More is by definition not measurable. And it's not helpful because we can't, as a society or as companies or any group of people, figure out if we've made progress if we only start out with the goal of "more". And right now we're in a situation where simply pointing out well researched data that doesn't go along with popular thought can get you fired or accosted online. How are we ever supposed to benchmark ourselves and productively reform industries without goals? If not, we'll just end up with performative liberalism where companies like Amazon will appeal to the crowd with good PR and never get penalized for being a huge part of the problem by not paying their logistics employees livable wages.Why is "more" not a measurable or helpful goal? The goal is more. Don’t worry, we are not in danger in pretty much any professional setting anywhere of having white guys being underrepresented so the goal for now (and the foreseeable future) is more. What more means will vary greatly from company to company and industry to industry, so throwing out a random target and then declaring victory when you hit it isn’t particularly helpful or meaningful.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Obviously, people of all genders, races, ethnicities are super competitive and able to achieve whatever the hell they want to. That's why we have very rich, very powerful PoC movie directors and why Satya Nardella is the CEO of Microsoft and so on. My point is that we can't look at the demographics of the US and then point to certain industries and expect it to align perfectly. It doesn't work in the opposite way. We don't see that a large majority of women are therapists and demand more male representation.Instead of simply stating that there are more fanatical sports fans who are men than who are women, how about starting with why that might be, and what kind of gender bias might create that situation?
As to the rest of your point, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you do seem to be suggesting that white men are the only people capable of being in super competitive, less reliable, and poorly paid jobs. Are non-white men just not competitive enough? Or do they on average have greater connections and family wealth (coughsimmonscough) that allow them to do things like blog professionally?
Or is that the entire reason why people are frustrated??
I don't even know where to start, but at the very least; I'm capable of being engaged in dismantling our country's oppression of people of color AND being annoyed at Bill Simmons. It's not an either-or proposition for me. In fact, I think that these issues are basically the same- and what you call "dunking on" I call making someone accountable for profiting off a system of inequality.More is by definition not measurable. And it's not helpful because we can't, as a society or as companies or any group of people, figure out if we've made progress if we only start out with the goal of "more". And right now we're in a situation where simply pointing out well researched data that doesn't go along with popular thought can get you fired or accosted online. How are we ever supposed to benchmark ourselves and productively reform industries without goals? If not, we'll just end up with performative liberalism where companies like Amazon will appeal to the crowd with good PR and never get penalized for being a huge part of the problem by not paying their logistics employees livable wages.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Obviously, people of all genders, races, ethnicities are super competitive and able to achieve whatever the hell they want to. That's why we have very rich, very powerful PoC movie directors and why Satya Nardella is the CEO of Microsoft and so on. My point is that we can't look at the demographics of the US and then point to certain industries and expect it to align perfectly. It doesn't work in the opposite way. We don't see that a large majority of women are therapists and demand more male representation.
I get that's why people are frustrated. I am, too. I just don't believe it's effective to call people stupid, racist, bigoted, and basically assume the most ungenerous things about them and their motivations. Attacking the top of the funnel like this is like putting the body of a Ferrari on a Ford Escort and wondering why it doesn't go faster. There are major, structural issues with America right now that are being totally ignored so that we can bitch about famous people saying dumb things. So are high-earning people who move into cities, many who are liberal, going to start sending their kids to public schools in New York, LA, Chicago, etc.? Probably not, and this huge problem of public schooling for children who need it most is going to continue to fester. Are those same people going to allow affordable housing into their neighborhoods? Probably not, because it will depreciate their condo - "that housing project can go in that other neighborhood, just not mine."
But cool, we got to dunk on Bill Simmons for a week, and then we'll get to dunk on someone else next week. Meanwhile, all the crap that's leading us into massive income inequality is just going to continue.
It seems like an either or proposition according to Twitter and the amount of news coverage this shit gets. I'm glad that you are putting in the work and actually matching actions up with your words, but the rest of America is not following suit. Random "Karens" get more news coverage and viral interest than affordable housing propositions.I don't even know where to start, but at the very least; I'm capable of being engaged in dismantling our country's oppression of people of color AND being annoyed at Bill Simmons. It's not an either-or proposition for me. In fact, I think that these issues are basically the same- and what you call "dunking on" I call making someone accountable for profiting off a system of inequality.
