@Hoffmeister25's banner p

Hoffmeister25

American Bukelismo Enthusiast

10 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 22:21:49 UTC

				

User ID: 732

Hoffmeister25

American Bukelismo Enthusiast

10 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 22:21:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 732

Oh for sure, that’s what I meant when I said America has so far done a good job of keeping out masses of people from populations which will be way harder to integrate. Centracos and Venezuelans will be a very different breed (literally) of Latinos.

But why not? You just say "proportions matter." But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here".

This is one of my least favorite tactics of yours, wherein you pretend not to understand that it’s more difficult to culturally integrate a large number of people than it is to integrate a small number of people. If 4 million Chinese people arrived in the U.S. over the course of one year, this would introduce very serious logistical issues for the places accepting them. Masses of children entering the school system without any English proficiency. The likelihood of insular ethnic enclaves, of the type that still exist today in parts of New York City. (I’ve been to the Chinatown in Flushing myself, and it really is like stepping into some random street market in China.) Whereas a smaller number, spread out over a longer period of time, would introduce considerably smaller issues.

Arab Americans also have a higher median economic, level of education, and national average income compared to Latinos. They do well in America. Why not let the Arabs in?

Because that’s an extremely small selection of the total Arab population. Ditto for the Nigerians who have immigrated to the U.S. thus far. The story of Arab and African immigration to Europe shows what happens when you accept a totally un-selected mass of random citizens from these places. I have no problem living among intelligent English-speaking Igbo Nigerians, provided they are not provided with an outlet to politically prosecute grievances against white civilization. (And, to be clear, most do not appear to wish to do so.)

It's about being near white people.

I don’t think this is true. It is about getting away from blacks, but most whites appear to have few if any qualms about moving to places like the Bay Area which have heavily Latino and Asian populations, but few blacks.

And if you don't call the past 10 years racial strife, I'm not sure exactly what it would take for you to admit this has happened.

Hanania’s stance, which I basically agree with, is that the real strife isn’t “everyone against white people”, but rather “blacks against everyone else”. If the oppositional culture of black was taken out of the equation, whether by crushing Indian Schools style cultural reprogramming, eugenics, or geographic/political separation, white people would have almost no difficulty living with a substantial number of immigrants from other races. Latinos certainly took time and significant effort to integrate, and obviously the country needs to get a handle on the number of Latinos to make sure they don’t become a majority population too quickly, but having lived in a heavily Latino city my entire life, I can honestly say that they have not been a significant source of any strife or discomfort to me. Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here. (Again, proportions matter — I wouldn’t want America to accept 4 million Chinese immigrants next year — but pretending like Asians are a significant contributor to racial division in this country is simply dishonest.) The problem, overwhelmingly, is blacks and the fallout from the eternal question of how to deal with them. Applying a model of race relations designed for black-white conflict to other races is simply missing the point. It’s a distraction.

There are places in the world from which developed countries should want a very small number of immigrants. The United States has, thus far, managed to do a spectacular job of avoiding receiving very many immigrants from those places. Europe has done a much worse job of this, and has suffered the consequences. As I’ve said before, if Europe had let in a million Vietnamese instead of a million Syrians, the continent simply would not be facing any serious problems with multiculturalism. Jared Taylor’s model is, like yours, over-focused on whites vs. non-whites, while it should instead be trying as hard as possible to muster Asians and Latinos in a coalition against blacks and Arabs.

MOTTE ROOTING INTEREST: @Hoffmeister25 is a Chargers fan, so root for LA.

Don’t just do it for me; do it because Jim Harbaugh and Justin Herbert are the most likable combo of head coach and quarterback the league has ever seen. Harbaugh is a goofball, full of dad jokes and quirky anecdotes, and his players famously love him to pieces. He also loves them back; Harbaugh’s man-crush on the humble, self-effacing, but supremely talented Herbert is incredibly wholesome. Herbert is the anti-primadonna, and I cannot wait for him to finally receive both the credit and the success he was denied by his first few years under a rudderless and inept regime. Come Saturday evening, I hope we can all say to the Texans:

YOU JUST LOST TO TO SHELDON HIGH SCHOOL FISHING CLUB PRESIDENT.

