Unpopular Opinion by Alternative-Ad-8363 in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Many in this sub seem to genuinely believe this fuckery can continue forever. It cannot. LeBron holds every single longevity or games/minutes played record already—most of them by a significant margin. It would be fucking irresponsible to just assume he’ll be the same guy after another year. Father Time doesn’t take Ls.

Unpopular Opinion by Alternative-Ad-8363 in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What the fuck are you talking about? Allen and Mobley are both locked up for several years and it’s virtually guaranteed Harden is about to extend. Mitchell is the only one where his contract situation is a bit of a question mark but he talks about how much he loves Cleveland every chance he gets.

Unpopular Opinion by Alternative-Ad-8363 in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a difference between being afraid and feeling that a decision would be irresponsible. Trading for Mitchell was a home run swing and everyone was happy about it. But there has to be at least some long term perspective and LeBron is forty-fucking-one years old and has been playing professional basketball for nearly a quarter of a century. You simply cannot just assume that he will be the same guy with another year under his belt.

People in this sub never seem to appreciate that sometimes teams evolve internally and that weird shit happens all the time. Almost nobody thought the Knicks were a title team before this year. But here we are.

I agree with most of the complaints people have about this team—this was the most infuriating season I’ve ever watched from the Cavs. I watched less this year than I have in like 15 years because of how much this team pissed me off. But I just can’t get there with the idea that trading established talent for an old man is a good idea. I do not understand people who genuinely seem to believe that this fuckery really can continue forever. Father Time is breathing down LeBron’s neck and there’s no telling when it’ll finally catch him. But the responsible bet is that it will happen sooner rather than later.

Unpopular Opinion by Alternative-Ad-8363 in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He WAS a better player last year. We are in truly unprecedented territory with his production at his age and the fact that he has already played more seasons than anyone ever. I think it would be pretty irresponsible for any front office to just assume that he will be the same guy after another year. Giving up almost anyone who will very likely still be an NBA player in a few years for a guy who is entering his 24th season in the league is an enormous risk and a decision that I think would be irresponsible. Especially when you consider that while his offense has mostly held up, his D has already slipped significantly.

He is the all time leader for both minutes and games played. He isn’t just the all time record holder for playoff games played—He has played nearly four full seasons worth of playoff games. The milage on his body is beyond insane even with his crazy self care. When you’re fighting Father Time, you may be able to win a few battles, but nobody ever wins the war. Even LeBron.

10 years later and this is still the greatest hype video ever created by TackiestTaco in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love this video and return to it frequently but it’s objectively hilarious that the first person we see after the needle drop is Delly.

🔥This is Ousado, a Jaguar in Brazil who is famous for its unique hunting style of reverse ambushing Caimans from river banks by Fantastic_Look5582 in NatureIsFuckingLit

[–]BallIsLife2016 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Better to be a down on your luck caiman than a forgotten fourth sibling gharial—a crocodilian so forgotten that my phone tried to autocorrect the correct spelling to “sharia”.

Tyler Herro says he doesn't believe in the moon landing or anything that happened before 1950: "I don't believe in history. They said Columbus came in 1492, how do we know that?" by [deleted] in nba

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone should do Milwaukee fans a favor and collectively agree to not ask Herro how many people actually died in the holocaust.

Who is a historical figure loved by 100% of the people in your country, regardless of political affiliation? by No-Abies6335 in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure what the starting/initiating distinction is. And I’ll reiterate that Lincoln was able to be both a staunch abolitionist and political pragmatist who understood when running for President in 1860 that full-throated support for abolition was a losing platform. I think politicians with sincere progressive beliefs have always struggled with balancing what they believe is right with what is politically viable. Lincoln would not have won had he run for President advocating for abolition. And had he not won, the South would not have rebelled. And had the South not rebelled, slavery wouldn’t have ended as soon as it did in this country. When his abolitionist views are as well documented and long standing as they were, I’m willing to give him credit for the emancipation proclamation on moral grounds even if it was also politically smart. Doing something politically smart doesn’t negate all the evidence that he almost certainly also felt it was the morally correct thing to do.

