... LeBron James makes around $90 million per season on salary and sponsorships. I would hope guys like himself have the ability to spare a little for charity (not to mention the tax breaks). And it's not just him (and in fact he probably gives more than many) because it's the same thing with celebrities...they say they care and they do give a bit, but it's peanuts in contrast to their net worth and annual income. Does anyone really need a 15,000 square foot mansion that costs $15 million or could they get by with something in the 4,000-5,000 square foot range?

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's never going to happen, so why spend a lot of time on it? Pressure the wealthy to contribute more. Raise taxes. Stop spending public money on private business. Those things can be accomplished in small degrees. Your proposal really reads more as a way to punish players for raising social issues than anything else.

But if you want to set a wage cap for every industry, at least it would be more fair.

I'm not punishing players. I'm saying, if they really, truly want to effect change, they hold the keys (and I also noted a large portion of owner revenues should also go towards this fund). I think they'd rather just pay lip service, the same way the rest of society does.

All of this social justice is like a giant organizational meeting. Everyone is all rabble, rabble, rabble... we need change, this needs to change, I support this, I have this great idea, etc. But when it comes down to actually making stuff happen, no one wants to step up and do the work or pay the price.

[jbergey22]

Well Lebron tries and accomplishes good things and he has the power to get things done.

Many of the other athletes dont have the reputation or power to accomplish change and end up pissing off their employer and losing their job so.... Its risky for a marginal professional athlete to engage in political stances.

It actually sounded like Lebron had enough influence to get the entire season boycotted from the articles I read. Again, I would never understand the end game if they went through with it but it sounded like a serious discussion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

No, but they owe the person that pays them to honor their contract or retire from the game if they choose.

The owner of the Lakers doesn't have to pay Lebron if he doesn't honor his contract. The owners aren't being screwed over anymore than a player is when he is cut.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Again, I would never understand the end game if they went through with it but it sounded like a serious discussion.

It's about the money. The NBA (the owners), Disney, Time Warner, Nike, and others that make profits on the sports have massive political power in this world. You fuck with their money, they get on the phone with their lobbyists and demand things get fixed.

Expressions on jerseys and t-shirts won't do much. Cutting off the money supply, that gets the people in power worked up enough to make changes.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's about the money. The NBA (the owners), Disney, Time Warner, Nike, and others that make profits on the sports have massive political power in this world. You fuck with their money, they get on the phone with their lobbyists and demand things get fixed.

Expressions on jerseys and t-shirts won't do much. Cutting off the money supply, that gets the people in power worked up enough to make changes.

This. Exactly the most effective way to hit the people with the deepest pockets and the most political power where it hurts.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

Oh, I completely agree with you. These owners, CEOs, and the like, make far too much money. But in this instance, it's the players "taking a stance." And as I noted, the money should come from their pocket and owner revenue. So not just the players.

And further to JPhillips previous message... LeBron James makes around $90 million per season on salary and sponsorships. I would hope guys like himself have the ability to spare a little for charity (not to mention the tax breaks). And it's not just him (and in fact he probably gives more than many) because it's the same thing with celebrities...they say they care and they do give a bit, but it's peanuts in contrast to their net worth and annual income. Does anyone really need a 15,000 square foot mansion that costs $15 million or could they get by with something in the 4,000-5,000 square foot range?

Do you really think LeBron James does nothing in his community? Have you never heard of his foundation nor his school that he opened for at risk kids in Akron, along with the housing he has opened for the most at risk families to get their lives together within that community? Not saying he did this all himself, but there are some 1400 kids that have been promised 4 year college paid for by LeBron's foundation if they meet certain benchmarks. But I guess that's not "sparing a little for charity". Again, I'm sure some corporate money is involved, but he built it, even though he didn't even go to college. I find it impressive.

There are many other stories like this from sports players of all races, things they do to help their community that you can research.

[spleen1015]

Athletes do shit all of the time that we don't hear about.

Adam Jones did a ton of shit in Baltimore and didn't want any of it to get any publicity.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Athletes do shit all of the time that we don't hear about.

Adam Jones did a ton of shit in Baltimore and didn't want any of it to get any publicity.

From afar, Adam Jones seems like one of the genuinely good guys in sports

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I watch sports to be entertained by something Ive always loved. I dont watch sports to hear about the news. If that is what I wanted I would watch a news channel.

What comes next? A 30 minute promo prior to each movie about politics?

You mean like a military flyover that's a paid ad for the military? Or singing the national anthem every game because decades ago, during World War II, MLB wanted to tap into the patriotic fervor of the country to boost popularity?

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You mean like a military flyover that's a paid ad for the military? Or singing the national anthem every game because decades ago, during World War II, MLB wanted to tap into the patriotic fervor of the country to boost popularity?

SI

But don't a lot of people not like those things? Are they hypocrites too? They don't want those politics in that particular forum.

The point of all of these expressed politics and protests is to push a message to a audience who isn't there for that message, to broaden the reach of the message. That just good politicking and protesting. It's a part of free society. You can be annoyed or not but they have every right to do it.

I do kind of wonder about the growing idea that it's wrong to try to avoid it, or to not participate, or express annoyance of it. That choosing to say, "I don't want politics in this particular forum" is itself a type of privilege, because being able to choose whether or not to care about this stuff is a choice for some, and not all. And that's true. I saw this debate break on a light, niche, entertainment-based facebook group I'm on, where the posts were becoming mostly political. Some didn't like it, some said it was wrong to not like it, some said calling it "politics" was offensive, and both moderators ended up quitting.