But I get that for most people in this forum, it's a lot easier to relate and feel really bad for someone like Simmons than someone like Dave Schilling.
This is very well put. Simmons isn't the first or only person to be the target of backlash; noted games writer Chris Avellone just got outed as a serial sexual harasser and creep and may never work again. In comparison Simmons is getting light heat.It's not cancelling, it's repercussions.
He was given a blank slate and a lot of cash as a start up. It's one of the few big money making digital platforms in the world so he can do what he wants. What he is getting now is a result of the choices he has made and the voices he has decided to showcase. He can look in the mirror if he's unhappy with the current backlash and the "open mic" comment.
He also has a big opportunity to make a lot of changes. He should for once in his life not be a thin-skinned jerk about criticism and make positive improvements. Can he? And will it be enough? His radio silence seems to indicate that he at least understands the severity of this moment.
Why would Simmons get as much heat as a serial sexual harasser? Would that make sense in any way?This is very well put. Simmons isn't the first or only person to be the target of backlash; noted games writer Chris Avellone just got outed as a serial sexual harasser and creep and may never work again. In comparison Simmons is getting light heat.
I am just not sure if he can or will change. I know the Magary article on him was deliberately inflammatory, but I can't help thinking about his (Simmons') reaction to editing: "Stet (ignore) all changes." The guy is massively successful; I can't see him changing much unless he's really changed his own outlook. And now he has Fuck You money, so I'm not sure he will make adaptations.
More is absolutely measurable and a perfectly fine goal when your starting point is where it is for much of corporate America. Individual organizations should certainly have more concrete goals, but your original posts reads like “when will enough be enough“ and the answer to that question is “we are not close to that yet so who cares?”More is by definition not measurable. And it's not helpful because we can't, as a society or as companies or any group of people, figure out if we've made progress if we only start out with the goal of "more". And right now we're in a situation where simply pointing out well researched data that doesn't go along with popular thought can get you fired or accosted online. How are we ever supposed to benchmark ourselves and productively reform industries without goals? If not, we'll just end up with performative liberalism where companies like Amazon will appeal to the crowd with good PR and never get penalized for being a huge part of the problem by not paying their logistics employees livable wages.
So should a writing/podcasting staff look like the general population, look like the consumers of the content they have, look like the consumers of the content they wish existed, or look like the topic they are covering?
I apologize if my posts read like that ("when is enough enough") because that is not my intent. I want diversity and I want to live in a world where happiness and wealth and safety is more evenly distributed. I may disagree with you on how we get there, but that's the ideal end goal.More is absolutely measurable and a perfectly fine goal when your starting point is where it is for much of corporate America. Individual organizations should certainly have more concrete goals, but your original posts reads like “when will enough be enough“ and the answer to that question is “we are not close to that yet so who cares?”
We can and should care about the housing crisis and the state of public education in many inner cities and also unconscious (and conscious) bias in hiring decisions that leads to the massive dearth of diversity amongst leadership in organizations everywhere. It isn’t either/or. In your effort to work in every talking point for everyone who has ever opposed diversity programs since their inception, you continue to massively miss the point as to why Simmons’ “open mic” comment was spectacularly tone deaf and worthy of the criticism it is getting.
Moreover - while not completely apple's to apple's - this Guardian article declares that 79% of the media and publishing industry is white.So should a writing/podcasting staff look like the general population, look like the consumers of the content they have, look like the consumers of the content they wish existed, or look like the topic they are covering?
I think with the pull he has, he could aim for better than below average. I get that argument. But saying a sport has a large number of black players, so it should be covered heavily by black people just doesn't hold water to me. I can understand the argument that the audience for it has a large percentage of black people so we should hire more black people to cover it. That makes perfect sense. And when there are issues of race to talk about in the NBA, having someone of that race cover it makes sense. But playoff predictions, who the best point guard of the 90's was, and the mount rushmore of overweight players are not inherently race based conversations.Moreover - while not completely apple's to apple's - this Guardian article declares that 79% of the media and publishing industry is white.
Being a large majority of Ringer guests are fellow columnists, journalists, podcasters, etc, the 84% number doesn't seem all that out of whack. Another 1 or 2 guests of color last year probably puts him in line with industry standards.
