|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 22 2025 11:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:35 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:On July 21 2025 11:24 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports. I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened. The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were. The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms. Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line. Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment. One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience. To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well. Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit? Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse. It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of. See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? How is acknowledging that the men’s game in this instance is considerably more lucrative chauvinistic?
Like... really? You are lucky I like you  .
However that is not the issue, is it? Issue is that Serm is only seeing women sports, as a boost to men sports. Quote provided shows that he believes only value in WNBA is bringing more viewers to NBA. This is what unconscious bias training is all about. You may think you are not biased, but every now and again you are going to unconsciously show who you really are.
Edit:
Dude I am not even sure if you challenging me or agreeing with me?
On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:35 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:On July 21 2025 11:24 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports. I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened. The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were. The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms. Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line. Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment. One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience. To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well. Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit? Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse. It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of. See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me.
Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point?
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:30 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:35 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well. Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit? Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse. It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of. See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? How is acknowledging that the men’s game in this instance is considerably more lucrative chauvinistic? Like... really? You are lucky I like you . However that is not the issue, is it? Issue is that Serm is only seeing women sports, as a boost to men sports. Quote provided shows that he believes only value in WNBA is bringing more viewers to NBA. This is what unconscious bias training is all about. You may think you are not biased, but every now and again you are going to unconsciously show who you really are.
It’s odd that you choose to flex your ‘woke’ muscles against someone championing women’s sport and not like, all the other bigoted shit in the current culture.
Especially considering he didn’t actually say what you’re claiming he did.
|
On July 22 2025 11:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 10:46 WombaT wrote:
Alternatively we could just not bother and leave women’s sport to wither on the vine. Negatives of that approach would include disenfranchising whole generations of young girls and women to pursue sport. Positives would include owning the libs.
Pick your poison. Plenty of Republicans would consider that to be a positive, actually. The overlap between people who shit on women’s sport, and those who complain that trans women are ruining women’s sport is also not insignificant. I’m sure they’ll dispute that, or worse the useful idiot centrists will, it’s the most patently obvious observation one can make. Perhaps it’s not something one encounters regularly unless you’re a sports nut but it’s crazy prevalent. ‘Hurhur women can’t dunk, but I’m also outraged if a trans women might be able to dunk’
Yeah, there are definitely several ways that certain groups continue to "disenfranchise whole generations of young girls and women..."
...who want to pursue sports;
...who want to embrace their gender identity;
...who want to have bodily autonomy;
...who want to be paid a fair wage;
...who want to be safe from sexual harassment and sexual assault;
and so on.
|
On July 22 2025 11:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:30 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:35 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse. It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of. See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? How is acknowledging that the men’s game in this instance is considerably more lucrative chauvinistic? Like... really? You are lucky I like you . However that is not the issue, is it? Issue is that Serm is only seeing women sports, as a boost to men sports. Quote provided shows that he believes only value in WNBA is bringing more viewers to NBA. This is what unconscious bias training is all about. You may think you are not biased, but every now and again you are going to unconsciously show who you really are. It’s odd that you choose to flex your ‘woke’ muscles against someone championing women’s sport and not like, all the other bigoted shit in the current culture. Especially considering he didn’t actually say what you’re claiming he did.
Honestly there is 0 woke muscles in me. I never pretended/acted as someone woke.
bolded - Yeah I literally quoted him...
Edit: typo
|
On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:35 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened.
The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were.
The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms.
Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line.
Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment.
One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience.
To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well. Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit? Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse. It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of. See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point?
I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism.
|
On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:35 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Dude can you point me to a single year when WNBA turned a profit?
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse. It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of. See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism.
I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar.
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On July 22 2025 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 11:38 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 10:46 WombaT wrote:
Alternatively we could just not bother and leave women’s sport to wither on the vine. Negatives of that approach would include disenfranchising whole generations of young girls and women to pursue sport. Positives would include owning the libs.
Pick your poison. Plenty of Republicans would consider that to be a positive, actually. The overlap between people who shit on women’s sport, and those who complain that trans women are ruining women’s sport is also not insignificant. I’m sure they’ll dispute that, or worse the useful idiot centrists will, it’s the most patently obvious observation one can make. Perhaps it’s not something one encounters regularly unless you’re a sports nut but it’s crazy prevalent. ‘Hurhur women can’t dunk, but I’m also outraged if a trans women might be able to dunk’ Yeah, there are definitely several ways that certain groups continue to "disenfranchise whole generations of young girls and women..." ...who want to pursue sports; ...who want to embrace their gender identity; ...who want to have bodily autonomy; ...who want to be paid a fair wage; ...who want to be safe from sexual harassment and sexual assault; and so on.
