Let's play a fun game.

For the below quote, 1 point for anyone who can guess the speaker, without looking it up. Be honest!

"Dumb-Smart People"
People in the bubble think the world is more orderly than it is. They overplan. They mistake smarts for judgement. They mistake smarts for character. They overvalue credentials. Head not heart. They need status and reassurance. They see risk as a bad thing. They optimize for the wrong things. They think in two years not twenty. They need other bubble people around. They get resentful when others succeed. They think their smarts should determine their place in the world. They think ideas supersede action. They get agitated if they're not making clear progress. They're unhappy. They fear being wrong and looking silly. They don't like to sell. They talk themselves out of having guts. They worship the market. They worry too much. Bubble people have their plusses and minuses like anyone else.

Let's play a fun game.

For the below quote, 1 point for anyone who can guess the speaker, without looking it up. Be honest!

Minus 1 point for anyone whose first thought is, "this applies to everyone but me."

"Dumb-Smart People"
People in the bubble think the world is more orderly than it is. They overplan. They mistake smarts for judgement. They mistake smarts for character. They overvalue credentials. Head not heart. They need status and reassurance. They see risk as a bad thing. They optimize for the wrong things. They think in two years not twenty. They need other bubble people around. They get resentful when others succeed. They think their smarts should determine their place in the world. They think ideas supercede action. They get agitated if they're not making clear progress. They're unhappy. They fear being wrong and looking silly. They don't like to sell. They talk themselves out of having guts. They worship the market. They worry too much. Bubble people have their plusses and minuses like anyone else.
- TomDelongeAva

Lets not play a game. This is condescending. Make a point or don't make a point.

Tanner is a shock jock writing hockey blogs. When you try and write about hockey and literally 80% of the feedback from your readers is about what a nut sack you are then I think it is pretty obvious you are not actually good at what you are pretending to do. He is however good at being controversial and making himself the story instead of what he writes about.

I for one couldn't live a life of only being relevant in what I do or only getting attention for what I do because of how douchy I was or how douchy I went about it. Some people can and that is Tanner. To each their own.

To give better context to my above point, the full excerpt should be read. It offers a perspective to explain the unavoidable path we are on due to technology, and if pondered can be quite interesting and troubling. How can we help people to understand what is happening in their world without scapegoating each other?

We say success in America is about hard work and character. It’s not really. Most of success today is about how good you are at certain tests and what kind of family background you have, with some exceptions sprinkled in to try to make it all seem fair. Intellect as narrowly defined by academics and test scores is now the proxy for human worth. Efficiency is close behind. Our system rewards specific talents more than anything. I got pushed forward for having certain capacities. Others had their horizons systematically lowered for having capacities that our academic system had no use for. I’ve seen countless people lose heart and feel like they should settle for less, that they don’t deserve abundance.

Intelligence and character aren’t the same things at all. Pretending that they are will lead us to ruin. The market is about to turn on many of us with little care for what separates us from each other. I’ve worked with and grown up alongside hundreds of very highly educated people for the past several decades, and trust me when I say that they are not uniformly awesome. People in the bubble think that the world is more orderly than it is. They overplan. They mistake smarts for judgment. They mistake smarts for character. They overvalue credentials. Head not heart. They need status and reassurance. They see risk as a bad thing. They optimize for the wrong things. They think in two years, not 20. They need other bubble people around. They get resentful when others succeed. They think their smarts should determine their place in the world. They think ideas supersede action. They get agitated if they’re not making clear progress. They’re unhappy. They fear being wrong and looking silly. They don’t like to sell. They talk themselves out of having guts. They worship the market. They worry too much. Bubble people have their pluses and minuses like anyone else.

In coming years it’s going to be even harder to forge a sense of common identity across different walks of life. A lot of people who now live in the bubble grew up in other parts of the country. They still visit their families for holidays and special occasions. They were brought up middle-class in normal suburbs like I was and retain a deep familiarity with the experiences of different types of people. They loved the mall, too.

In another generation this will become less and less true. There will be an army of slender, highly cultivated products of Mountain View and the Upper East Side and Bethesda heading to elite schools that has been groomed since birth in the most competitive and rarefied environments with very limited exposure to the rest of the country.

When I was growing up, there was something of an inverse relationship between being smart and being good-looking. The smart kids were bookish and awkward and the social kids were attractive and popular. Rarely were the two sets of qualities found together in the same people. The nerd camps I went to looked the part.

