OK, cheerleading is more exploitative because NFL teams do everything in their power to obfuscate the ****ty details of the job and to prevent that information from getting out to prospects,.much moreso than other jobs.

I thought Pruitt would be gone in the first week of April with all his **** coming out but he seems to be invincible.

(In addition to what Wookie says above about the NFL team being actively deceiving - via NDAs - in what the job actually entails), because the NFL team represents a local monopsony.

NDA thing is a fair point.

The only fireable offense in the Trump administration is integrity.

Being a former AG for OK, he's the only feasible replacement for Sessions since Trump is unlikely to get anyone confirmed who will do his dirty work. He is indeed invincible.

And (like with weinstein et al) there is a certain mystique/glamour to the industry that causes people to accept things they otherwise may not.

Cool, so it turns out there are extenuating circumstances involved in cheerleading beyond what they thought they were signing up for that maybe we should be concerned about and that aren't currently being addressed.

Sure, although just publicizing those things solves most of the problem.

All employment contracts are involuntary to some degree

Tilted,

Maybe the problem is that you're from SMP. Generally Politics discusses the real world, not thought experiments. If you had some specific knowledge about cheerleaders and the NFL then by all means, proceed. No one claimed that a moral cheerleading job is theoretically impossible.

https://twitter.com/VICELAND/status/991708908430462981

That discussion already ended AFAICT, although dth is still waiting for me "to say the quiet part out loud", or maybe I did that already, who knows?

I've never posted in SMP I don't think and I've barely ever read it.

People here tend to take specific instances and then make very general statements about them. I find the general statements more interesting that the specific instances most of the time as the general statements are actually debatable.

With the right context I agree, but...

A: These cheerleaders were really taken advantage of and treated badly.

B: What's wrong with cheerleading? They can do something else if they don't like it.

Is either an irrelevancy or strawmanning if there is no implication that it applies to the specific situation that A brought up. At least you must be more clear from the get go.

It's more that goofy had a lot more knowledge about the issue than that one article supporting his general statement. You decided to ignore the posted article and all other real world facts about the cheerleading profession so that you could argue with him.

Again this argument already ended and I mostly conceded his points so I don't really know why this isn't an irrelevancy but the issue was much more that I took the second part of his post to be more disconnected from the first part that it actually was.

Lol at ignoring "all other real world facts".

Like, I replied to his post.
HE POSTED HIS RELEVANT FACTS.
I CONCEDED HIS POINTS.

Update:

* The black women teed off at 11am
* They were approached about slow play on the second hole by a hostile man claiming to be the owner
* He's not the owner, he's a relative of the new owner.
* The group in front of them was still on the second hole
* another golfer present at the 2nd hole verified (quoted, with name) they were not behind when approached
* The discussion did cause a space to open up
* The police were called TWICE: at 11:24 and 1:26
* The reason given for the first phone call was slow play.
* The reason given for the second phone call was taking too long at the turn.
* No trailing group had passed them yet when the police were called.

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/local...rse/540439002/

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2018/...ers/572453002/

What's missing in these facts is any evidence that the women were slow. Actually it appears their pace was just fine (4 hours / 18 holes at worst). Except arguing with racists is quite time-consuming.

These women are middle aged executive types who play golf. They didn't start last week. They know how to navigate a white world. Yet in a dispute their word is dismissed and a yahoo whose relative bought a course a month ago has golden credibility with a lot of people. That's the amazing thing.

A good read that Facebook doesn't understand Conservativism

https://splinternews.com/facebook-do...=1525296392462

Good time to revisit some of the HOT TAKES from last month in light of new evidence

What a completely unpredictable shocker that hyper-logical contrarianism and refusal to think about these interactions in the larger context of the world we live in (kind of a continuing theme from the golf convo to doing the same thing with cheerleading, TD - and of course this has been a theme of KEEEEEED for months now) led you guys to side with dip**** racists that were itching to call the cops on some black people.

Note that even if you wave this off with "well I don't agree with calling the cops", you still bought their story hook line and sinker and blamed the women for this incident.

Note that even if you say "well we didn't have this info at the time, how could we have known", somehow Chips managed to suss out a couple useful pieces of logic that you guys failed to with the same information:

I’m shocked, and I mean SHOCKED by the new info regarding the golf debaacle. I don’t see how any of us could’ve seen that coming :eyeroll:

I've had a hankerin' to say "TiltedKeeeeed" for a while now

Not trespassing? Or "I asked them to leave and they wouldn't?" I mean, what does this conversation even sound like?

"911, what is your emergency?"

"Officer, there are slow golfers, please come quick!"


When the **** did calling the cops become a substitute for asking people to leave your golf course/Starbucks? How much of a pussy do you have to be to do this?

Mea culpa