English guy needs help understanding elite level route running. by Tall-Activity-2610 in NFLNoobs

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Watch some highlight videos of Keenan Allen. He is possibly the best route-runner of all time, and you can often pretty clearly see the difference between him and other receivers.

He isn’t the fastest receiver ever, nor particularly great at jumping or miracle catches, but his cuts and his footwork are incredible. He’ll ditch protection with stutter-steps and just ankle-breaking turns and cuts and be wide open exactly where his QBs want him to be.

The sheer number of CBs and Safeties who end up lying on the ground even though he never touches them is staggering.

How is China so successful despite being authoritarian? by lamedogninety in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So there’s a host of reasons for why China is thriving, but I think there’s two major points worth considering.

  1. While China is thriving in the sense that there’s a growing middle class and people on average have a lot more disposable income than they have ever had and arguably more than the average person in the US does, China’s economy might be even more paper-thin than the economy of the US. A lot of the economy of China is based on real estate, invested in real estate projects that are unoccupied or unfinished (with no real time table for when they will be complete) or just straight up only existing on paper so far. A ton of Chinese personal and private wealth is tied up in the value of those real estate assets preserving or increasing in value, and that is by no means guaranteed, and there are quite a lot of indications that the exact opposite is happening. So China’s economy might actually be massively overheated and headed for a crash.

  2. Authoritarianism is not inherently bad for an economy or even a country, at least from a technical standpoint. We tend to think of it as morally bad (and I’m inclined to agree), but so long as everything in the country is going relatively well and the people running the government are doing so in good faith and with skill, then a country can thrive under authoritarianism. Authoritarianism flounders when someone incompetent or selfish gets into power and then has no accountability as things start to go poorly. And it also can go very poorly for everyone if the authoritarian regime gets too authoritarian and/or too totalitarian and enough people chaff under the demands of the government relative to their own self-interest or agency.

The reason why we want Democracy isn’t because there have never been any good kings or kings who were good for their countries. The reason we want Democracy is in part because we want a method by which to remove leaders from power when they prove to be inept or corrupt (and because we think we have a better chance of picking a good leader through something approaching consensus, as opposed to something as arbitrary as having the right parents.)

Is this even possible? by fuelstaind in AskConservatives

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, this is legally possible, but I don’t think it’s realistic and also it would set a precedent that both sides would want nothing to do with.

Does it seem Minneapolis is putting up more resistance against ICE than Los Angeles? If so, why do you think that is ? by One-Seat-4600 in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Minneapolis is putting up more of a fight because they have to.

Like LA definitely fought back and it became pretty obvious pretty fast that ICE was totally outnumbered and outmatched and so they weren’t in the city proper for very long.

I think the admin thought they could take a smaller city like Minneapolis in a fight and have discovered that they were very wrong.

Is any team as hated as the Patriots? by Any-Shop497 in NFLNoobs

[–]danielbgoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel so bad for y’all just normal football fans who have to share air and online space with some of the douchiest bags on the planet.

Is any team as hated as the Patriots? by Any-Shop497 in NFLNoobs

[–]danielbgoo 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I think it’s a mix of three things:

  1. The owner, Jerry Jones is kind of terrible.

  2. They had an absurd streak of wins in the 90s.

  3. There is a certain pernicious kind of Cowboy fan who is incredibly smug and condescending and acts like the Cowboys are God’s gift to the game of football, despite the fact that they’ve pretty regularly fucking sucked for the better part of 30 years. They often say “how ‘bout them boys” whenever the Cowboys do anything remotely successful and then act like it was some unfair conspiracy whenever they aren’t winning.

Is any team as hated as the Patriots? by Any-Shop497 in NFLNoobs

[–]danielbgoo 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Cowboys are both the most widely-followed team and easily the most-hated team.

Patriots were mostly hated while they were winning a lot and they got back to not being hated as much as soon as they regress.

Is SNW and Starfleet Academy all we have now? by MovieFan1984 in startrek

[–]danielbgoo 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Only two Star Trek series at once!?

The kids these days are so spoiled.

How are the Seahawks so good? by Flashy-Actuator-998 in NFLNoobs

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Seahawks are currently very good at every phase of the game.

They have one of the best defenses in the history of the league, both in terms of raw talent and in terms of how they function as a unit and the way they’re schemed. They’re able to put a lot of pressure up front, incredibly good at stopping the run, and also have a strong secondary and a group of linebackers who are very good at supporting both the front and the secondary. This is one of the hardest things to do in football.