Thanks for flagging. This is way more insightful than 98% of the commentary on him.I don't think this was posted here yet, Henry Abbott weighs in on Bill:
https://www.truehoop.com/p/do-i-get-to-speak-now-its-been-like
There is....a lot of axe grinding going on in there about the ESPN/Grantland divide, but from the direction of espn which I've never read before so that's interesting. it's also the perfect summation of Simmons's faults.I don't think this was posted here yet, Henry Abbott weighs in on Bill:
https://www.truehoop.com/p/do-i-get-to-speak-now-its-been-like
This is an excellent piece. Henry knows things.I don't think this was posted here yet, Henry Abbott weighs in on Bill:
https://www.truehoop.com/p/do-i-get-to-speak-now-its-been-like
Thanks for posting this.I don't think this was posted here yet, Henry Abbott weighs in on Bill:
https://www.truehoop.com/p/do-i-get-to-speak-now-its-been-like
The dumbass topics he covers and creates about the nba are irrelevant. The NBA is literally the main sport his empire is built on.I think with the pull he has, he could aim for better than below average. I get that argument. But saying a sport has a large number of black players, so it should be covered heavily by black people just doesn't hold water to me. I can understand the argument that the audience for it has a large percentage of black people so we should hire more black people to cover it. That makes perfect sense. And when there are issues of race to talk about in the NBA, having someone of that race cover it makes sense. But playoff predictions, who the best point guard of the 90's was, and the mount rushmore of overweight players are not inherently race based conversations.
And therefore...The dumbass topics he covers and creates about the nba are irrelevant. The NBA is literally the main sport his empire is built on.
(Burden of Proof, Strawman, AND Moving the Goalposts)More is by definition not measurable. And it's not helpful because we can't, as a society or as companies or any group of people, figure out if we've made progress if we only start out with the goal of "more".
False dilemma.And right now we're in a situation where simply pointing out well researched data that doesn't go along with popular thought can get you fired or accosted online.
Appeal to Emotion morphing into Slippery Slope)How are we ever supposed to benchmark ourselves and productively reform industries without goals? If not, we'll just end up with performative liberalism where companies like Amazon will appeal to the crowd with good PR and never get penalized for being a huge part of the problem by not paying their logistics employees livable wages.
False equivalence.That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Obviously, people of all genders, races, ethnicities are super competitive and able to achieve whatever the hell they want to. That's why we have very rich, very powerful PoC movie directors and why Satya Nardella is the CEO of Microsoft and so on. My point is that we can't look at the demographics of the US and then point to certain industries and expect it to align perfectly. It doesn't work in the opposite way. We don't see that a large majority of women are therapists and demand more male representation.
All of them? It is a long Slippery Slope that includes Appeal to Emotion, False Cause, etc.I get that's why people are frustrated. I am, too. I just don't believe it's effective to call people stupid, racist, bigoted, and basically assume the most ungenerous things about them and their motivations. Attacking the top of the funnel like this is like putting the body of a Ferrari on a Ford Escort and wondering why it doesn't go faster. There are major, structural issues with America right now that are being totally ignored so that we can bitch about famous people saying dumb things. So are high-earning people who move into cities, many who are liberal, going to start sending their kids to public schools in New York, LA, Chicago, etc.? Probably not, and this huge problem of public schooling for children who need it most is going to continue to fester. Are those same people going to allow affordable housing into their neighborhoods? Probably not, because it will depreciate their condo - "that housing project can go in that other neighborhood, just not mine."
False Cause of course, but a range of other issues.But cool, we got to dunk on Bill Simmons for a week, and then we'll get to dunk on someone else next week. Meanwhile, all the crap that's leading us into massive income inequality is just going to continue.
You should have stopped here.Bill isn't perfect, still makes plenty of mistakes and the pod from a month ago with him and Russillo was a good example of that.
Most people have posted a range of reasons why he hasn't changed, so it seems the burden of knowing what to tell them - and me - is on you, not the other way around. This is known as burden of proof fallacy.But if you don't think he has changed since a lot of the old, misogynistic things he wrote were dug up, IDK what to tell you.