Today, thanks to assortative mating in a handful of cities, intellect, attractiveness, education, and wealth are all converging in the same families and neighborhoods. I look at my friends’ children, and many of them resemble unicorns: brilliant, beautiful, socially precocious creatures who have gotten the best of all possible resources since the day they were born. I imagine them in 10 or 15 years traveling to other parts of the country, and I know that they are going to feel like, and be received as, strangers in a strange land. They will have thriving online lives and not even remember a car that didn’t drive itself. They may feel they have nothing in common with the people before them. Their ties to the greater national fabric will be minimal. Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.

I don’t think politics should be discussed on a hockey site, so I will just keep things in general terms. I’m not from North America and I’ve never even been to North America, so honestly I don’t want to talk about American politics.

I will instead talk about focus and process, as I think a lot of the problems in politics stems from a change in focus. Politics used to be about visions and ideas. Campaigning was about sharing your passion and saying what you believed in. Then you could agree or disagree with the policies, but at least there was an authenticity to the politicians.
Now all the focus is on winning the election. Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with winning and wanting to win. But when it’s the sole purpose, it can lead to some bad decision making for short term gain. Instead of saying what you believe in, you start saying what you think the voters want to hear. That’s a slippery slope and voters are not stupid. They see right through it and they don’t trust someone who is inauthentic.
Say what you believe in – not what you think people want you to say. In the long term it will lead to better results.
And by the way it’s okay to fail. Just own up to it, and learn from your mistakes. That’s how you evolve. Politicians are so afraid of admitting mistakes, that they will just talk and talk, without saying anything. Be proud of your accomplishments and acknowledge your mistakes – don’t blame others for your short comings.

That’s my philosophy, and it works in journalism as well. Don’t write to get clicks, write to inspire and educate, then the clicks will eventually come as a result.

And I know I’m naive, but that’s okay.

I don’t think politics should be discussed on a hockey site, so I will just keep things in general terms. I’m not from North America and I’ve never even been to North America, so honestly I don’t want to talk about American politics.

I will instead talk about focus and process, as I think a lot of the problems in politics stems from a change in focus. Politics used to be about visions and ideas. Campaigning was about sharing your passion and saying what you believed in. Then you could agree or disagree with the policies, but at least there was an authenticity to the politicians.
Now all the focus is on winning the election. Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with winning and wanting to win. But when it’s the sole purpose, it can lead to some bad decision making for short term gain. Instead of saying what you believe in, you start saying what you think the voters want to hear. That’s a slippery slope and voters are not stupid. They see right through it and they don’t trust someone who is inauthentic.
Say what you believe in – not what you think people want you to say. In the long term it will lead to better results.
And by the way it’s okay to fail. Just own up to it, and learn from your mistakes. That’s how you evolve. Politicians are so afraid of admitting mistakes, that they will just talk and talk, without saying anything. Be proud of your accomplishments and acknowledge your mistakes – don’t blame others for your short comings.

That’s my philosophy, and it works in journalism as well. Don’t write to get clicks, write to inspire and educate, then the clicks will eventually come as a result.

And I know I’m naive, but that’s okay.
- Skytte

Agreed 100%. If Joe Biden formed his policies on what his vision really is, he would never get the nomination. He had to move far to the left or the Democrat party would have thrown him under the bus.

You're absolutely not naïve on your philosophy.

Agreed 100%. If Joe Biden formed his policies on what his vision really is, he would never get the nomination. He had to move far to the left or the Democrat party would have thrown him under the bus.

You're absolutely not naïve on your philosophy.
- MJL

Simply put, it's about shifting the focus from results to development and process. I don't really care about politics, but I see it in the world of sports as well. Even in youth sports you see coaches that focus solely on results, and more often than not it limits the long term development of the players. Or even worse, the players end up quitting the sport.

I'm a coach my self (for a senior team), and I know that I'm being judged by the results I get. This is fair - how else would you evaluate a coach? Just don't judge on short term results, but look at the process over a longer period of time.
Sometimes I make decisions that I know will result in the team taking a step back here and now, with the hope that the team eventually takes to steps forward.

Education (K-12) is shifting to this paradigm as well, at least where I have first-hand experience. That gives me some optimism about the future and the potential for good ideas to become policy.

The racist/sexist/etc. thing always confuses me. Trump doesn't discriminate against anyone. If you attack him, or go against what he wants he is going to attack. It is a bit childish and not something that I would prefer in a leader, but it is not discriminatory in any way. How many straight white guys has he unloaded on? It's got nothing to do with skin pigmentation, where you were born, or how one identifies. It is a simple on/off switch.
- Chunk

Are you saying that if the two of you met, he might just "grab you by the pu$$y?"

My ignorance called out the faults and where your asinine post was wrong.
You posted in this manner as if your opinion was factual.

