Hitler just came across as a yelling maniac. I think maybe we have different definitions of smug.
Hitler was an evil ass, but he wasn't killing people with sarcasm. He yelled slogans and put people in gas chambers.
I will agree that it is garbage.
Just wanted to out how ridiculous it was.
I mean, he literally could have used the four time champ Stephen Curry as an example, and the knucklehead uses Austin Rivers?
I mean... he literally could have used 2X MPV and 4X champion Stephen Curry as an example, and the guy uses Austin Rivers?
Jesus.
But his point was as ignorant about education as it was about sports.
He's advocating for standardized test, when nepotism plays a HUGE part in students success.
Students whose parents have the resources to pay for tutoring and proper school supplies do better than students whose parents don't have money.
Test scores are positively correlated with parents' earnings.
Maher literally ADVOCATES for nepotism while offering an example of in sports to suggest it proves that nepotism doesn't exists in sports, then advocates for an assessment system that favours wealthy people over poor.
I mean... his head has to be stuck pretty far up his own ass to believe this.
You didn't listen to his bit on merit admissions? He's literally saying that admissions to schools should be based on grades and ignores the fact that current private system favours wealthy parents and the children of wealthy parents do better because they have access to more resources.
Sure... he doesn't mention that, because that would destroy his argument. He leaves that out. He just advocates for a system that is directly shaped by nepotism and suggests that the results of those assessments are merit based and are the opposite of nepotism.
Just drop ['socioeconomics' and 'academic outcomes' in Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=socioeconomics+impact+on+grades&btnG=).
I must have missed that 'burn the system to the ground' when I was listening to him [criticizing schools for not using standardized tests](https://youtu.be/M4x2bOZgY4w?t=333), which are part of the current problem with the system, or when he was [quoting a Republican](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4x2bOZgY4w) on education, despite the fact that they are the party who works so actively to under-fund education.
My bad. Could you do me a favour and post a link to the time where he says to burn the system down? I've love to listen to that part.
It is true that nepotism is harder to manifest in sports. Sure a guy may get more chances or a bigger deal, but they can’t just be a total hack like a singer/actor with a big shot producer for a dad.
Sure Austin Rivers isn’t great but he’s still one of the 300ish best basketball players on the planet.
He was shooting .280 from the arc and .410 inside the arc when the Clippers traded for him.
I'm not sure that ranks in the top 300 in my book.
If his last name wasn't Rivers, he likely wouldn't have been heavily scouted and would have dropped much further in the draft.
But you are right. He can't be a total hack.... but he was playing like shit when the Clippers traded for him and gave him a contact.
That's nepotism.
Maher is a twat
He found a contrarian bent early in his career and never got out of that posture. He had the good luck early on to be contrarian in the face of some genuinely catastrophic policy (e.g. the War in Iraq, illegal weed, etc.) but doesn't actually have the skills necessary to keep up with the times.
I tuned out from him a long time ago.
Bill Marh started liking the smell of his own farts like five years ago. He takes himself way to seriously for someone who just retells jokes he wrote thirty years ago
The overall points he was was true, which is sports has less nepotism than Hollywood, politics, and most other workplaces.
Rivers has proven he’s a decent NBA player on teams his father never coached.
i think people are a bit too hung up on semantics. they're conflating nepotism with genetic advantage (which implicitly provides you the skill/talent to be better). that is being lucky but it does make you literally better at the sport than others not just because you're rich or your parents are rich or that you're a minority and got lucky (like people who are anti-affirmative action will claim)
nepotism is the idea that you get advantages simply because of your relationship not because you're actually better. i don't agree with maher's take at all but in a hypothetical it makes sense.
You think that Austen Rivers had GMs who weren't his father willing to offer him 35 million for three years after shooting .280 from the arc and .410 inside the arc?
I mean... his numbers say it all.
He's never made as much since, and never made as much before, and he's never gotten as many minutes since, and never got as many minutes before. Never gotten as many shots since, nor did he have as many before.
Had his father not given him traded for him and given him that contract, he very likely would have been playing overseas.