There is, of course no misogynistic or bigoted reason for any of these positions…
Tis’ rather frustrating. Im 35 now, my partner still thinks I’m handsome but I’m feeling old! But I took an atypical level of interest in politics, culture and all that craic rather young, and basically from my teen years most things got better on a cultural level if not economic.. Race relations, gender equality, all that good stuff.
Last few years, it seems folks are just intent to drag us back to well, not doing that. And it’s not an unsuccessful endeavour either. Not just in the States but elsewhere, including my country.
And even aside from those actually shifting the general tenor of things, you have niches like the horrendously misogynistic incel community growing too.
Alternatively, maybe it’s just my particular snapshot of things, but my god I encounter much more racism and sexism, openly and happily expressed than a decade ago.
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On July 22 2025 12:17 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 09:46 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Does it need to, based on what Serm said? I mean I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with them, not my wheelhouse.
It can be a loss-leading thing if it generates positive PR, it’s not unheard of.
See - literally every sportswashing exercise in existence. I mean come on are the Saudis making a profit on EWC? Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it". How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism. I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar.
Where is the chauvinism?
If I ran a record label, and I had two clients, one of which was Taylor Swift, the other was the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse, well one of those is considerably more lucrative than the other.
I may have a particular love for jazz fusion (IRL I actually do), by the logic you’re expressing here I would somehow be showing a disdain for jazz fusion by putting some of my Taylor Swift money into it.
|
On July 22 2025 12:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 12:17 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism. I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar. Where is the chauvinism? If I ran a record label, and I had two clients, one of which was Taylor Swift, the other was the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse, well one of those is considerably more lucrative than the other. I may have a particular love for jazz fusion (IRL I actually do), by the logic you’re expressing here I would somehow be showing a disdain for jazz fusion by putting some of my Taylor Swift money into it.
bolded - Again: I literally quoted him?T
You do realise that in rest of your post ONE IS BETTER FOR YOU THAN THE OTHER. Are you going to offer the same money to Taylor Swift, as to the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse?
Edit:
On July 22 2025 12:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
tells me all I need to know.
Ignorance is a bliss...
|
On July 22 2025 12:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 12:17 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 09:59 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Problem with it is that it is incredibly sexist argument, isnt it? Strip it down and what you saying is that WNBA is created to make women think " it is a cool game, lets see how men do it".
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about? It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork. The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals. Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career. I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism. I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar. Where is the chauvinism? If I ran a record label, and I had two clients, one of which was Taylor Swift, the other was the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse, well one of those is considerably more lucrative than the other. I may have a particular love for jazz fusion (IRL I actually do), by the logic you’re expressing here I would somehow be showing a disdain for jazz fusion by putting some of my Taylor Swift money into it.
Razyda has had multiple opportunities to actually explain his accusations; the fact that he won't (can't?) tells me all I need to know.
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On July 22 2025 12:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 12:23 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 12:17 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 10:42 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
How is pushing women’s sport and trying to increase remuneration sexist? What on God’s green Earth are you talking about?
It can be a worthwhile endeavour even if it’s not necessarily the most profitable thing to be doing, because making it something young girls can aspire to is worthwhile in and of itself. And indeed that may translate to profitability over time if you lay the groundwork.
The England woman’s team wasn’t a huge money spinner a decade ago, but nonetheless the FA put money into it and made significant commercial inroads when they won the Euros and made the World Cup finals.
Alternatively we can just not bother with woman’s sport and give no viable pathways for young girls who have athletic talent to pursue it as a career.
I mean I think that would be shit, but less sexist perhaps. That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see: On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts. How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism. I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar. Where is the chauvinism? If I ran a record label, and I had two clients, one of which was Taylor Swift, the other was the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse, well one of those is considerably more lucrative than the other. I may have a particular love for jazz fusion (IRL I actually do), by the logic you’re expressing here I would somehow be showing a disdain for jazz fusion by putting some of my Taylor Swift money into it. bolded - Again: I literally quoted him?T You do realise that in rest of your post ONE IS BETTER FOR YOU THAN THE OTHER. Are you going to offer the same money to Taylor Swift, as to the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse? Edit: Ignorance is a bliss...