/images/1736455486576251.webp

Richard Hanania interviewed Jared Taylor.

Jared Taylor, founder of white nationalist publication American Renaissance, was recently reinstated on Twitter/X after a years-long (and, under the Elon Musk “free speech” era, increasingly controversial) ban. Many have hoped that, as Dissident Right and race realist ideas are beginning to break into semi-mainstream online discourse, some of the old-guard figures like Taylor may enjoy a long-overdue rehabilitation in the public eye. (Something like this has recently taken place for Steve Sailer, who, after decades of being the commentator whom all the serious thinkers read but never publicly acknowledged, recently undertook a lucrative book tour and has finally been published by several mainstream conservative publications.) While Taylor was once a semi-regular fixture on serious news programs, and his speeches at American Renaissance conference were even occasionally broadcast on C-SPAN, his banishment over the past decade has been comprehensive; if he is, at this late stage of his life, able to make some money and get his name out there, it would be a well-deserved culmination of an honorable life. Taylor’s work has been formative in my intellectual development, and I consider him a formidable thinker as well as a true gentleman.

That being said, I think his conversation with Hanania (who promoted the interview as a debate) unfortunately revealed how the world has, in some sense, passed Taylor by. Part of this is simply that he is old and has lost a step cognitively. In his prime, back when he was often asked to appear on mainstream news segments, Taylor was known as a sharp, charismatic, and erudite debater; at his advanced age, he can now be outmaneuvered by more agile thinkers — and, whatever you think about Richard Hanania (who, in his now-disavowed younger days as a white identitarian commentator, wrote several pieces for American Renaissance), he clearly has a keen mind. More importantly, though, Taylor’s model of the world does not appear to have adequately adapted to observed reality.

One of the central pillars of Taylor’s racial worldview is that human beings naturally seek to cluster among others to whom they are similar. For Taylor, the “white flight” of the 1960’s and 70’s, in which white families fled urban areas for the growing suburbs in response to the growing presence of blacks, is an archetypal example of humans naturally and subconsciously coordinating to segregate themselves into racial affinity groups. Writing and speaking in the 1990s and 2000s, when Mexican immigration to the U.S. (both legal and illegal) was at a tidal surge, Taylor predicted that this would set off a fresh white flight, in which white Americans would flee states with growing Hispanic populations. The looming confrontation between whites and Latinos, in which whites would be forced to put up a mighty fight to prevent themselves from being replaced and politically outvoted by drunken and crime-prone illegals clamoring for Latin American socialism, was a central theme of white nationalist discussion at this time. “Demographics are Destiny!”

However, as Hanania deftly points out, the intervening years have been… less than kind to these predictions. Though left-wing agitation by a certain section of the Latino population did have some impact on politics in the early part of this century — I distinctly remember a segment of the Mexican and Mexican-American segment of the student body at my high school staging a full-fledged walk-out in 2006 in protest of the failed “Sensenbrenner Bill” (H.R. 4437) which would have curtailed illegal immigration — the long-term political realignment among Latinos in this country has been a surprise to both political parties. Famously, Trump’s 2024 campaign achieved considerable success among Hispanic men.

Additionally, while white identitarians were correct to predict an exodus of conservative whites from racially-diverse liberal states, they probably did not anticipate that such whites would flee not to Whitopias such as Idaho and Montana, but rather to racially-diverse conservative states. The racial demographics of Florida and Texas are hardly more favorable to racially-conscious whites than California’s or New York’s! As Hanania points out, it seems like the revealed preference of many white Americans is to move to places with plenty of Hispanics (and a decent number of blacks, provided they’re well-policed) as long as the economic prospects and the political environment seem headed in a positive direction. White Americans seem to have no problem whatsoever living alongside Asian immigrants, who generally make excellent neighbors, friends, and classmates.