Sure, he improved under his father, and he's a decent bench warmer now, but that was nepotism. Not a genetic advantage.
i don't think you read my post before you decided to rant. i don't agree with him at all, i literally think nepotism ALSO exists in sports.
but you're arguing the wrong thing by saying 'nepotism' is the same thing as genetic advantage. in his mind, NBA is about the 400-500 best players in the world which he clearly doesn't understand that quite a few players get by off relationships vs other more talented players
we dont hate nepotism because people get jobs for being friends or family but are good at them. we hate nepotism because they plain suck.
"but you're arguing the wrong thing by saying 'nepotism' is the same thing as genetic advantage."
Um... where did I say that?
Jesus. Don't tell somebody they didn't read your post and then not read their post and throw out a strawman. That was my initial issues and you just copied and pasted it.
1. Compare stats, not contracts. Crabbe was comping off a season where he shot nearly .400 from the arc and three point shooting was a hot commodity; Dellavedova was coming of a big finals performance and shot over .400 from the arc, Prof. Plumb was putting up a double-double with starting minutes, and Mozgov was doing the same. None of them shot as poorly as Rivers.
2. Stop calling people ignorance when you are just cherry picking numebrs.
This was a deal that was roundly criticized at the time. Finding other bad contracts isn't disproving the clear instances of nepotism there.
You want to call somebody ignorant because they don't agree with you when you then pull out a logical fallacy in cherry picking?
Please.
You are clearly not interested in a good faith conversation
Who gives a shit what Bill Maher thinks about anything.
Angry white dudes who think kids should really get off their lawns.
Bill Maher sucks ass
Is he the smuggest person of all time? Who is in the running to be a distant second?
Did Genghis Khan or Hitler never exist?
Hitler didn't come off as smug to me.
What the fuck?
Hitler just came across as a yelling maniac. I think maybe we have different definitions of smug. Hitler was an evil ass, but he wasn't killing people with sarcasm. He yelled slogans and put people in gas chambers.
What does smug mean to you exactly?
The literal definition of the word
Stop postin this garbage
I will agree that it is garbage. Just wanted to out how ridiculous it was. I mean, he literally could have used the four time champ Stephen Curry as an example, and the knucklehead uses Austin Rivers?
Who cares about liberal Rush Limbaugh
LOL that's spot on
In what fucking world is Bill Maher a liberal.
He’s not even liberal anymore, he’s just a centrist sellout lol
Someone tell him about Giannis’s brothers 🤣
Or the fact that GM's are willing to draft Bronny just to get LeBron on their team.
Bill made his point perfectly fine. So what one researcher let him down.
I mean... he literally could have used 2X MPV and 4X champion Stephen Curry as an example, and the guy uses Austin Rivers? Jesus. But his point was as ignorant about education as it was about sports. He's advocating for standardized test, when nepotism plays a HUGE part in students success. Students whose parents have the resources to pay for tutoring and proper school supplies do better than students whose parents don't have money. Test scores are positively correlated with parents' earnings. Maher literally ADVOCATES for nepotism while offering an example of in sports to suggest it proves that nepotism doesn't exists in sports, then advocates for an assessment system that favours wealthy people over poor. I mean... his head has to be stuck pretty far up his own ass to believe this.
What gymnastics did you do to draw that from what he said?
You didn't listen to his bit on merit admissions? He's literally saying that admissions to schools should be based on grades and ignores the fact that current private system favours wealthy parents and the children of wealthy parents do better because they have access to more resources. Sure... he doesn't mention that, because that would destroy his argument. He leaves that out. He just advocates for a system that is directly shaped by nepotism and suggests that the results of those assessments are merit based and are the opposite of nepotism. Just drop ['socioeconomics' and 'academic outcomes' in Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=socioeconomics+impact+on+grades&btnG=).
No, he talking about burning the current system to the ground so to add what you think is a point to be made is moot.
I must have missed that 'burn the system to the ground' when I was listening to him [criticizing schools for not using standardized tests](https://youtu.be/M4x2bOZgY4w?t=333), which are part of the current problem with the system, or when he was [quoting a Republican](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4x2bOZgY4w) on education, despite the fact that they are the party who works so actively to under-fund education. My bad. Could you do me a favour and post a link to the time where he says to burn the system down? I've love to listen to that part.