"What Tanner is clumsily trying to say, I think, is that there are a lot of knowns about Trump that are really bad (pathological lying, embracing racism/sexism) that a majority of his supporters deny, even in the face of evidence."

The evidence you may offer is rhetoric. What are you going to do, post links to Politico, CNN and MSNBC again?

So you can call me ignorant all you want. What the reality is that if we debate again, I'll hand your ass to you again and point out your ignorance.

I'll start here on whether Trump is a racist or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZw4pNdWXpc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTPBK4BrNQ

https://www.washingtonexa...er-under-trump-than-obama
- MJL

These sources are obviously right wing biased...

These sources are obviously right wing biased...
- 13sundin13

The information given in all 3 links is not biased opinion or political based. It is factual. You obviously didn't look at any of the information.

Are you saying that if the two of you met, he might just "grab you by the pu$$y?"
- Tonybere

I doubt it considering I'm male. I'm guessing that if he and I met, he would simply say, "who the heck is that guy?" and move along. I never said he wasn't an a$$hole. In my anecdotal and limited knowledge/experience of him (second hand), he was/is a jerk.

The vast majority of guys say things behind closed doors that would make anyone cringe. That, in and of itself, does not make one sexist. It's not like he is making any cabinet or policy decisions because he hates women.

As others have either said or alluded to, he is not a refined speaker (or person) by any stretch of the imagination. He is childish and responds to simple name calling. I don't get upset with the way he speaks (or tweets) because I know that he is bad at it. I'm much more interested in the policies and executive orders he endorses/executes. Some I've liked, others I've hated. Regardless of the old adage, I don't think you can please anyone all the time.

The information given in all 3 links is not biased opinion or political based. It is factual. You obviously didn't look at any of the information.
- MJL

I did watch them actually, and that's how i know they are biased...

Not saying that you're necessarily wrong or whatever but these 3 sources are all from one side of the argument, I think to prove your point you'll need a larger base of facts from a wider range of sources.

I did watch them actually, and that's how i know they are biased...

Not saying that you're necessarily wrong or whatever but these 3 sources are all from one side of the argument, I think to prove your point you'll need a larger base of facts from a wider range of sources.
- 13sundin13

You weren't paying very good attention then. For example in the first link, there were multiple video clips from CNN. Surely you're not saying that CNN is biased in favor of Trump, are you? In the 2nd link, it was a discussion moderated by Laura Ingraham involving Candace Owens and Dr. Cornel West. They are on two different sides of the argument. The 3rd link was information on a poll by Gallup. Gallup polls have not been favorable to Trump.

You may think that but it's clear that you're wrong. All of it is irrefutable proof that Trump is not a racist.

Donald Trump has done more for the Black community than Barack Obama ever did. President Donald Trump is not a racist and never was. President Donald Trump is for rule of law and treating people equal regardless of skin color. Keep your political hackery away from hockey commentary. Or expect blow back. Trump will win in a landslide. Deal with it.

You weren't paying very good attention then. For example in the first link, there were multiple video clips from CNN. Surely you're not saying that CNN is biased in favor of Trump, are you? In the 2nd link, it was a discussion moderated by Laura Ingraham involving Candace Owens and Dr. Cornel West. They are on two different sides of the argument. The 3rd link was information on a poll by Gallup. Gallup polls have not been favorable to Trump.

You may think that but it's clear that you're wrong. All of it is irrefutable proof that Trump is not a racist.
- MJL

No. He’s a (frank)ing racist.

No. He’s a (frank)ing racist.
- RafiDRW

Obama is the real racist

You weren't paying very good attention then. For example in the first link, there were multiple video clips from CNN. Surely you're not saying that CNN is biased in favor of Trump, are you? In the 2nd link, it was a discussion moderated by Laura Ingraham involving Candace Owens and Dr. Cornel West. They are on two different sides of the argument. The 3rd link was information on a poll by Gallup. Gallup polls have not been favorable to Trump.

You may think that but it's clear that you're wrong. All of it is irrefutable proof that Trump is not a racist.
- MJL

You have to keep in mind that they're carefully edited together to with a right wing slant, seems pretty obvious that the videos are right leaning to me.

What I mean by both sides is you have your stats and information but they're put through a filter of right wing bias. In order to actually prove your point logically and objectively you need to see how that info is viewed through more centered as well as liberal leaning filters, and then make your decision based on all of that information combined. Right now you're going backwards where you have an idea that he's not racist, and are seeking out information to support that claim.

All that being considered, some of the links you sent don't even prove that Donald Trump is not racist, just because the country may be doing better in terms of race relations under his presidency does not mean that he himself is not racist. It's a logical fallacy.