(Taylor’s stance on race relations between whites and Asians has never been coherent, which is particularly surprising since he was famously born and raised in Japan as the child of two American missionaries. He acknowledges the many great things about Asian culture and the various metric on which Asians are on par with, or even superior to, whites, yet when asked why it would be a bad thing for whites and Asians to intermarry and their countries become more integrated, he retreats to some wishy-washy petty nationalist “Well, I just think white people should stay white and Asians should stay Asian because I believe in real diversity.” This has never been persuasive, and Hanania rightly skewers him for it.) Ultimately, Taylor’s predictions of mass racial strife and whites fleeing to the hinterlands to form whites-only communities just have not panned out. As Hanania says: There are plenty of extremely white places in America, and almost nobody is moving to any of them.

This particular section of the interview (beginning around the 55-minute mark) has also produced controversy among Taylor’s ostensible allies. Hanania brings up West Virginia and asks why, if living among other whites is the highest instinctive concern for most white people, why are so few people moving there? And, furthermore, what sort of white person would want to move there, knowing how poor and dysfunctional the local whites are? Who would prefer living among fentanyl-addicted hillbilly whites rather than living among educated and productive Asians and Hispanics? Taylor expresses agreement with Hanania, and indulges in some accurate criticism of the white people he witnessed while visiting the capital city of West Virginia.

This has caused many on the online right to turn on Taylor, as discussed by Scott Greer. (Many of the responses to Greer’s tweet perfectly encapsulate the phenomenon pointed to in his article.) The criticism of Taylor’s remarks strikes me as identical to a phenomenon many have observed in black culture. When blacks congregate among themselves in places like churches, a frequent topic of discussions and sermons is frank self-criticism of the failings of the black community. “Black men, we need to do better! Work harder, be better fathers! There’s too many young black men out there acting a fool, killing each other over nothing, leaving our communities shattered.” All true, all healthy, all necessary, and maybe at some point the introspection will lead to material changes. However, when blacks (or, at least, black activists and “community leaders”) are talking to white people, suddenly they’re a united front: “All our problems are your fault.” Any criticism of even the worst aspects of underclass black culture is suddenly forbidden, as it might give succor to the enemies of black political advocacy. Black commentators who break this taboo (Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, etc.) are savaged as traitors and dancing monkeys by the very same blacks who, among their own, will acknowledge the truth behind that very same criticism.

Apparently we now have a vocal contingent of aspiring “white community leaders” who similarly cannot brook any public criticism of the worst elements of white trash culture, lest it empower “the enemies of our people.” This is pathetic, insecure, dishonest behavior. Whatever one might say about Jared Taylor, he has never been afraid to publicly air out the neuroses and failings of his own people; his brand of upstanding, intellectually honest discourse appears fundamentally unsuited for an increasingly propagandistic “siege mentality” discourse on the modern racially-aware right.

I have many problems with Richard Hanania, but seeing the army of pro-Taylor trolls spamming the comments section of the debate with petty insults about his appearance rather than even attempting to engage with the substance of his arguments, I have to concede that the new contours of the debate have squeezed out principled but overly-old-fashioned men like Jared Taylor, and will require the torch to be passed to high-character individuals who can thread the needle between the increasingly low-brow Chud Populism of right-wing Twitter, and the respectable but vacuous thought leaders of the dying Boomer right.

Not particularly, no. Every human group in existence today owes its continued existence to the fact that its predecessors took land and resources from other groups. It’s by far the best and most morally and pragmatically legitimate reason to wage war.

Now, I’m perfectly happy to discuss whether or not other, more recently-emergent models of geopolitical coexistence have effectively obviated the underlying logic of wars of expansion. Maybe it’s genuinely no longer necessary to do so in order to secure prosperity and security for one’s people! Maybe the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. But clearly many very intelligent people are still dubious of that assertion, and see it as mere self-serving posturing by the victors of the last great territory-redistributing war(s).

