Dutchball97 wrote:ShaqAttac wrote:Dutchball97 wrote:I guess this is kind of what I mean. To me Draymondgold is by far the most reasonable participant in this thread but half the board thinks he's "lying" for some reason. Draymondgold isn't a "general board ****" either, he's not mad MJ is "getting smoked", just again more and more fantasies by people who seem to have something personal against Jordan and/or people who have Jordan ranked higher than them.
The real issue is u, eni, and kd got beef, so whenever kd and eni make posts, no matter how good or bad the arg, u side with whoever is goin against em, even when they pullin a seppeku. like bro be real, did u even read the posts u complainin about?
I wouldn't say we have beef. We have very different approaches to player evaluation and even more different approaches to how we prefer to discuss these things. I've found myself agreeing with them on occassions and they've agreed with me on certain topics as well but that's seemingly only possible if Jordan isn't directly involved or even indirectly implied in a discussion.
Jordan even being among the top group of all-time players is now suddenly controversial and it's what I've been calling an "overcorrection" for a while now since I see it as a response to the mainstream overrating Jordan (even though I also have him #1 I disagree with the undisputed/by far the best myth they regard him with) but going a bit too far by attacking everyone who still has MJ in the GOAT conversation. To me the biggest indication of how toxic this stuff has gotten is that I'm somehow seen as a MJ stan who can't handle people having other players as their GOAT when I don't even like Jordan.
It strikes me as odd that “someone who does not even like Jordan” has consistently felt the need to come to his defence. “Someone who does not even like Jordan” enters a thread, says one side is an “anti-MJ cartel” “frothing at the mouth”, “[making] up fantasies”, and “[seeming] to have something personal against Jordan and/or people who have Jordan ranked higher than them,” all while “the most reasonable guy in the discussion” is the one who openly did make up fantasies and did the closest thing I have seen to “frothing” when told his numbers objectively did not match the process or data he was supposedly trying to replicate.
And you complain about hostility.
This is nothing new, although it has been some time since you did it; I had hoped that meant your approach had changed. However, in 2022, you saw a post that compared 1991 Jordan’s scoring to 2014 Lebron’s scoring and proceeded to accuse everyone of “clawing to talk Jordan down”, having an “emotional meltdown”, and “spewing venom” in an “echo chamber” of uninteresting and meaningless discussions “without bringing up comparative arguments” — which is of course more your move, as it has been here. Rather than engage with the thread topic (admittedly this one is pretty close to running dry, but then why try to fan the flames?), it always comes back to your half-baked meta analysis of “hostility” or whatever. But you do not really make use of impact metrics, or at least not the ones to which we have generally referred, so why do you even care?
This is not really restricted to Jordan either. I was also described by you as part of a “ranting vocal minority” when it came to Shaq! The thread topic is Jordan, though, so I will stick to that. Six weeks ago, you derailed a thread because Ohayo offhandedly said 1985-87 Hakeem had a performance advantage over 1985-87 Jordan. You have this pattern where you say people should be free to believe what they want — and I will note that does not mean everyone is obliged to never push people on their beliefs — but when it comes to Jordan, you always need to come in and complain about the ranting mobs without actually engaging with the argument itself.
I recognise that the
approach to these discussions can come across as aggressive, but strong stances should be able to hold against strict scrutiny, and if the move is instead to attack character, what does that say about your ability to defend the stance itself? I generally understand your position, Dutchball, although to me it is not thoroughly based on anything real. I cannot make you reframe how you see something as abstracted as “dominance” or whatever, but dominance is not an impact metric, so that leaves the question of why you are here in a thread that has little to nothing to do with your own player assessments, defending a player (whom you claim to not like) by hurling epithets at everyone questioning the data you do not use?