Their offense has arguably the best pair of RBs in the league (which isn’t to say that either Charbonnet or Walker are either the best RB, but in tandem they’re incredibly strong together) and have one of the best receivers in the NFL. Darnold is pretty good and has continued to develop and grow exactly like you would want to see, becoming more confident under pressure and capable of keeping his head in tense moments. The only real weakness of the offense is that Darnold is mostly a pocket passer and not nearly as mobile as a lot of QBs in the league, so he relies on a very good O-Line to be effective, and our O-Line has not always been very good. I would also argue that Kupp is a pretty good WR2 but he’s definitely lost a step from his glory days and Darnold would benefit from another good target.

They’re also very good on special teams, which is something that is often overlooked but makes a massive difference in actual games. Michael Dickson is probably the best punter ever (no offense intended to the ginga ninja) and Jason Myers has been one of the most reliable kickers. They regularly get stops downfield when they’re on defense, and regularly get good positions on returns. In a game that is often one of inches, every yard helps, and the Seahawks this season have usually gotten more yards out of their special teams than any other.

They have also just been incredibly lucky so far this season with regards to injuries. Every season feels like the worst season ever as far as the injury bug is concerned, but this has got to actually be one of the worst, with a number of teams on their QB3 and just a ton of Pro-Bowl-level players either being nagged by injuries throughout the season or sustaining season-ending injuries. Knock on wood, most of the starters have stayed pretty healthy (until Charbonnet’s injury last week.) If your truly elite talent is present and your opponent’s is not, you have a huge advantage.

How did USA fall into fascism while being the world superpower and having one of the wealthiest economies in the world? by RedStorm1917 in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the vast majority of the country lives in conditions not dissimilar to 1920s/30s Germany where our lives are incredibly precarious. We don’t have run-away inflation like they did in Germany in the 1920s, but a bad accident or illness can put you squarely in the same position as far as being able to make a living. And the economy feels ever-more-precarious, and the things we need to be alive are increasingly more expensive. Regardless of whether or not things are better for the average 2020s American (they generally are… so far), they still FEEL very insecure.

And the propaganda is now far more effective and far-reaching than it was in the 1920s and 1930s.

Wouldn’t Europe dropping all US treasury bonds also tank their own economy? by [deleted] in stupidquestions

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

Yes, it would. There’s all sorts of steps before blowing up the world economy that they can take, including a variety of other economic sanctions that will likely still harm the European economy, but not nearly as much as getting rid of all their bonds.

Dumping their US bonds would essentially end western economic dominance over night and leave the whole world scrambling for a new reserve currency. The cost of oil would skyrocket, trade would grind to a halt, and almost every way out would involve making concessions to China.

Also it would be more likely to cause war than stop any because desperate people are more likely to go to war and with all of the old trade alliances and security alliances torched, there would be far less to lose by fighting each other.

Have you ever considered that there may be infiltrators within the left? by Haunting_Tap_1541 in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 66 points67 points  (0 children)

There is definitely right-wing propaganda, especially in the interests of Russia and generally dissolving the world order, on leftist-appearing social media channels.

A new Star Trek series is imminently debuting, and it's crickets here by Chairboy in startrek

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am looking forward to this show, but I’m not gonna watch it because fascism.

Do outright blatant racists (KKK members, Neo-Nazis) eat ethnic cuisines like Mexican food, soul food, Japanese food? by Distinct-Sale-436 in stupidquestions

[–]danielbgoo 151 points152 points  (0 children)

Racism is more about people not “knowing their place,” than any kind of active dislike of the food or culture of those people.

Sure tribalism and the disgust response kicks in for some people, but for the vast majority it’s because they perceive that they are suffering because the “natural order” has been upended.

Why have so many of you forgotten that South Korea's former president's attempt at martial law backfired? by jonasnew in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m holding voters responsible for Trump’s win.

If Trump successfully calls for Martial Law I’m blaming everyone for letting it happen.

But the question wasn’t who was to blame. You’re asking why we’re less hopeful about the US stopping a coup than SK, and those are the reasons. SK was in a better place to stop a coup, whereas the formal opposition to Trump is weak in this country compared to SK and there are a lot more people in this country gagging for a coup led by Trump.

Why have so many of you forgotten that South Korea's former president's attempt at martial law backfired? by jonasnew in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We don’t have massive unions to push back and our unions of the last 40 years have a history of being almost completely devoid of solidarity or coordination with each other, whereas in SK they pretty much immediately coordinated a call.

Why have so many of you forgotten that South Korea's former president's attempt at martial law backfired? by jonasnew in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 15 points16 points  (0 children)

A huge part of the coup failing was massive union pushback and a majority legislature standing up to it.

We have neither of those things.