It’s very easy to say “fighting wars to obtain territory is wrong” when you’re the United States, surrounded on both coasts by massive oceans, who defeated the last worthy competitor to any of its contiguous territory 150 years ago. When you’re one of the countries who lost a very substantial amount of territory and resources, though, it’s pretty understandable to be affronted by the assertion that it’s no longer acceptable to try and get any of that territory back.

Beer Hall Pudge

Jimmy Kimmel would be the other obvious one. (EDIT: Actually, no! Another one like Meyers who just looks and acts Jewish. A crypto-gentile!) And then Larry King, Sally Jessy Raphael, and Ricki Lake before that. (Also Jerry Springer and Maury Povich, if you consider those talk shows.)

Seth Meyers

As far as I’m aware, Seth Meyers is only 1/8 Jewish (through his paternal grandfather) and I’m not sure that he was even raised with any connection to Jewish culture. He grew up in Michigan and then in New Hampshire. His wife is Jewish, and they’re raising their kids Jewish because of her, but as far as I’m aware everything he’s said about it is that he doesn’t think of himself as Jewish at all.

Again, you’re asking everyone to just play along with these retarded polite fictions, in the belief that if everyone just converged on the right metapolitical narrative, there would no longer be any compelling material/geopolitical reason for conflict. Any person with a modicum of historical knowledge of the region would be well-aware of the extremely complicated cultural, linguistic, and political realignments within the patch of territory currently known as “Ukraine”. Putin’s casus belli isn’t made any more or less valid by Zelenskyy refusing to conduct an interview in a language which everybody already knows that he speaks. Nor is Ukraine’s desire to resist forceful reabsorption into the Russian Federation made any more or less justified by crafting an easily-falsifiable narrative about the proud and independent history of the Ukrainian/Ruthenian-speaking nation. None of these things are actually materially important.

Everyone I've seen, including Zelensky and myself, has seemed rather confused/upset by Fridman's very strong desire to do the interview in Russian, since the symbolic concerns seem to obviously outweigh those.

It’s not clear to me at all why these “symbolic concerns” should “obviously” outweigh the fairly straightforward practical reasons why an interview conducted in a language both participants speak fluently would be more intimate, more personable, and less stilted than one conducted via interpreters. And in this situation reinforces one of the central arguments of the Russian-sympathetic side; having Zelenskyy conduct the interview in the language he grew up speaking would inspire uncomfortable questions about why he grew up speaking Russian, despite growing up in Ukraine (supposedly a nation with deep historical pride and cultural distinctiveness), and why (as I understand it) he only felt compelled to become fluent in Ukrainian as an adult.

I don’t have a strong dog in the Ukraine-Russia fight, and I have assiduously avoided wading into previous Motte discussions of the conflict, which have shocked me with their low quality, contentiousness, and total lack of intellectual charity. I’m just pointing out how Zelenskyy’s “symbolic” posture in this interview could be fairly described as a method of maintaining the polite fiction — Ukraine has always been culturally distinguishable from Russia, Ukrainian cities don’t have any deep Russian history, Russianness has always been imposed upon Ukraine, etc. — which the larger global community has been asked to respect since the invasion began. I can understand why he’s doing it, but can you understand why it doesn’t strike neutral observers as “weird” for Fridman to want to put aside that artifice for the sake of what he hoped would be an incisive interview?

the fact that the op specifically excluded Berbers makes me think they're ones planning the motte and bailey rather than opening themselves up to it.

What does this mean? Berbers are not black. As far as I can tell, none of the major Berber tribal groups have major Sub-Saharan admixture; whatever admixture they do have comes through their interbreeding with Gulf Arabs, who themselves have some African ancestry via the history of the slave trade. Ancient depictions of Berbers, and medieval depictions of groups like the Guanches, consistently show them as fair-skinned with pale hair and beards. Arguably the most famous modern person of Berber ancestry, soccer player Zinedine Zidane, could pass for a white Italian guy.

I’ve seen the whole thing. Like many male millennials, I discovered the “shocking, extreme, gory, etc.” parts of the internet — Rotten.com and the like — when I was in middle school, so I’ve developed a fairly strong stomach for this type of content.