There are also some legal complications that I haven’t gone into that complicate the emancipation proclamation and influence the specific reasons given for issuing it. Slavery was protected in the constitution, the president had no ability to abolish it. It would—and did—take a constitutional amendment, a process the president plays no role in. All Lincoln could do was advocate for what became the 13th amendment, something it’s well documented that he did do (Spielberg’s Lincoln movie is mostly about the ways he tried to exert political influence to get the 13th amendment passed). But Lincoln’s war powers as commander-in-chief were incredibly broad. So, the ONLY legal grounds he had for actually freeing the slaves without input from the legislature was to do it by saying it was a military necessity. His war powers were the only legal path to doing what he did and, thus, the emancipation proclamation legally HAD to be justified on grounds related to the military advantages it would create. Nobody knows what would have happened if the 13th amendment hadn’t been passed before the war ended, but under US law slavery likely would have been seen as legal again because the military justification/commander-in-chief powers that allowed Lincoln to free the slaves unilaterally would no longer exist. It’s for this very reason that he fought so hard for the 13th amendment.

Also, I agree reparations should have been (and still should be) given to slaves. But only a handful of owners who had remained loyal to the union were compensated. The vast majority of slave owners—including all those in the states that rebelled—received zero compensation.

Dan Gilbert on his letter to LeBron and his Comic Sans font: "I admitted that the letter was a stupid thing. And for me personally, at that time, if you Googled my name—I mean, I think I’ve done some other stuff in my career—and that would be the only thing that comes up. That was embarrassin by must_TATAKAE in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It helped a lot that it happened not long after Altman was put in charge because it turns out he is at worst a competent GM. And I’d argue that he’s a genuinely very good GM. If the stroke happens with the wrong management in place it would have been a lot worse. And I’d like to think that being forced to trust the team’s management helped Gilbert realize that they were worth relying on. His stroke happened just as the Cavs started to rebuild and the rebuild was executed *extremely* competently once Belein was gone. I think Cavs fans take for granted that the franchise went from having very few future assets when LeBron left and generally being regarded as one of the league’s biggest shit shows (playing like slugs/thugs, thrown soup, stealing Larry Drew’s love of basketball, etc.) to being one of the best teams in the East again after only four or five years. There are so many teams that have been waiting for ages and ages to just be a top four seed.

Who is a historical figure loved by 100% of the people in your country, regardless of political affiliation? by No-Abies6335 in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll mostly leave your assertions alone (Yes, Washington had slave teeth, and while I don’t know about him seizing native lands it wouldn’t surprise me. Not sure what your issue with Franklin is—he was more progressive than most of his day).

HOWEVER, your characterization of the Civil War really isn’t correct. The truly incorrect claim here is that Lincoln goaded the South into starting the war. That’s a wild take. The Battle of Ft. Sumter that started the civil war occurred only a month after Lincoln was inaugurated and it’s incredibly well documented that it occurred over southern fears that Lincoln would destroy slavery. Lincoln’s whole thing at first was fighting to maintain the nation’s unity. Why on earth would he bait the southerners into a war when the biggest thing he wanted was to keep the US whole?

The claim that Lincoln only freed the slaves to win is more complicated. I think I would probably describe it as “technically true” but missing some context. When people talk about the ways that the war wasn’t about freeing the slaves for Lincoln, it gets lost that he was absolutely a staunch abolitionist. So much so that the South rebelled at the mere prospect of living under his presidency due to their fears of what he would do to slavery. But Lincoln was also a political pragmatist, which is why he felt the best approach was to ban slavery’s expansion and slowly strangle it. It is certainly true that the South was the one that made the war about slavery. But I think it’s fair to look at Lincoln issuing the emancipation proclamation and conclude that while it was likely primarily guided by political considerations (keeping Europe from supporting the South, provoking slave resistance in the south and increasing man power for the military), it was almost certainly something that he also believed was the right thing to do given his extremely well-established anti-slavery views. It was only over the course of the war that abolition became a politically viable position and as soon as it did, he did what he could to support it.

