A Real Scandal for Ya

[Edgy MD]

Not a very juicy one, but it beats the fake ones.

Dillon Gee, before going out and laying a stinky, posed with the Mets in support of "gun safety." We all mostly agree that gun safety is a good idea.

Well, Dillon didn't like that when some people say "gun safety," they really mean "gun control," and he's not down with getting called out for supporting gun control on Breitbart.com. No sir.

[Frayed Knot]

Deadpan: "In the real world, opposition to gun control is blatant endorsement of senseless gun violence, whether Dillon Gee is aware of it or not."

Umm, no it's not.
And while you're free to believe that it is, it doesn't mean those who don't join you aren't in the "real" part of the world.

[Ceetar]

Deadpan: "In the real world, opposition to gun control is blatant endorsement of senseless gun violence, whether Dillon Gee is aware of it or not." Umm, no it's not. And while you're free to believe that it is, it doesn't mean those who don't join you aren't in the "real" part of the world.

semantically, sure it does. The opposite of 'control'.. "determine the behavior or supervise the running of."

While the violence isn't quite a given, It's not really a stretch that strictly speaking, the opposite of control is a world where guns are completely unregulated and as available as a pack of gum.

[Frayed Knot]

Don't be absurd, Ceets.
Argue for more gun regulations if you want, or for fewer. But being against more is hardly a "blatant endorsement of senseless violence" any more than being against martial law is a blatant endorsement for anarchy in the streets. And Deadpan can spare me the "real world" stuff.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Don't be absurd, Ceets. Argue for more gun regulations if you want, or for fewer. But being against more is hardly a "blatant endorsement of senseless violence" any more than being against martial law is a blatant endorsement for anarchy in the streets. And Deadpan can spare me the "real world" stuff.

It's a dumb phrase, sure. but he's not saying being against 'more' but being against 'any'. i.e. "If you don't think there should be controls set in place on guns, you're basically advocating a world of guns everywhere and violence will ensue."

He's saying that everyone should be on the same page as far as "Let's be responsible with these dangerous things." aside from the politics of it.

Just like supporting the idea of Police and the NYPD at a softball game yesterday is not akin to supporting the murder of unarmed minorities.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Better editing-- swapping, say, "tacit" for "blatant"-- would have helped Petchetsky's point a lot, while halving the provocateur-quotient. I'm thinking, though, that part of the point was the stick in the eye.

Breitbart writers, however...

While the Mets are donning orange in New York, a �Wear Orange Party for Peace� is being hosted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) in Chicago, where gun control has correlated with a seemingly insurmountable wave of murder and mayhem.

... well, yeah, their stuff is dog-whistle-calibrated.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: It's a dumb phrase, sure. but he's not saying being against 'more' but being against 'any'. i.e. "If you don't think there should be controls set in place on guns, you're basically advocating a world of guns everywhere and violence will ensue."

If you're going to play Mr. Semantics on this topic then at least acknowledge the difference between believing that reduced controls (or even none*) will lead to more violence (opinions vary as do different studies) and saying that being for less control is a blatant endorsement of senseless violence. Those a very different things and there's a gap between the two big enough for a Duda HR.
'Hi, I'm Dillon Gee, pitcher for the New York Mets, and I'm in 100% favor of senseless gun violence'

The one thing Deadpan gets right here is that Gee should take better care to know ahead of time what he's volunteering for, although ballplayers and others in the public eye get dragged into this kind of stuff all the time at the encouragement of the team or agents and the like (wasn't there something a couple years ago with Wright and some medical quack?).







* although I'm not buying the angle that objecting the Bloomberg's position is the same as being against "any" laws - there is a ton of ground in between

[Edgy MD]

Some medical quack? Some would suggest that might be a step up for the Reverend JaeRock Lee.

[G-Fafif]

Dillon also doesn't care for the banning of smokeless tobacco.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Why do athletes tweet? Where's Jay Horwitz?

[Guest themetfairy]

Until Dillon pitches a hell of a lot better than he did last night he should just STFU.

[Frayed Knot]

So the right to speak out should be dependent upon recent on-field performances?

[Guest themetfairy]

No, but the day after you shit the bed on the field isn't exactly the best time to try to persuade anyone about anything.

[Frayed Knot]

That's the day the subject came up.

[MFS62]

Speaking of things that'll kill ya', I still remember when baseball players endorsed cigarettes in print ads.

Later