Like everything Kulak posts, his description of the film and its significance is bombastically overstated, emotionally overwrought, but with a kernel of truth. The film does indeed make a persuasive case that there is a lot of fucked-up stuff going on in India. The only part that I found tough to watch was the part where people are literally eating shit, but obviously there’s plenty in there to trigger nearly anyone’s distress. The lower-caste people of the subcontinent really do seem to be profoundly dysfunctional and unpleasant, and there’s ample footage of their problems to cherry-pick and compile into a worthy propaganda reel.

My mother and father traveled to the subcontinent on their honeymoon, and my mother found it a fairly distressing place. She’s spoken about the leering behavior of the men on the trains, how she felt as though at any moment they might begin pawing at her like a pack of hyenas surrounding a dying elephant. She complained about the shocking poverty she saw, the overall levels of filth, and the several times she witnessed people openly shitting in public areas. This was in the very early 90’s, so presumably some things about the country have improved since then. The footage in the film appears, based on video quality, to mostly be filmed more recently than that, though, so clearly many of the problems have not gone away.

I also want to take a road trip through India at some point — mostly to visit ancient architectural sites, and also to see some of the more modern architectural delights bequeathed on the country by British administrators — but I know I’m going to have to carefully plan my itinerary to maximally avoid exposure to the grosser aspects of the place. Maybe I’ll have more objective anecdotes to convey here once I’ve done so. It’s certainly not the worst country on Earth, if for no other reason than it still contains the remnants of a legacy of magisterial glory from its past, and enough intelligent and clear-eyed individuals who have so far committed themselves to preserving it. If they start blowing up Mughal and Zoroastrian monuments out of some revisionist Hindu nationalist vendetta, then I’d be willing to comfortably call it a contender for the worst.

Actually as far as I’m aware, citizens of most Gulf Arab countries have a non-negligible amount of African admixture from the days of harem slavery. African female slaves were not made infertile the way African male slaves were. I think in places like Yemen in particular the African admixture is particularly significant.

They had built in assumptions about what level of knowledge people taking the tests had at a very minimum.

I certainly don’t dispute that — I myself cannot make heads nor tails of the sample question from the Bennett test you provided, presumably because I have close to zero familiarity with the relevant concepts and terminology.

However, I will again point out that these tests were being used as a filtering mechanism for the non-menial job departments at a major energy company. I find it a priori very plausible that there was a good reason for Duke Power hiring executives to believe that some level of prior familiarity with these fields of knowledge was important for determining eligibility for transfer to those departments.

Also, since the score thresholds for the Bennett test were also set to the score for the median high school graduate, it’s entirely possible that the question you linked is one that the vast majority of the tested employees would have gotten wrong, while still managing to obtain the minimum required score. Without knowing what the median score was, it’s tough to gauge whether the chosen score threshold was reasonable and fair, or whether it was unnecessarily onerous in a way that could have been expected to unfairly exclude otherwise-qualified candidates.

"The freaking Soviets" would go on to enact Loudness

Incorrect, Loudness was a Japanese project.

So, to be clear, I don’t know if the Wonderlic specifically has these diagnostic blind spots. Like I said, the data Rushton was working with was spotty and relied on extrapolating scores from data that was less than fully standardized. It’s quite plausible that the Wonderlic does not consistently produce such counterintuitive results; it is probably fairly accurately sorting individuals into broad tiers of cognitive ability. IQ is important even for a truck driver and a janitor. A truck driver could jeopardize company property by being more likely to crash the truck, or expose the company to financial/insurance issues by failing to consistently observe traffic laws. A janitor could fail to lock up a room full of expensive equipment, opening up the company to burglary or things like that. Things like this are absolutely worth guarding against by ensuring you’re hiring conscientious, intelligent, mentally flexible individuals.