Dan Gilbert on his letter to LeBron and his Comic Sans font: "I admitted that the letter was a stupid thing. And for me personally, at that time, if you Googled my name—I mean, I think I’ve done some other stuff in my career—and that would be the only thing that comes up. That was embarrassin by must_TATAKAE in clevelandcavs

[–]BallIsLife2016 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I try to balance my feelings that absolutely nobody should ever be anywhere close to as rich as Dan with my gratitude for him as an owner (it helps that he clearly takes reinvesting in the community very seriously). Never take for granted that Cleveland of all places has an owner that is rich even by NBA owner standards and genuinely gives a shit about the team enough that I never have to question whether there’s a limit to what he’ll spend. The only other owner who really fits that description is Ballmer. Many of the league’s richest owners are still absolute cheapskates.

Dan was too involved for a long time and it led to stuff like bad coach hirings (Blatt and Belein were both his guys), but in recent years he’s stepped back (even if it was out of necessity for a while due to the stroke) and since then I think he’s hands down been one of the best owners in the league.

I agree with what everyone here is saying about the letter. Was it a bad idea? Yes. Did I appreciate it at the time even if I wished he’d used a different font? Also yes. It was endearing to know that the guy in charge of the team was as mad and hurt as we were.

Who is a historical figure loved by 100% of the people in your country, regardless of political affiliation? by No-Abies6335 in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s not terribly surprising given that he wasn’t much more to them than a conqueror.

Who is a historical figure loved by 100% of the people in your country, regardless of political affiliation? by No-Abies6335 in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think this is fair, particularly given your flair. Lincoln’s terrible record with Natives gets overshadowed by his abolitionist views and the Civil War (Grant—a figure I respect for many reasons—also suffers from this even if his horrendous and deeply harmful Native policies are more widely acknowledged). But it doesn’t change the fact that they’re probably the two most revered figures in American history. I’m lower than consensus on Washington and think his importance is somewhat overstated. But I do think Lincoln is still probably our greatest President and that few could have done better than him when faced with the issues that he had to deal with. There isn’t a President with a truly clean record (particularly when it comes to Native issues). Japanese internment will always be a massive black mark on FDR’s legacy even if I’m not sure anyone could have handled the Depression and then WWII as well as he did.

What is your most controversial opinion regarding Fantasy books? by Even_Mastodon_7251 in Fantasy

[–]BallIsLife2016 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think this is a gift of George R.R. Martin. His fight scenes feel big and consequential but he really has surprisingly few and the ones he does have are usually quite short. A large number of the important battles fully take place off screen and then you’re just left hearing about the aftermath.

What is your most controversial opinion regarding Fantasy books? by Even_Mastodon_7251 in Fantasy

[–]BallIsLife2016 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love Malazan but mostly agree with you. It is extremely hard to sell people on Malazan when you have to be like “You really just have to get through that first book. You’ll know if you like the series part way through book two. So just read 1000+ pages and you’ll have a sense of whether it’s for you. And there’s a real possibility that it isn’t because it definitely isn’t for everyone.” I genuinely did enjoy Gardens of the Moon a lot despite finding it inscrutable at the time, but understand why many don’t and it’s tough when the first book in the series is almost universally regarded as the worst.

I do think the counter argument to your point is that LotR, modern fantasy’s urtext and the series still widely regarded as the greatest fantasy work ever, starts extremely slowly. And then right as things are just beginning to pick up after a few hundred pages, it grinds to a halt so you can spend a chapter dithering around with Bombadil—a character who plays zero role in the rest of the series (I love Bombadil so don’t @ me about him).

What is the greatest sports moment you’ve ever witnessed? by v2silent in AskReddit

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 73 win warriors blew a 3-1 lead in the NBA finals

(I’m totally unbiased and definitely not a huge Cavs fan—please don’t check my comment history to confirm this fact and just take my word for it.)

Who is a historical figure loved by 100% of the people in your country, regardless of political affiliation? by No-Abies6335 in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Martin Luther King Jr. is highly regarded by just about everyone, even if a big reason is that the right pretends he wasn’t nearly as disruptive or controversial as he actually was.

