1st half: I get 6 players and you get 0.
3rd quarter, I get 5 players and you get 1.
Before the 4th quarter the league announces we're going to keep the score the same, but now it's 3 on 3.
I complain this discriminates...against me.
I used to have SIX players. Then I allowed the other team to put a player on the court—and that player struggled! Look how few points they scored!
But now I'm being FORCED to give up 2 more players on a winning team?
Whatever happened to merit-based basketball?
What makes me even angrier is when people suggest that we could just switch to 5 on 5, so that everybody could play. Um, that's not the way the game's founders intended us to play it, guys.
Let's be realistic.
Oh now you're bringing up the first half again. Look, that is in the past. It has nothing to do with right now.
I just wish we would put the six best players on the court, which are obviously mine ... look at the scoreboard.
What I object to is artificially changing things in the middle of a game to try to create false balance. We can't fix the mistakes of the beginning of the game with reverse discrimination against the other team later in the game. What ever happened to real competitive spirit?
Listen: I don't object to 3 on 3.
The real issue to me is that by announcing the change ahead of the 4th quarter, the league obviously called the qualification of the new players into doubt. They'll always play with an asterisk by their names unless they manage to win the game.
Too generous if you ask me. That's why I think it's good that my opponents have to play without shoes, running backward, with one arm tied behind their backs.
Because we can't just give people things. If they don't work for it they won't appreciate it.
I sympathize if you want 3 on 3, but honestly you haven't convinced my fans it's a good idea. I hate to say but your strident insisting that they're being unfair is just making them dig deeper into their positions. You have to listen to them, understand their struggles.
The idea of 3 on 3 basketball is something that is very scary to my fans, and you have to get out of your echo chambers and be more persuasive. If you just *cram* a rule change down their throats there's no telling what I might not stop them in any way from doing.
I know that the rulebook guarantees an equal number of players from each team, but that's an *aspirational* goal. If you want it, you have to *make us do it*.
No. No. Nononono, not like that. By "make us do it," I meant "asking us nicely and waiting patiently for an answer."
So again you bring teams into this. Talking about teams is just making "us versus them" divisions in our sporting match.
ARE there 5 members of my team on the court? I wouldn't know. I can't even SEE jersey colors.
I think we should judge people on the quality of their play.
Maybe 3-on-3 is a good idea but honestly is this the right time? I feel like it would be a terrible mistake to rush a decision without having the full debate.
Here to discuss this controversy are a panel of five coaches from my team.
We're not considering the concerns of parents here. A lot of them paid good money to bring their kids here. Are we going to tell them that 6 on 0 was COMLETELY unfair, and their team is still benefitting from it no matter what they do about it? Where's the redemption there?
I for one refuse to tell the children of my longtime fans, who learned to root for this team as a tradition from father to son, that they're AUTOMATIC cheaters in a game they didn't even play in. They didn't score those points.
Why do so called "3 on 3" extremists hate basketball so much? It's the greatest sport in the world and everyone knows it.
I for one am a true fan and will never apologize for basketball. And if I start to lose the slightest bit of my lead I will burn the goddamn stadium down.
People keep talking about this word "analogy"?? I'm just passionate about the game of basketball you guys.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I do at least know that it’s not what he said in his famed “I have a dream” speech. There he said:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
He was talking about the way his specific nation treated his specific children, because they are Black.
But there’s a very popular bowlderization out there, that somehow manages to excise those details.
Snark aside, if you believe this, I would like you to ponder the phrase “the choices afforded by the qualified pool at the time” for a year, then try again. Make careful study of the words “choices,” “afforded,” and “qualified.”
The idea of this one single most qualified person is a canard.
There have for decades existed many black women who are well qualified for SCOTUS, yet no black woman to date has been named. That IS the systemic problem. You make the systemic fix by naming a black woman to SCOTUS.
That fix is what Biden has declared he’ll make.
One might say that he could’ve just made that case by nominating a qualified black woman, w/o signaling the intention.
Perhaps. But this would miss giving people who think “qualified” means “white guy” a chance to self-declare.
Facing mass voter disenfranchisement, they vote for it, but if they have to take some easy free steps before getting access to endless breadsticks suddenly it’s TO THE BARRICADES.
Get over yourselves, Nathan Hale.
These dipshits are the Rosa Parks of people who would have called the cops on Rosa Parks.
The human capacity to ignore the most relevant part of an issue in order to believe what they want to believe is extraordinary.
In the case of the pandemic, that thing is increasingly this: that we are still in a pandemic, and the pandemic is still a destabilizing problem.
There are many reasons we remain in pandemic. Some may prove endemic. Most are systemic political blocks to coordinated responses that are possible and necessary, but not yet attempted.
It's tiring. It's awful.
Nevertheless, we remain in a pandemic, which remains destabilizing.
The problem of the virus is a systemic one, and the system is the human body.
The unwillingness/inability to effectively counter it is a political one, which is its own type of systemic problem.
In this country especially, the problem is cultural. We have a culture of neglect.
Comfortable people discomfited by injustice are always asked to “understand different perspectives,” and it never ever means the people who are actually harmed by injustice, who have an actually different perspective. It always means those who are comfortable with injustice.
Yes, and what do we mean when we say “we’ve never been so polarized,” anyway?
What if instead we said “It’s been a long time since the reality of injustice has been made so unavoidably present to otherwise comfortable people”?
“I want my life back” is a hell of a thing to say much less publish when 5.5 million people have actually lost their actual lives.
We still insist on prevention measures because there are still at risk people who are very much in danger and for whom vaccination is not an option, who can’t simply opt out of caring.
So tired of these articles that frame it as if we’ve chosen this because we like it somehow.
Yes! I also want life to return to normal! We all do! Everyone wants this!
It’s hasn’t, because our leaders have refused to do what is necessary to make it happen, I guess in the hopes that those of us who can afford the risk of just shrugging and moving on will do so.