But I'm positive that the privilege police also take breaks sometimes. They shut off Facebook. They go away for the weekend. They read a book. They choose to not utilize Facebook, or not utilize it to express politics. This is all becoming a battling ground. I've seen posts about how people are noticing their friends' silence and how will impact their relationships forever. I think they mean sharing of Facebook memes, when of course, that just isn't everyone's chosen battleground to help change the world in a positive way. I deal in criminal justice and political issues all day, I admit I prefer friends' dog and family and vacation photos on Facebook, and scroll past most of the politics. I would never admit that to anyone I know though. New social rules are being written right now, and different people are developing different lines and boundaries. Which I'm sure is part of the point.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

But don't a lot of people not like those things? Are they hypocrites too? They don't want those politics in that particular forum.

I guess that was kindof my point. When someone says "keep your politics out of my sports", it's never the national anthem or the military except as a rebuttal to someone talking about kneeling or "stick to dribbling" or whatever. I mean, you can probably find someone stringently arguing for it somewhere because the world and the internet are a big place. But it's definitely not anywhere close to a mainstream view, whereas "get your political boycott/kneeling/activism talk" is very prevalent. Then again, you cover that in your next point.

The point of all of these expressed politics and protests is to push a message to a audience who isn't there for that message, to broaden the reach of the message. That just good politicking and protesting. It's a part of free society. You can be annoyed or not but they have every right to do it.

I do kind of wonder about the growing idea that it's wrong to try to avoid it, or to not participate, or express annoyance of it. That choosing to say, "I don't want politics in this particular forum" is itself a type of privilege, because being able to choose whether or not to care about this stuff is a choice for some, and not all. And that's true. But I'm positive that the privilege police also take breaks sometimes. They shut off Facebook. They go away for the weekend. They read a book. They choose to not utilize Facebook, or not utilize it to express politics. This is all becoming a battling ground. I've seen posts about how people are noticing their friends' silence and how will impact their relationships forever. I think they mean sharing of Facebook memes, when of course, that just isn't everyone's chosen battleground to help change the world in a positive way. I deal in criminal justice issues all day, I admit I prefer friends' dog and family and vacation photos on Facebook, and scroll past most of the politics. I would never admit that to anyone I know though. New social rules are being written right now, and different people are developing different lines and boundaries. Which I'm sure is part of the point.

Don't really disagree with any of this and I don't know where it's going either.

One of my wife's favorite Onion articles (after this one, of course, as she's an editor) is: "Woman Takes Short Half-Hour Break From Being Feminist To Enjoy TV Show".

But I think there's a lot of daylight between not being 100% committed to an activism cause every moment of every day, passively accepting what has always been, and actively reinforcing the problematic environment. I think a good argument can be made that David Duke is worse than the guy who tells racist jokes at work is worse than the guy who buys in a mostly white suburb is worse than the guy who is active for "only" 10 hours a week in social organizations that make a positive impact in the community. There's some measure in hypocrisy about all of those situations but if the world were made up of just the last person, the world would be a lot better place.

It sounds a lot like "perfect being the enemy of very good" as an excuse to keep "bad"

SI

[spleen1015]

IMO, it is pretty naive in 2020 to think politics and social issues aren't going to penetrate pretty much everything in our lives.

A lot of things are fucked up and need attention. So, they're not going to just go away.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I guess that was kindof my point. When someone says "keep your politics out of my sports", it's never the national anthem or the military except as a rebuttal to someone talking about kneeling or "stick to dribbling" or whatever. I mean, you can probably find someone stringently arguing for it somewhere because the world and the internet are a big place. But it's definitely not anywhere close to a mainstream view, whereas "get your political boycott/kneeling/activism talk" is very prevalent. Then again, you cover that in your next point.


Don't really disagree with any of this and I don't know where it's going either.

One of my wife's favorite Onion articles (after this one, of course, as she's an editor) is: "Woman Takes Short Half-Hour Break From Being Feminist To Enjoy TV Show".

But I think there's a lot of daylight between not being 100% committed to an activism cause every moment of every day, passively accepting what has always been, and actively reinforcing the problematic environment. I think a good argument can be made that David Duke is worse than the guy who tells racist jokes at work is worse than the guy who buys in a mostly white suburb is worse than the guy who is active for "only" 10 hours a week in social organizations that make a positive impact in the community. There's some measure in hypocrisy about all of those situations but if the world were made up of just the last person, the world would be a lot better place.

It sounds a lot like "perfect being the enemy of very good" as an excuse to keep "bad"

SI

One of the hardest things once you really get into a particular cause and spend a lot of time on it, is finding the line where your mental health won't be negatively compromised.

That's true of Facebook involvement too. Everybody just can't do it to the same way, or do it at all and still be taking care of themselves adequately. Some people thrive in that forum, and for others its destructive.

At the same time, if you care about something enough to get involved, it doesn't feel right to turn something down, or put it aside for a bit, just because it'd be "easier" that way. So there's a sweet spot - you want to feel busy and tired and like you're helping and making a difference, but then also not cross that line that will damage you and impact your ability to help further.

And THEN when you throw in others' judgments or perceived judgments about whether you're helping enough in the right way in the right forums, or whether your're avoiding certain forums or political expressions for mental health reasons and whether that's OK, then, I want to take a nap.

[Atocep]

After today's double header Amed Rosario is at 104 PAs without a walk or HBP to start the season while striking out 25 times on 3.25 pitches per PA.