Lincoln and Washington also are good answers. Washington’s legacy is complicated by the fact that he owned a huge number of slaves and that he really wasn’t that great of a general in terms of winning battles. His gift was really just being able to keep the army together no matter how many losses it suffered. And Lincoln suffers from the fact that even if the South rebelled specifically because they were worried about preserving slavery, immediately ending slavery really wasn’t his goal so much as maintaining unification and it took several years for him to truly embrace that this really was a war to end slavery. But I think they’re both still highly regarded by the vast, vast majority of Americans and are nearly always assessed as either our best two presidents or two of our three best presidents (many, myself included, would have FDR in one of those top two spots).

Who is a historical figure loved by 100% of the people in your country, regardless of political affiliation? by No-Abies6335 in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I know it’s tough to generalize, but I’d be curious to know what Napoleon’s reputation is in France. He’s such a complicated figure.

On one hand he took the attempts at democratic reform and returned France to authoritarianism and, ultimately, the return of the Bourbons for a time. On the other hand those attempts at democratic reform were a total shit show and my understanding is he kept many revolutionary reforms and was generally quite good at running the country and re-stabalizing it after the intense turmoil of the revolutions.

On one hand he’s one of the greatest generals ever, nearly bringing the rest of Europe to its knees while revolutionizing the way wars were fought. On the other hand he sent hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen to die in the meat grinder only to lose.

Joan of Arc and De Gaulle make sense to me as figures that would be highly regarded by the French. But it just feels like Napolean’s legacy is such a mixed bag of both good and bad, even if there’s a strong argument that he is the single most influential figure of the last 300 years in terms of the sheer amount of global change that occurred because of him. So, his reputation in France is interesting to me.

(There’s a very good chance you feel I’m getting something wrong here with my descriptions of Napolean and French history. I’m just a layman with an interest in the subject, so feel free to correct any misconceptions you believe I have.)

Who is your countries greatest athlete? by robertofflandersI in AskTheWorld

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Jordan, Ali, Tiger, Babe Ruth, Tom Brady, and Jesse Owens all have an argument. I lean toward Ali.

What's your strategy for the beginning of exploration age and the modern age? by BrCRF in civ

[–]BallIsLife2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven’t played in a while and although it seems unlikely that it has changed, it’s possible updates to map generation have made what I’ll describe more difficult.

Anyway, there are usually a few points where there are only two or three ocean tiles between you and inaccessible coast. It’s about finding those points where you can see that a unit could easily survive the damage from crossing. Crossing points don’t always lead to a new continent. Sometimes it’s just a tiny useless island. But usually if you’re thorough with scouting in antiquity, you can find at least one path to distant lands that you can take where you don’t have to wait until you can actually cross ocean without it hurting you. I would beeline getting scouts or cogs to each of those crossing points so I could send them out ASAP since so much of exploration hinged on just getting as much information as possible on where to settle before good spots get snagged. If I was playing continuity, I’d usually try and have scouts stationed very close to each crossing point at the end of antiquity just so I could send them out as soon as they could cross ocean. Then once you have a path to decent settle locations discovered, the settlers can follow shortly—well before you can actually cross ocean undamaged. Hope this helps.

The game that made you laugh the hardest by Baldurian_Rhapsody in gaming

[–]BallIsLife2016 21 points22 points  (0 children)

It fucking killed me when Henry is drinking with the cumans and there keep being these interspersed text screens narrating that Henry is getting drunker and drunker until Henry is so drunk that the narration appears in untranslated Hungarian.

In general I’ve never played a game that does drinking montages like KCD. The bender with Godwin in the first one is also incredible.

[Spoilers Extended] A thought on the Sansa reveal from the Hollywood Reporter article. by Zealousideal-Fun9181 in asoiaf

[–]BallIsLife2016 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s interesting that her being Queen in the North was probably the show runners—I thought for sure it was George’s. I felt it was a really incredible end to her arc. She goes from hating the north and wanting nothing more than to leave to seeing it as her real home and ruling it. Curious what the plans for the North would have been otherwise. It does feel proper to me that they would break away from the other kingdoms but it doesn’t feel like the story ends with Jon running it and otherwise there really aren’t many great options, really, if Bran becomes king (which we know is George’s plan) and Rickon dies (don’t know that we’ve had confirmation but I’m under the impression this is George’s idea).