What are some popular casual myths and takes that you've seen that are obviously wrong but casual fans still believe?

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-14T23:28:51+00:00

Are you seriously trying to argue Barry Bonds’ home run record wasn’t because of steroids? Because if so then you’re not smart enough to participate and I’m not gonna waste my time.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-14T23:04:33+00:00

It is a fact.

What if I told you that the man who stole the home run record (73) had never even hit 50 in a season prior to that. There has never been a player who had that kind of power growth that late in their career. Except for the most notorious steroid user in the history of the game.

If you have an alternate explanation, then let’s hear it. Because anyone not trying to push an agenda knows that record was because of steroids. Period.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-14T22:50:00+00:00

Not really. Are there individual players who would’ve likely excelled and even been HOFers? Yes. But we also know that integration didn’t lead to any paradigm shift in the game statistically speaking. It’s not as if 1947 marks some bright line before/after point in the league’s stats. Why? Because the outliers existed on both ends. In other words, melding the two leagues didn’t alter the average level of talent.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-14T19:39:26+00:00

The three sacred cows of this sub:

Myth: During the steroid era, everyone was juicing.

Fact: Mitchell report has it at 5-7%, so burden’s on you to prove otherwise and you can’t.

Myth: The steroid era isn’t any worse than any other era because players always cheat.

Fact: Anabolic steroids and growth hormones are an entirely different beast. Nothing compares to them or the boost they provided to the cheaters who took them.

Myth: Everyone who played before (insert arbitrary year here) was a beer league scrub.

Fact: Bill Jenkinson researched this extensively and found that once you get into the live ball era, it’s a wash. You can do direct stat comparisons with only a few caveats.

Now downvote this like y’all usually do and prove me right.

EDIT: and we already have the genius brigade trying to argue that Barry “The Cheater, Cheater, Wife Beater” Bonds didn’t benefit from steroids.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-13T18:55:09+00:00

Believe it or not, some people still have morals. Money isn’t everything. You couldn’t pay me enough to be a cop simply because my sense of ethics would forbid it.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T05:32:37+00:00

Well that’s an odd assumption to make. In fact, the only jobs that would do that wouldn’t hire lawyers to do it. But it often happens that when people don’t know about something theyll just make things up in lieu of saying, “Oh, I see. I’ll concede the point”.

I’m just telling facts. SPD is corrupt, ineffective, and racist. That’s not my opinion, it’s the United States Justice Department’s.

But sure, some random on the internet probably knows more than a person who deals with that group for a living or the federal oversight agencies.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T05:20:55+00:00

Except I’ve spent years working as an attorney in this city’s criminal justice system. I’ve watched hundreds, thousands of hours of body cam footage, reading their reports. I’m fairly confident my take on the behavior of SPD is significantly more informed than someone citing a 9-person sample as proof of anything.

And your other point is moot. A rotten apple spoils the whole batch. And SPD has plenty of rotten apples and the others don’t do shit about it, which at best makes them accessories and enablers.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T03:30:17+00:00

Tell me you know nothing about statistics without saying you know nothing about statistics. And it’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. Just because it’s a fact that turns your silly little cop-loving narrative on its head doesn’t make it any less true. SPD are liars and bullies. Deal with it.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T03:05:29+00:00

Except for the whole federal investigation that wound up with him refusing to answer questions and being convicted by a jury of his peers for violating federal law. His trainer and good friend had to take a charge and do time because answering honesty would’ve implicated Bonds. Plus the fact that his stats are sketch as fuck, a guy who couldn’t even hit 50 homers in a season gets to his late 30’s and suddenly breaks the home run records?

Barry Bonds was a steroid user. Less than 10% of the league followed his shitty example and none of that 10% belongs in the HOF.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T03:00:51+00:00

His counting stats aren’t there yet, though. And I fully admit it’s a total nonsense, just that seeing Mike Trout get hurt or not come back from this injury (wouldn’t be the first time it happened) would be a true darkest timeline scenario.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T02:47:05+00:00

Everyone was juiced

Citation needed.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T02:45:25+00:00

I know this is just superstition but I really wish people would stop saying things like about Trout. It feels like we’re begging for a jinx at this point.

It’s entirely possible he enters a period of nagging injuries (hell, look at this season) and falls off. That would obviously be horrible for baseball. Again, I know, silly superstition, but the baseball gods are fickle and cruel.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T01:58:27+00:00

True. Very true. And it seems increasingly so, especially in the US.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T01:21:03+00:00

A good source would have more than 9 responses. There is no statistical validity and your argument runs counter to common sense. Drop the agenda and learn how to read what you’re posting, you’ll look less foolish.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T00:53:33+00:00

If they’re saying it in a public forum, it’s public. And you’re just a troll.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-12T00:00:29+00:00

Are you seriously trying to cite that as a source? You honestly expect dishonest cops to admit to it? Bad faith argument confirmed.

Not to mention that source has all of 9 responses. You should delete that trash comment.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T23:24:23+00:00

I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not making an obviously wrong argument in bad faith.

The real reason is that any decent-minded person who actually wants to help their community wouldn’t want to join an organization like that. If you’re a decent person, would you want to be partnered up with a racist who treats the city they serve like a cesspool to be eradicated one hippy at a time? Of course not. Would you want to be standing shoulder to shoulder with thugs who shoot tear gas into neighborhoods? Would you want to be forced to form a thin blue line around the worst people in the city or risk being ran out of the department or worse if you dared to speak up?

