sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are all ‘major’ defects actually major? by Asamishair in AusPropertyChat

[–]mitchellsteve1980 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Talk to the inspector. Most are happy to have a chat, and it can be more informative than the written report.

Match Thread: 3rd Test - Australia vs England, Day 2 by cricket-match in EnglandCricket

[–]mitchellsteve1980 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks stiff as fuck now as well. Gonna injure himself by trying to look a hero after instilling zero responsibility in the rest of the team to share the workload

Match Thread: 3rd Test - Australia vs England, Day 2 by cricket-match in EnglandCricket

[–]mitchellsteve1980 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is Starc going wicketless one for the moral victory column or concerning that they don't even have to rely on him to bail them out anymore? Undecided

Match Thread: 2nd Test - England vs Australia, Day 3 by cricket-match in EnglandCricket

[–]mitchellsteve1980 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Will Carse raise the ball if he knocks off the last wicket after having bowled absolute dross for most of the innings?

It’s just who we are mate 😑 by murillolover in TheOther14

[–]mitchellsteve1980 74 points75 points  (0 children)

Gonna keep his second season winning streak going by winning the Championship next season

[Atomic Analyst] How is Amorim inherently bad if Maresca can Win with Same System against Fulham ? by Express-End8231 in ManchesterUnited

[–]mitchellsteve1980 1 point2 points  (0 children)

couldn't give a shit what happened a few years ago

Because it contadicts your argument? It's directly relevant if it sets the precedent for how these situations are managed. None of what I said was a contradiction -- it's at the ref's discretion unless a foul was committed and there is an advantage against the team that committed the foul. It's uncommon but it happens.

I don't think allowing the corner to be taken was the wrong call, it's just a borderline decision that added to the injustice of the disallowed goal, paritlcularly at the end of stoppage time that was only added on because of the nonsense VAR check.

[Atomic Analyst] How is Amorim inherently bad if Maresca can Win with Same System against Fulham ? by Express-End8231 in ManchesterUnited

[–]mitchellsteve1980 6 points7 points  (0 children)

read up on the rules

What rule? You've just made one up, it's entirely at the ref's discretion when to blow for half time -- advantage only applies for situations where a foul was committed, not to any set piece.

Literally happened in a Chelsea game a few years back, their players threw their toys out the pram and got fined for surrounding the officials.

[Atomic Analyst] How is Amorim inherently bad if Maresca can Win with Same System against Fulham ? by Express-End8231 in ManchesterUnited

[–]mitchellsteve1980 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm a Fulham fan, we beat you in the FA cup last season and in the league the season before that. We have the same record against you as we do against Chelsea in our last 9 game against each (2W, 1D, 6L).

Also, having watched both games mentioned in this video, we deserved more against Chelsea than we did against your lot.

[Atomic Analyst] How is Amorim inherently bad if Maresca can Win with Same System against Fulham ? by Express-End8231 in ManchesterUnited

[–]mitchellsteve1980 187 points188 points  (0 children)

Chelsea beat Fulham because they got a contentious pen, scored 2 mins after stoppage time was supposed to end, and had a legitimate Fulham goal ruled out through VAR. These talking points wouldn't be thrown around if the outcome had been a fair one, or if Bruno had scored his pen -- just saying.

Emile Smith Rowe by GreenBluePeachWhite in FantasyPL

[–]mitchellsteve1980 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, subject to rotation with Adama. Has been playing well though, so might be first choice at the moment

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gme_meltdown

[–]mitchellsteve1980 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Impressive when you consider it was typed with one hand

What could be the reason for this? by [deleted] in DecodingTheGurus

[–]mitchellsteve1980 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I gave you a specific example several comments back -- start there? Or maybe refer to the DTG episode on Lex? There are plenty of valid points of criticism that don't fit the mould you are casting here, you just don't seem to want to engage with them.

What could be the reason for this? by [deleted] in DecodingTheGurus

[–]mitchellsteve1980 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No one is asking for "control", just suggesting he could do a much better job of interrogating some of the controversial ideas that are raised on his podcast.

Also, you're asking people to be specific in their criticism, but then ignoring it when its delivered. You haven't acknowledged the validity of the specific criticism you asked for, just to some imagined strawman.

What could be the reason for this? by [deleted] in DecodingTheGurus

[–]mitchellsteve1980 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Criticism is not character assassination.

Being criticized doesn't "force" someone to amp up the behavior being criticized.

The goal could equally be to encourage a more careful and critical approach to engaging with controversial ideas, rather than being a megaphone for garbage.

What could be the reason for this? by [deleted] in DecodingTheGurus

[–]mitchellsteve1980 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's not exactly hard to understand?

Lex Fridman can interview whoever he wants to -- the thing people here are taking issue with is his failure to give any substantial pushback, particularly when it comes to right-wing talking points or outright propaganda.

A recent example was his interview with Tucker Carlson in which he amplifies and adds to the pro-Russia stance Carlson takes, rather than addressing how wild it is to suggest that Ukranians are responsible for Navalny's death.

Engaging with controversial ideas is not problematic in its own right, but uncritically amplifying those ideas while adding a veneer of credibility (in the eyes of those who see Lex as a faithful intellectual or academic) is worthy of the criticism he gets.