Why would I offer the same money?
I may, because I love me jazz fusion, but also because I have the huge money spinner that is Taylor Swift on my label, put a bit more money recording and promoting Jazz Fusion Apocalypse than a competitor might. Even if I’m going to be taking a hit because the kids aren’t into jazz fusion.
So too the WNBA as it has links to the NBA.
It can loss lead if the parent company thinks it’s worth doing, for whatever reason. They may passionately believe in the WNBA, or they may think it’s a good PR move that gives them more intangible benefits.
Which is basically what Serm said and I’m unsure why you made the jump to it being chauvinistic
|
On July 22 2025 13:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 12:44 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:23 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 12:17 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 10:57 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
That was however not the argument our resident chauvinist Serm made though? Lets see:
[quote]
Dont take me wrong I am with you, for example I used to watch women tennis when Martina Navratilova was "The One" ( I played quite a bit of table tennis, and tennis was the one you could watch more often and quite similar). I never got around to watch male tennis simply because 5 sets is to much. There is a value in women games, which is not related to their male counterparts.
How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism. I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar. Where is the chauvinism? If I ran a record label, and I had two clients, one of which was Taylor Swift, the other was the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse, well one of those is considerably more lucrative than the other. I may have a particular love for jazz fusion (IRL I actually do), by the logic you’re expressing here I would somehow be showing a disdain for jazz fusion by putting some of my Taylor Swift money into it. bolded - Again: I literally quoted him?T You do realise that in rest of your post ONE IS BETTER FOR YOU THAN THE OTHER. Are you going to offer the same money to Taylor Swift, as to the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse? Edit: On July 22 2025 12:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
tells me all I need to know. Ignorance is a bliss... Why would I offer the same money? I may, because I love me jazz fusion, but also because I have the huge money spinner that is Taylor Swift on my label, put a bit more money recording and promoting Jazz Fusion Apocalypse than a competitor might. Even if I’m going to be taking a hit because the kids aren’t into jazz fusion. So too the WNBA as it has links to the NBA. It can loss lead if the parent company thinks it’s worth doing, for whatever reason. They may passionately believe in the WNBA, or they may think it’s a good PR move that gives them more intangible benefits. Which is basically what Serm said and I’m unsure why you made the jump to it being chauvinistic
Wombat did you just made entire post why WNBA shouldnt get the same money, as NBA???
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On July 22 2025 13:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 13:04 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 12:44 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:23 WombaT wrote:On July 22 2025 12:17 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:42 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2025 11:15 Razyda wrote:On July 22 2025 11:14 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
How is Serm our ‘resident chauvinist?’ exactly? Didnt I provide a quote where he sees women sports only as boost to male sports? No, you didn't. You quote-mined him by pulling a single phrase out of the full context: "Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line." All you provided was this part: "But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans" That's not even a complete sentence. There is definitely room for discussion in regards to how the NBA and the WNBA function, when equal pay vs. proportional-to-revenue pay vs. other situations make sense in contexts like men's sports and women's sports, and other related topics, but throwing "resident chauvinist" at Serm seems pretty unjustified to me. Honestly it seems like you are reiterating my point? I think you're mistaking Serm's description of the circumstances surrounding potential sexism or double standards for the NBA vs. WNBA (which you may or may not think is an accurate explanation of what's actually happening), with Serm explicitly supporting chauvinism. I think you are wiling to overlook Serm chauvinism, because at this point in time your ideologies seem similar. Where is the chauvinism? If I ran a record label, and I had two clients, one of which was Taylor Swift, the other was the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse, well one of those is considerably more lucrative than the other. I may have a particular love for jazz fusion (IRL I actually do), by the logic you’re expressing here I would somehow be showing a disdain for jazz fusion by putting some of my Taylor Swift money into it. bolded - Again: I literally quoted him?T You do realise that in rest of your post ONE IS BETTER FOR YOU THAN THE OTHER. Are you going to offer the same money to Taylor Swift, as to the Jazz Fusion Apocalypse? Edit: On July 22 2025 12:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
tells me all I need to know. Ignorance is a bliss... Why would I offer the same money? I may, because I love me jazz fusion, but also because I have the huge money spinner that is Taylor Swift on my label, put a bit more money recording and promoting Jazz Fusion Apocalypse than a competitor might. Even if I’m going to be taking a hit because the kids aren’t into jazz fusion. So too the WNBA as it has links to the NBA. It can loss lead if the parent company thinks it’s worth doing, for whatever reason. They may passionately believe in the WNBA, or they may think it’s a good PR move that gives them more intangible benefits. Which is basically what Serm said and I’m unsure why you made the jump to it being chauvinistic Wombat did you just made entire post why WNBA shouldnt get the same money, as NBA???