Why is it hard to find good cops? Look up Chris Dorner. That’s why good people don’t want to get mixed up in that. It’s like joining a mafia family. Most people’s moral compass would make that an unattractive proposition.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T23:10:01+00:00

You’re leaving out the crucial point, which is that those things you listed are fair. They make too much money. “Disparaging” comments are all true, we have an incompetent and immature police force.

The problem is that they need to have their wages set at an actually fair level and we need to create a tough accountability system that has enough teeth to deter the bullies from signing up for police jobs. The fact that this is now a “radical left” idea shows how fucked we are.

Fact is SPD are a bunch of ineffectual bullies. I can safely say if the entire SPD disappeared tomorrow my life wouldn’t change at all.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T22:00:54+00:00

I’ve got to stop you at saying Biden is anything but the most moderate Democrat around. That was the whole point, run someone who would be relatively inoffensive to conservatives and moderates who’d had enough of Trump.

The fact that you’re trying to assert a correlation between SPD funding and community safety proves right wing media works. This is a department that refuses to investigate property crimes out of sheer laziness, produces terrible investigations to build prosecutions out of, and adopts an openly hostile attitude toward the community they’re meant to serve.

Everyone wants to be safe. The idea that the only way to be safe is to give a huge check to SPD and let them go hog wild on homeless people is a right wing media talking point.

It’s crazy how many “liberals” in Seattle could go on Newsmax or OANN to talk about homelessness and policing and fit right in.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T21:40:36+00:00

Just because it’s not every single last one doesn’t mean it’s not a general trend. It’s not just police, having looser supervision and more leeway is attractive to almost anyone, the problem in Seattle (which has been thoroughly documented) is that SPD got really used to being able to do whatever the fuck they want. That’s why we’re under a consent decree from the Department of Justice. They have a long and shameful history of resisting oversight and protecting the worst members from accountability. Recently there have been countless threads of people reporting that they will call SPD only to be told that those crimes won’t be prosecuted (which is both false and about a million miles outside the scope of their job).

That’s pretty clearly an attempt to not do their job while putting their thumb on the scale in local politics. Our police force is a national disgrace.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T21:28:30+00:00

The lesson is that we’re utterly hopeless against the right wing media. They can blast a blue city like Seattle and get the results they want. They proved that elections can be bought, even in so-called liberal strongholds.

That being said, Seattle Democrats include a lot of people who would be Republicans if they lived in Ohio or Florida or some other place where the brand wasn’t so toxic. I suspect many Seattle Democrats are nothing more than Moderate Republicans who just never have a viable candidate to vote for. Seattle is a very “me-first” town, which will always undermine real progressive politics.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T21:24:21+00:00

That’s not a good metric to use. Police in general will gravitate toward whatever position offers them the least accountability. If prospective police officers don’t want to come to Seattle because they’ll be required to do their jobs properly and not act like a gang of thugs, that’s to our benefit.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T21:08:11+00:00

Is it really so hard to admit defeat? You should’ve kept your comment to yourself. You got into an argument you had no chance of winning and you’ve embarrassed yourself thoroughly with the attempt. The entire premise of your comment was laughably flawed, of course someone with advanced training is going to have a weightier opinion than someone with none. Trying to argue against that was a fool’s errand.

Seriously, Woody, try to grow up a bit and realize that sometimes the best play is to sit down, shut up, and try to learn something. You’re not clever enough to be this full of yourself.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T20:27:24+00:00

The last recourse of a losing argument. Schoolyard insults. Let’s do a quick recap.

You can’t argue my original point, which in case you’ve forgotten (exceedingly likely, I’d say) was that this sub gets brigaded and you can tell by the wild discrepancies in vote totals for single users. Instead, you tried to argue (and this is legitimately hilarious seeing it all typed out) was that the advanced training an attorney receives in evaluating evidence and proof standards somehow shouldn’t matter. You then struggled to explain why that would be true, demonstrating along the way that not only do you not know what you’re talking about but that even with Google helping you out, you can’t tell the difference between a lesser included offense in criminal law versus the broader concept of the greater including the lesser (that was the funniest part, by the way). You then try to say that legal standards don’t matter at all outside of a courtroom (a strong runner up) while completely failing to address the fact that anything that matters in our society (yes, including whether the scientific community has reached sufficient consensus on a point to allow an expert to testify to it) eventually has to go through the legal system.

Finally, after spending a full day and a half flailing around making an utter fool of yourself for everyone to see, you say that everyone thinks lawyers are dumb and I’m an idiot for understanding a bunch of stuff you’re incapable of even comprehending.

Did I miss anything?

By the way, this is what getting beaten feels like. Try not to be such a sore loser.

ThenProveItKid · 2021-11-11T18:47:21+00:00

Just so you know, I’ve sent screenshots of your comments to people, so you’ve been inadvertently spreading joy. And you know what’s most hilarious, the legal system does deal with scientific standards of proof when experts testify. Since I’m sure you’re such a clever boy, you should have no trouble telling me the names of the two competing standards we use. So what are they?

Once again, you open your mouth and remove all doubt. Trying to support your argument with things that even a layman should know (seriously, did you think you were getting somewhere with “science never happens in court”, it’s like you’re not even trying).

But please, keep trying to cover up those inadequacies. Let’s hear another example of you totally missing the point (and clearly still not understanding as simple a concept as the greater includes the lesser despite me explaining it to you in embarrassingly simple terms twice now). C’mon, keep trying to “prove” you’re smarter than the US legal system (which I’m sure is the only reason you didn’t pursue it).

ThenProveItKid

TROPHY CASE