Excuse me - how am I a troll? How am I not engaging in conversation? My posts have been level-headed (or at least I thought). I haven't made any personal attacks. My opinion is just simply different. And frankly, I'm still forming my opinion, but that requires thinking critically about these topics and listening to what people who share your belief are saying in addition to wondering about other aspects of this larger conversation.There is no point talking to a poster who is not engaging in conversation. ManicCompression is a troll and he is making this thread worse.
I'll make no excuses for Simmons as a gigantic egomaniac and spoiled brat but can we call out the garbage faux-psychology that attributes his obvious faults to being an only child? Study after study has debunked this commonly held myth that only children are more selfish, lacking in social skills, etc... That kind of lazy thinking doesn't stand up to academic scrutiny anymore.Whether or not you like Bill Simmons, and whether or not you buy all of the explicit and implicit charges in the Abbott piece (which did make for a cracking read either way), his only-child-ism has been on display for decades. I'm barely exaggerating to say that Simmons was a prime example in my mind for most of this century of why I never would have wanted to stop at having only one child - and an only child of divorced parents at that, parents who probably competed for his affection. And I say this as a fan.
This is a great post and I think sums up most of the problems. Although he does have some tendencies for both, I don’t think Bill is racist or sexist.I've been thinking about this, and I've concluded that the big issue isn't that bill is a racist or a a mysogynist, or even that he has racial or gender biases on which he fails to reflect--I actually think he's done a fair amount of reflection on those biases over the years, and while he still comes up short, he's made progress.
What I think he fails to recognize is that he has a massive Bill Simmons bias. If you listen to him interview on virtually any subject, he tries, over tortuously, to jam it into the framework of his existing perspectives and experiences. This was often entertaining when he was an every man frat boy, but as he's become not only a middle-aged man, but an extremely rich middle-aged man, it's gotten less and less funny and less and less relevant. Remarkably, he seems incapable of seeing that he has a healthy portion of the problem he often attributes, correctly, to Eddie Murphy. Bill's not out with regular folks anymore, and he doesn't seem to realize that.
The other reflection on this is that Bill is the product at the Ringer, Grantland or wherever--it's not whoever he identifies and adds to the network--if they have someplace better to go, they move along (Rembert Browne). That's normal and natural, but, given Bill's appearances on almost everything and every podcast on the Ringer, he is the brand. It's not clear to me that if he left, the Ringer would exist in a year. Bill's problem in diversifying is that most Ringer consumers are there for Bill Simmons, and Bill Simmons type takes. Yeah, individual podcasts can have a following outside of him, but he is the product--and he's a very white, middle-aged, rich product.
Edit: And I say this as someone who enjoys his podcasts and used to enjoy his writing. But I'm a white, middle-aged, lamentably not rich, man, so of course I do.
Thanks - I will concede ignorance on the science here, although I'm curious as to whether only child syndrome is more real in divorced families. (And even that article you cited says "there are indications only children are less willing to come to terms with others.") Regardless, can we agree that Simmons pretty closely fits the stereotype of an only child, whether or not that stereotype is correct? I think this ties in with Jose's hypothesis as well - if his frame of reference often goes no further than himself, perhaps that's down his childhood to a greater or lesser extent? You might remember Simmons talk about the black alter ego he had as a child, which is particular curious in light of recent events.I'll make no excuses for Simmons as a gigantic egomaniac and spoiled brat but can we call out the garbage faux-psychology that attributes his obvious faults to being an only child? Study after study has debunked this commonly held myth that only children are more selfish, lacking in social skills, etc... That kind of lazy thinking doesn't stand up to academic scrutiny anymore.
Here's a good recent summary from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-only-child-syndrome-real/
I think his issues stem more from an upbringing of extreme privilege and being surrounded by people just like him (Greenwich CT prep schools, postgrad at Choate, Holy Cross undergrad, BU grad school, etc...) than being an only child.Thanks - I will concede ignorance on the science here, although I'm curious as to whether only child syndrome is more real in divorced families. (And even that article you cited says "there are indications only children are less willing to come to terms with others.") Regardless, can we agree that Simmons pretty closely fits the stereotype of an only child, whether or not that stereotype is correct? I think this ties in with Jose's hypothesis as well - if his frame of reference often goes no further than himself, perhaps that's down his childhood to a greater or lesser extent? You might remember Simmons talk about the black alter ego he had as a child, which is particular curious in light of recent events.