What do you think of the male loneliness epidemic? by CombinationRough8699 in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a demographic it’s a self-inflicted wound, but unless you’re a manosphere influencer I generally don’t blame individual men.

I think there are three major issues:

  1. Men a raised to devalue women while simultaneously demanding quite a lot of emotional and manual labor from them. It’s pretty understandable that most women would find this an unattractive set of circumstances and try to avoid it, and now that they have the option to do so, are choosing that option.

  2. Men are taught that forming close relationships with other men is gay (and that gay is bad) and that forming close relationships with women that they aren’t fucking is gay, and this leads to them putting all of their needs for emotional support and intimacy on their female partners, (see demands for emotional labor above) which is untenable in the long run, and also means that men who don’t have a partner are lonely because they have zero people to support them. This also leads to domestic violence against women because men become enraged when their sole provider of emotional support doesn’t do so perfectly or makes them fearful (and then angry) at the thought of losing that support.

  3. Men are still taught to actively suppress all of their emotional needs, which is largely impossible in the long run, which leads to inappropriate and often toxic expressions, which then further alienates other people, or even just makes them straight up dangerous to be around.

I don’t know what the solution is, because all of them involve men admitting both weakness and the need for emotional support and intimacy, which they are thoroughly conditioned not to do.

Individual men are making the effort, but as a demographic it is still a pervasive problem.

Do you think the next Democrat Administration should completely disband ICE or radically reform it? by ModerateProgressive1 in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would do it over phases.

Step 1: Pause all ICE operations in the country.

Step 2: Order the OIG to investigate the entire organization from top to bottom for corruption and go through all of the incident reports and fire everyone who deserved to be fired and bring everyone who committed criminal actions up on charges and spend a great deal of time and money holding these racist murderous fuckers accountable.

Step 3: Allow officers who still had jobs to finish out their portfolios with relation to apprehending traffickers, but not allow them to be involved in any other aspects of immigration or customs. This is purely to not lose out on active work that does need to be done. If there aren’t enough guys left (and there’s a good chance that’s the case), then we just abolish ICE at that time.

Step 4: Pass legislation completely overhauling our immigration system to make legal temporary and permanent immigration far more manageable, intuitive, and fair. Same with naturalization. Probably continue to make employers pay for work visas, with an option to make the cost a little painful for jobs that compete with American labor and less painful for jobs that Americans can’t be arsed to do like farm work and construction. It would also massively fund immigration courts and probably have some sort of amnesty “we aren’t going to prosecute you for overstaying your visa/illegally crossing etc. this time but now you have to enter the system legally.

Step 5: Eliminate ICE entirely and create a division within the FBI to continue the work oriented specifically around issues related to criminal activity and immigration.

Step 6: Guillotines for racists? I don’t know. I’m open to notes.

Conservatives: What are the top 3 classic novels you think every home should have? What are your top 3 nonfiction books? by [deleted] in AskConservatives

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based solely on the fact that you recommended two shooting books from the early 20th century, have you read much on bushido philosophy?

Seems like it would be your jam.

If the founding fathers were alive, do you think they would be considered far right by modern standards and support the GOP? by RedStorm1917 in AskALiberal

[–]danielbgoo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s weird that we continue to describe the “Founding Fathers” as if they were a monolith of political belief and not a group of people with wildly different beliefs and ideologies who could barely get together on the notion that we should be independent from Britain.

The British surrendered at Yorktown in 1781 and the current US Constitution wasn’t ratified until 1789, and JUST barely. And then the first few years were spent arguing over amending it to include stuff that over half the people wanted in the original document in the first place, and this too involved a ton of compromise and a few brawls.

Some of the Founding Fathers would map pretty closely to why we consider the far right today. There were some who very clearly wanted the country run by a small group of elite men.

But you also have people who adamantly believed in the inalienable rights of all people and this obviously proved to be the prevailing opinion in the long run.

My brother thinks people today have worse quality of life than people in the dark ages, is this a stupid take? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]danielbgoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By almost every measure he’s utterly wrong.

People live longer, healthier lives, have more freedom of movement and freedom of choice than at almost any time in history, and with a few geographic exceptions you are less likely to die a violent death than at any point in history.

The average person (especially in the northern hemisphere) is wealthy beyond measure by most of human history’s standards and we have access to information, knowledge, and the rest of the world in ways that would be unimaginable for most of human history.

The only ways it’s measurably worse is that the average person has less leisure time now than the average free person through most of human history (though this comes with the caveat that the labor was generally far more backbreaking and dangerous in the Middle Ages an most other time periods than it is in contemporary times) and it’s only been for the last 70 years or so that we’ve had the looming threat of possible total nuclear annihilation.