Why would they? If you scanned back on my posts on the past few pages I’ve never argued for exactly equal pay in terms of commercial leagues, although I have also argued for equal pay for international teams, or Olympic funding, or things in that domain. I think it’s symbolically important to do that when we’re talking non-commercial sporting interests.
The WNBA isn’t just less lucrative than the NBA, it actively loses money, every year.
So advocating for NBA level salaries is patently insane. But, according to Serm anyway (basketball isn’t my area), the lucrative NBA has a PR incentive to subsidise the woman’s game, and they do.
Assuming they’re correct, and as I said, not my area, observing this being the case is not chauvinistic and it’s insane to claim it is.
|
On July 22 2025 04:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 03:11 Jankisa wrote:
I would pay PPV prices for Maxwell testimony in congress and I'm not even an American.
Given that Dershowitz is onboard with the testimony makes me a little queasy about how much of that testimony would be carefully curated, but it would certainly be interesting. I still genuinely think we are all still in a theatrics stage of this whole thing. I think everything from Epstein's death to Maxwell's imprisonment is a carefully orchestrated attempt to make it appear the whole operation has collapsed. 1: Donald Barr (Father of Trump's former AG, Bill Barr) was the headmaster of the prestigious Dalton School from 1964 to 1974. 2: Donald Barr hired Jeffrey Epstein as a math and physics teacher. The hiring was notable because Epstein was only in his early twenties and had dropped out of college, lacking a degree. Donald Barr reportedly hired him after being impressed by his intelligence. Donald Barr went on to write a book about aliens using humans as sex and labor slaves. In the book, the alien aristocracy justifies their use of sex slaves as a fundamental component of society, saying it is their right as the genetically superior ruling class. 3: Donald Barr's tenure as headmaster ended in 1974, the same year Epstein was hired. Epstein left the school in 1976. 4: Ghislaine Maxwell's father (Robert Maxwell), officially, built a vast publishing empire after serving in the British Army during World War II. Former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh both independently claimed Robert Maxwell worked with Mossad. They alleged that he used his global media empire for intelligence operations, including spreading propaganda and facilitating the sale of bugged software to other countries. 5: Keep in mind, officially, Robert Maxwell did not work for Mossad: Robert Maxwell was given a remarkably high-profile funeral and buried on the prestigious Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. The funeral was attended by multiple heads of Israeli intelligence and government leaders. Then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir delivered a eulogy stating that Maxwell had "done more for Israel than can today be told."
I listened to a pretty good podcast regarding Maxwell, while I do think he had some ties to Israeli intelligence I don't think he worked for Mossad, like many others, I think he was sympathetic to their cause (especially given his WW2 experience) and they were mutually beneficial to each other, he helped them with some influence campaigns and they helped him when he got into financial trouble.
Now that I write it out it sounds like an employment but I don't think that's exactly how it works for being a spy.
Epstein, on the other hand is much harder to explain, I haven't really fond a good explanation on where his immense wealth came from, he was "money and estate manager" for some really rich folks, Leon Black and Les Wexner, given that he didn't really have a a big firm or overhead I guess most of his money came from what they paid him, on paper.
The fact that JP Morgan and Deuche Bank both paid out large sums to his victims and the fact that his Island was bought by Leon Black and he later paid 60 + million to Virgin Islands to lift a probe into what was happening there makes me extremely suspicious of them, if we lived in a world where Billionaires ever suffered consequences for their actions I'd love to see those fuckers in a Congress chair tesfiying, but alas.
Source for the money discussion.