Agreed but I think his particular circumstances, an only child of divorce where seemingly both families just doted on him, has to play a big part hereI think his issues stem more from an upbringing of extreme privilege and being surrounded by people just like him (Greenwich CT prep schools, postgrad at Choate, Holy Cross undergrad, BU grad school, etc...) than being an only child.
I had a very strong knee jerk reaction to your post but I read it a few more times and I think I KIND OF get what you're saying and I don't disagree as strongly as I first did. However, I would say as a counterargument that his Bill Simmons bias leads to his racial and gender biases.I've been thinking about this, and I've concluded that the big issue isn't that bill is a racist or a a mysogynist, or even that he has racial or gender biases on which he fails to reflect--I actually think he's done a fair amount of reflection on those biases over the years, and while he still comes up short, he's made progress.
What I think he fails to recognize is that he has a massive Bill Simmons bias. If you listen to him interview on virtually any subject, he tries, over tortuously, to jam it into the framework of his existing perspectives and experiences. This was often entertaining when he was an every man frat boy, but as he's become not only a middle-aged man, but an extremely rich middle-aged man, it's gotten less and less funny and less and less relevant. Remarkably, he seems incapable of seeing that he has a healthy portion of the problem he often attributes, correctly, to Eddie Murphy. Bill's not out with regular folks anymore, and he doesn't seem to realize that.
The other reflection on this is that Bill is the product at the Ringer, Grantland or wherever--it's not whoever he identifies and adds to the network--if they have someplace better to go, they move along (Rembert Browne). That's normal and natural, but, given Bill's appearances on almost everything and every podcast on the Ringer, he is the brand. It's not clear to me that if he left, the Ringer would exist in a year. Bill's problem in diversifying is that most Ringer consumers are there for Bill Simmons, and Bill Simmons type takes. Yeah, individual podcasts can have a following outside of him, but he is the product--and he's a very white, middle-aged, rich product.
Edit: And I say this as someone who enjoys his podcasts and used to enjoy his writing. But I'm a white, middle-aged, lamentably not rich, man, so of course I do.
He absolutely has racial and gender biases--most people do. But I think he's acutally aware of those. I don't, however, think he is aware of his Bill Simmons bias.I had a very strong knee jerk reaction to your post but I read it a few more times and I think I KIND OF get what you're saying and I don't disagree as strongly as I first did. However, I would say as a counterargument that his Bill Simmons bias leads to his racial and gender biases.
I think that Trump child line is nonsense. Bill talks to people with differing opinions all the time, and appears genuinely interested in learning, and occasionally capable of changing his opinion in response to new information. Both of these are completely un-Trumpian.The "only child" thing is a bad way to frame an otherwise good article. I'm one of five, but I've known only children who were totally self-centered, and ones who would give you the shirt off your back.
I think Magary summed up Simmons better with this line: "He has the intellectual curiosity of a Trump child."
Agreed: I don't think he'd be friends with Daryl Morey or get involved with Sloan if he had no intellectual curiosity. There is no mistaking that on the other hand he gets lazy and it is a product of his high opinion of himself, i.e. "wow that Ewing Theory I popularized years ago was so awesome, let's work it into this 2020 example of ...."I think that Trump child line is nonsense. Bill talks to people with differing opinions all the time, and appears genuinely interested in learning, and occasionally capable of changing his opinion in response to new information. Both of these are completely un-Trumpian.
This comment gets the Joey Pants award.Agreed: I don't think he'd be friends with Daryl Morey or get involved with Sloan if he had no intellectual curiosity. There is no mistaking that on the other hand he gets lazy and it is a product of his high opinion of himself, i.e. "wow that Ewing Theory I popularized years ago was so awesome, let's work it into this 2020 example of ...."
"this is the only place where I have been called Sir without the added, You're making a scene"Simmons’ career is the Simpson episode where Marge finds the Chanel dress.
His idea of wit is nothing more than an 80’s movie reference awkwardly phrased and delivered with delayed timing?Simmons’ career is the Simpson episode where Marge finds the Chanel dress.