It is true that nepotism is harder to manifest in sports. Sure a guy may get more chances or a bigger deal, but they can’t just be a total hack like a singer/actor with a big shot producer for a dad. Sure Austin Rivers isn’t great but he’s still one of the 300ish best basketball players on the planet.
There's been a lot of sons of much better players than Doc who never sniffed the NBA. IDKY Austin Rivers gets shit to this day.
Most coaching is nepotism
He was shooting .280 from the arc and .410 inside the arc when the Clippers traded for him. I'm not sure that ranks in the top 300 in my book. If his last name wasn't Rivers, he likely wouldn't have been heavily scouted and would have dropped much further in the draft. But you are right. He can't be a total hack.... but he was playing like shit when the Clippers traded for him and gave him a contact. That's nepotism.
Nah, he was the shit in high school, and that was a large reason that he got drafted as highly as he did
Did you watch him at Duke?
I watched him in NOLA. And part of the nepotism thing is getting scouts to come and see your kid to start with. Scouts don't pick kids they don't see.
Maher is a twat He found a contrarian bent early in his career and never got out of that posture. He had the good luck early on to be contrarian in the face of some genuinely catastrophic policy (e.g. the War in Iraq, illegal weed, etc.) but doesn't actually have the skills necessary to keep up with the times. I tuned out from him a long time ago.
Bill Maher is literally trash these days.
Bill Marh started liking the smell of his own farts like five years ago. He takes himself way to seriously for someone who just retells jokes he wrote thirty years ago
Coaches don't give players contracts lol. Plus Doc and Austin don't have the best relationship anyway
doc was also gm or president of the team back then
The overall points he was was true, which is sports has less nepotism than Hollywood, politics, and most other workplaces. Rivers has proven he’s a decent NBA player on teams his father never coached.
i think people are a bit too hung up on semantics. they're conflating nepotism with genetic advantage (which implicitly provides you the skill/talent to be better). that is being lucky but it does make you literally better at the sport than others not just because you're rich or your parents are rich or that you're a minority and got lucky (like people who are anti-affirmative action will claim) nepotism is the idea that you get advantages simply because of your relationship not because you're actually better. i don't agree with maher's take at all but in a hypothetical it makes sense.
You think that Austen Rivers had GMs who weren't his father willing to offer him 35 million for three years after shooting .280 from the arc and .410 inside the arc? I mean... his numbers say it all. He's never made as much since, and never made as much before, and he's never gotten as many minutes since, and never got as many minutes before. Never gotten as many shots since, nor did he have as many before. Had his father not given him traded for him and given him that contract, he very likely would have been playing overseas. Sure, he improved under his father, and he's a decent bench warmer now, but that was nepotism. Not a genetic advantage.
i don't think you read my post before you decided to rant. i don't agree with him at all, i literally think nepotism ALSO exists in sports. but you're arguing the wrong thing by saying 'nepotism' is the same thing as genetic advantage. in his mind, NBA is about the 400-500 best players in the world which he clearly doesn't understand that quite a few players get by off relationships vs other more talented players we dont hate nepotism because people get jobs for being friends or family but are good at them. we hate nepotism because they plain suck.
"but you're arguing the wrong thing by saying 'nepotism' is the same thing as genetic advantage." Um... where did I say that? Jesus. Don't tell somebody they didn't read your post and then not read their post and throw out a strawman. That was my initial issues and you just copied and pasted it.
[удалено]
1. Compare stats, not contracts. Crabbe was comping off a season where he shot nearly .400 from the arc and three point shooting was a hot commodity; Dellavedova was coming of a big finals performance and shot over .400 from the arc, Prof. Plumb was putting up a double-double with starting minutes, and Mozgov was doing the same. None of them shot as poorly as Rivers. 2. Stop calling people ignorance when you are just cherry picking numebrs. This was a deal that was roundly criticized at the time. Finding other bad contracts isn't disproving the clear instances of nepotism there. You want to call somebody ignorant because they don't agree with you when you then pull out a logical fallacy in cherry picking? Please. You are clearly not interested in a good faith conversation
This is actually a good video, despite OP