*** VD 13 Commentary Thread ***

[Ken]

But who got caught up arguing the servant point?

I dunno, Bene when he said he takes the servant side, which is the players? Not a big deal.

I didn't even know that was the basis of discussion, and it was purely semantics.

Not sure how you missed it.

I don't think there is any real argument left here if you bow out, so maybe we can all play with the new toy Johnnya has brought us!

Sounds good.

[heyelander]

DLC = downloadable content = extra stuff for the games that you have to pay extra for after you've already bought the game

I just meant, anytime someone puts initials for anything in here, we get 2 pages or random stuff from slasher and Kev.

[The Feral Slasher]

I just meant, anytime someone puts initials for anything in here, we get 2 pages or random stuff from slasher and Kev.

king edward, virgin

[hacko]

there's like a whole page of posts without anyone proffering what DLC stands for... Is this thread broken?

Dumb Little Cock

[Bene Futuis]

You're the one arguing semantics and you're wrong, to boot. ALL employees are by definition servants. I guess you're uncomfortable with that word, but that's tertiary to the discussion. We can call them "workers" or "labor" if that makes it easier. But the real point still stands: capital is attempting to screw over labor and some people are okay with that because, in this case, a very small proportion of the labor pool (about 750 people of the approximately 8,000 professional players) makes good money. I'd wager that the entire accumulated wealth of all the thousands of players doesn't even equal that of, say, the Atlanta Braves owner who is worth nearly $7 billion. Oh, and average major league salaries - the whiny guys in your scenario, I guess? - dropped for consecutive years for the first time in a half century. So much for "sharing the gains", which was never a thing to begin with. The players' share of revenues has shrunk over the last several years. But those poor owners (who have cleared somewhere to the tune of $3.5 billion - $5.5 billion since the last CBA)! They face zero health risk and provide zero value and now they want the players, the only ones who actually provide the services being paid for, to subsidize their losses. Hell, I'm not even sure they will suffer any losses at all, even with decreased gate revenue, since they are eliminating or reducing labor cost that could easily exceed their gate losses. If the Forbes and Fangraphs articles are right, MLB faces a $4billion shortfall in revenue that has already been offset by $2billion in agreed-upon pay reductions by players (even those who make less than high school janitors and who aren't included in the "average player" metric). So it might not even be subsidizing their losses - it might be the servants getting reduced pay in order to subsidize lesser profits for the masters. And let's not forget that the owners are now trying to bleed more out of their employees, even after coming to an agreement. Estimates say teams might lose $50million each. The Braves' owner could lose $50million for the next 134 years straight before his wealth was depleted. And he, unlike the actual players, is essentially irrelevant and fully replaceable when it comes to the product MLB puts out. It is very disheartening to see anyone take the side of the masters or bemoan the "bad optics" of the players' well-founded concerns, particularly when contrasted with such an obvious bunch of bad actors such as baseball owners.

[Ken]

You're the one arguing semantics and you're wrong, to boot. ALL employees are by definition servants. I guess you're uncomfortable with that word

LOL I stopped reading here. I'm definitely not the only one arguing semantics, you and cavebird were going back and forth about it. Funny that it can get so personal for you guys! Carry on I'm not interested.

If you want to sling arrows head over to hot topics, this isn't the place for it.

[cavebird]

LOL I stopped reading here. I'm definitely not the only one arguing semantics, you and cavebird were going back and forth about it. Funny that it can get so personal for you guys! Carry on I'm not interested.

If you want to sling arrows head over to hot topics, this isn't the place for it.

We weren't going back and forth on it at all or slinging any arrows at each other. Master/servant is an old fashioned legal term for what is more modernly called employer/employee. Neither of us had any issue with it, and we were using the term (to the extent I even used it, I don't think I did much) in that definition only. Someone else seemed to object to the use of the term servant for baseball players, apparently using or understanding the term in its non-legal meaning. You can call that an argument about semantics if you want, but I don't think we argued with each other at all about it.

[cavebird]

So you agree that it doesn't make sense to call mlb players "servants"? That was the discussion point.

I mean, I didn't start this discussion point, and it is purely semantics. I am glad that you want to bail, but I certainly wasn't slinging arrows or arguing semantics beyond pointing out the legal, as opposed to common, definition of servant. I have no idea how this spun out of control as far as it did.

[Ken]

Hah, I wasn't even directing that at you. Why are we still talking about this?

[The Feral Slasher]

If we are going to argue semantics nobody slings arrows

[Ken]

If we are going to argue semantics nobody slings arrows

I disagree....

[Bene Futuis]

We weren't going back and forth on it at all or slinging any arrows at each other. Master/servant is an old fashioned legal term for what is more modernly called employer/employee. Neither of us had any issue with it, and we were using the term (to the extent I even used it, I don't think I did much) in that definition only. Someone else seemed to object to the use of the term servant for baseball players, apparently using or understanding the term in its non-legal meaning. You can call that an argument about semantics if you want, but I don't think we argued with each other at all about it.

We didn't argue about it because there is no argument to be had. Nothing personal happened, either. But even if it does I'll be slingin' here as I choose. This thread ain't just for toothpaste anymore, brother!

[Bene Futuis]

How many posts did the old VD IV thread have? Did it have more than the Moonlight J clear out your PMs thread? Have we passed either or both? Better mega-post seventy three things in a row to be sure, Feral.

Hey, just my POV you MFers. DILLIGAF?

[heyelander]

Proclivity of Violence?

[Ken]

We didn't argue about it because there is no argument to be had.

If you say so.

Nothing personal happened, either.

C'mon man. There's some intentional shit slinging you pulled with that "I guess you're uncomfortable with that word" garbage. Maybe I took it wrong, and if so I apologize.

But if not, this is supposed to be a fun place where we come to get away from the crap that's in hot topics. Why would you want that here?

Listen. I'm not a big fan of millionaires whining when there are people that are actually suffering in this world. I didn't know that was such a controversial take that you'd be upset about it. You can frame it other ways if it makes you sleep better, but that's what this was about for me. I'm tired of hearing privileged people complain about how they have it so rough. And it turns out, if you look around, I'm far from alone in that take, Snell's whining did not go over well.

How that turns me into the bad guy, I have no idea.

But even if it does I'll be slingin' here as I choose.

Obviously you can, but why would you want to?

This thread ain't just for toothpaste anymore, brother!

Okay...