Also, 3 pages of WNBA pay situation, this culture war shit is like chum in the water for you guys, it's even more tedious then infinite semantics arguments.
|
President of "The small people" "Free Speech" "Drain the Swamp" "Lock em Up" won't include reporters from "Wall Street Journal" on his yearly taxpayer paid visit of his privately owned Scottish Golf Resort - because they dared to print his loveletter to the child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
GOPedophiles jump to defend this decision.
My Question: Can they already use the BribeForce One?
edit: Fixed the Name of the paper.
|
On July 21 2025 23:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2025 20:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah that's true. It's important to distract for as long as possible, and being blatantly racist is certainly a core part of the Trump/MAGA identity. MAGA is not well defined though. Its like people throwing around the word "woke". By using "woke" or "maga" you can then begin to ascribe any number of imaginary things to it. During Ronald Reagan's tenure the % of non-white people in America rose substantially. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". People have said right winger Hazel Mccallion was racist because she said a couple of rude things. The composition of Mississauga went from almost all white to 55% non-white during her tenure as mayor. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". I imagine you can just replaying in your head the 2 or 3 sentences she said for ever though and continue to convince yourself she is a "blatant racist" though.
I took a couple minutes to read up on "Hurricane Hazel" (lol). I think your point is not fully thought through, firstly it says in her Wiki article - "McCallion was sometimes described as a small-c conservative." on the federal level she sometimes endorsed other party's candidates - in 2015 Trudeau!
that does not sound right wing at all. more like efficiently pragmatic in service of a city's needs.
more development on cheap land means more demand for workers/services and somewhere along the process you reach a positive feedback loop that feeds on itself for a while. federal tax relief/development funds do not hurt, hence the endorsements for when other parties are in power.
a city that is growing needs new people - an economy that is growing/wants to grow new workers.
using today's standards what is "left" and what is in some areas right wing since "her active days"(she retired in 2014), it seems comical to compare.
McCallion/Reagan were highly pragmatic in hindsight. they knew not all jobs can easily be filled with only "whites", at least not in a timely fashion. add today's problem of falling and/or even collapsing birth rates and it is simply impossible, the math does not check out.
just contrast this to MAGA's platform of "mass deportation" where - as I type this - they raid parking lots and places of business... families and friendships upended. lives destroyed. people died in the process, in ICE custody.
which they do not care naturally as these people are equipped with moral black holes instead of souls even though they scream the loudest about being good Christians. they just "follow through on campaign promises/do their duty/law and order" ...
but they also fuck "with the bag", Trump who says he is the guy for the economy actively hinders it with stupid, inhumane and depraved policies.
it cannot be said enough. lunatic open border commie Reagan gave (illegal!) migrants an easy path to citizenship.
|
On July 22 2025 17:22 KT_Elwood wrote:
President of "The small people" "Free Speech" "Drain the Swamp" "Lock em Up" won't include reporters from "Financial Times" on his yearly taxpayer paid visit of his privately owned Scottish Golf Resort - because they dared to print his loveletter to the child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
GOPedophiles jump to defend this decision.
My Question: Can they already use the BribeForce One?
they also removed the WSJ from the WH press pool.
if only there was a word to describe how these thin skinned, safe space craving children operate facing a bit of head wind... hm let me think.
oh yeah, snow flakes. they are fucking snow flakes. free speech for me, not for thee for I will sue you into submission!
what a sham once again from POTUS Doodling Diddler.
|
On July 22 2025 17:22 KT_Elwood wrote:
President of "The small people" "Free Speech" "Drain the Swamp" "Lock em Up" won't include reporters from "Financial Times" on his yearly taxpayer paid visit of his privately owned Scottish Golf Resort - because they dared to print his loveletter to the child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
GOPedophiles jump to defend this decision.
My Question: Can they already use the BribeForce One?
You mean the Wall Street Journal. Not "Financial Times."
|
Name corrected!
I wish the President finds his real estate and businesses in good shape!
Nice to have his private resorts fully booked and blocked for 3 weeks around his 3 day visit.
It will be a private visit, and he is gonna meet the 1st Minister of Scotland and UK's PM Keith Richards... Kirk Steamboat... Jim Strummer... or something like that.
Sadly Stephen Flynn, Scotland's gov party leader can't make it, he will be washing his hair!
![[image loading]](https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/36ea/live/229b3ab0-a83b-11ef-98bd-c3011bfd8fce.jpg)
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-state-visit-stephen-flynn-hair-video-b2792423.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