Again, I'm not saying he's racist, but the information you have provided is not even close to being enough to prove your point.

You have to keep in mind that they're carefully edited together to with a right wing slant, seems pretty obvious that the videos are right leaning to me.

What I mean by both sides is you have your stats and information but they're put through a filter of right wing bias. In order to actually prove your point logically and objectively you need to see how that info is viewed through more centered as well as liberal leaning filters, and then make your decision based on all of that information combined. Right now you're going backwards where you have an idea that he's not racist, and are seeking out information to support that claim.

All that being considered, some of the links you sent don't even prove that Donald Trump is not racist, just because the country may be doing better in terms of race relations under his presidency does not mean that he himself is not racist. It's a logical fallacy.

Again, I'm not saying he's racist, but the information you have provided is not even close to being enough to prove your point.
- 13sundin13

This argument is kind of ridiculous, no offense.

Is it even possible to prove that ANYONE isn't a racist? No one can prove they're not a racist. That is why it's always thrown out at someone who the Dems want to destroy. Don't have to prove they are, just float it out there because there will never be exculpatory evidence to prove otherwise.

This argument is kind of ridiculous, no offense.

Is it even possible to prove that ANYONE isn't a racist? No one can prove they're not a racist. That is why it's always thrown out at someone who the Dems want to destroy. Don't have to prove they are, just float it out there because there will never be exculpatory evidence to prove otherwise.
- rrentz

Fair enough, it's not my argument. What I was talking about is using heavily right leaning, or heavily left leaning for that matter, sources to "prove" a point. It's just not a useful way to discuss an issue. I agree that it's hard to prove a person is racist, I'm sure people can be racist is certain areas of their life and not others.

I personally don't know if he's racist, though one thing that I think both sides would agree on is that a decent portion of his base has shown blatant racist tendencies. Much more than on the left. That doesn't mean he's racist or all of the people who voted for him are racist, is just is what it is.

Fair enough, it's not my argument. What I was talking about is using heavily right leaning, or heavily left leaning for that matter, sources to "prove" a point. It's just not a useful way to discuss an issue. I agree that it's hard to prove a person is racist, I'm sure people can be racist is certain areas of their life and not others.

I personally don't know if he's racist, though one thing that I think both sides would agree on is that a decent portion of his base has shown blatant racist tendencies. Much more than on the left. That doesn't mean he's racist or all of the people who voted for him are racist, is just is what it is.
- 13sundin13

Well yes. Out of 60+ million people who voted for Trump, there are racists. How is that different then any other political candidate/politician in history?

Well yes. Out of 60+ million people who voted for Trump, there are racists. How is that different then any other political candidate/politician in history?
- rrentz

That's not exactly what I said, yes, every politician probably has had a racist person vote for them, that's obvious. The difference is, certain candidates have a much larger section of people with racist/white nationalist tendencies and Trump is one of them. That support is also going to be pretty much exclusively his compared to any Democratic counterpart he may have in the upcoming election.

Whether or not he thinks the same way we'll probably never know, we just know that it's his base, and he's been reluctant to condemn these groups in the past, only doing so after a lot of public pressure.

No. He’s a (frank)ing racist.
- RafiDRW

Will there you go, that settles it!


You couldn't possibly make that case.

You have to keep in mind that they're carefully edited together to with a right wing slant, seems pretty obvious that the videos are right leaning to me.


- 13sundin13

This statement makes zero sense. There is no right wing slant. There is only the facts in highlighting what Trump has done for minorities. Unless you think the actual facts are right wing! LOL

What I mean by both sides is you have your stats and information but they're put through a filter of right wing bias. In order to actually prove your point logically and objectively you need to see how that info is viewed through more centered as well as liberal leaning filters, and then make your decision based on all of that information combined. Right now you're going backwards where you have an idea that he's not racist, and are seeking out information to support that claim.


- 13sundin13

You don't need to explain what you mean. You're simply wrong. The facts are the facts. Your comments are asinine. How is pointing out what Trump has done for minorities, with no spin or commentary, just the raw facts going through a filter of right wing bias? I'm not going backwards. I'm dispelling the myth that Trump is a racist.

All that being considered, some of the links you sent don't even prove that Donald Trump is not racist, just because the country may be doing better in terms of race relations under his presidency does not mean that he himself is not racist. It's a logical fallacy.


- 13sundin13

More ridiculous nonsense. So what your saying is that facts that show the President is not racist, don't count? The only logical fallacy here is from you. Address the facts.

Again, I'm not saying he's racist, but the information you have provided is not even close to being enough to prove your point.
- 13sundin13

I disagree. You're entitled to your opinion but there is a big hole in your posts. You lack content and lack facts.