I totally agree with you about why blacks would not trust the motives of a company which had previously explicitly discriminated against them. That being said, it’s worth delving into the specifics of the policies which got Duke Power into legal trouble. The Duke Power station in question did hire black employees — it just restricted them to the Labor department. In 1955 it added an additional stipulation, requiring a high school diploma for employment in any department other than Labor. (It also offered to pay two-thirds of the tuition for a high-school equivalency training for employees without a diploma.) Now, again, I think requiring a high school diploma or its equivalent for jobs requiring significant cognitive labor is a pretty reasonable bare-minimum failsafe! They still hired menial laborers without a high school diploma. You didn’t need to be a smart cookie to be a janitor at Duke Power.

Then, in 1965, after the Civil Rights Act took effect, they added two employment tests — the Wonderlic IQ test and a test of mechanical aptitude — for employees (black or white) who wanted to transfer from Labor to a higher-paying department. The score thresholds were set at the median for high-school graduates. Again, they were not asking for geniuses. They were asking people to meet a cutoff achieved by 58% of white employees.

Only 6% of blacks met that cutoff! Only 6% of black adult employees were at the cognitive and aptitude levels of the median high school graduate. The ones who did could be promoted at the same level as their white counterparts. Do you have specific reason to believe that both the Wonderlic and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test were wildly mis-measuring the relative cognitive abilities of black employees vis-a-vis white employees?

It’s absolutely true that one of the people I’m talking about could function extremely well in any number of jobs which just require one to be amiable and to perform basic tasks. Such a person would not be able to perform the job tasks required of an employee of an energy company, where even minor screwups can have catastrophic effects on an entire region. Like, if Wendy’s was demanding a Wonderlic test, I would think that’s a bit excessive. If the company that runs the power grid for an entire region demands it, that strikes me as a reasonable failsafe. Do you want the company responsible for your electrical power to hire individuals who can charm an interviewer, but who can’t do basic mental arithmetic, who can’t reason through rudimentary logical scenarios, and who is incapable of any outside-the-box thinking?

I agree with you that a test which assigns the same IQ score to a glue-eating retard and a more-or-less functional person is failing to capture the whole picture. However, it’s still capturing an extremely important part of the picture when we’re talking about jobs requiring considerable cognitive labor.

There’s something you’re missing here. The social scientist and psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, who wrote (controversially) about race differences in intelligence and psychology, noticed an interesting phenomenon. He was discussing the large differences in average measured national IQ, and a student asked him how, if the average IQ of some African countries is in the low 70s (below the threshold under which a person is considered mentally retarded in the United States), those countries are able to sustain basic infrastructure and to maintain a semblance of functionality. They’re not thriving by First World standards, but the average citizen of one of those countries is able to adequately carry out day-to-day adult responsibilities, to hold down a job, to attend to children, etc. It’s not what you would expect from a society populated by the kids you see eating glue in American special education classes, to say the least. So, what is the IQ test failing to capture?

Now, of course, one can simply question the validity of the IQ test in question, assume that the average IQ of those countries is in fact considerably higher than measured, and obviate the whole discussion. (And, in fairness, many have pointed out flaws in Rushton’s work, such that it’s plausible that some of his data may have relied on questionable extrapolation from limited data.) However, let’s assume for a moment that the data we have on average IQ differences between groups is at least relatively reliable — and I do believe this is the case, given how consistent the broad patterns in measured data have been since IQ tests first began being administered.

We observe that white children in the U.S. who have an IQ of 72 are profoundly disabled; even besides their very low IQ, there are usually other things about them which mark them as clearly non-functioning. (Physical deformities, social ineptitude, etc.) Without having any access to IQ test results, it would still be easy for you to identify such a person as a poor candidate for an open job position at your company.

However, the black kids who get assigned to special education classes due to their poor IQ test results tend to be very observably different. They are far more socially competent than their white peers in those classes. They show no physical manifestations of disability, and they’re often indistinguishable from “normal” kids in conversation, except in academic settings or when trying to deal with complex intellectual tasks. If you met one of these people as an adult, it might be very difficult to clock him or her as intellectually deficient; this person could carry on a normal conversation, could be charming, could drive himself or herself to the job interview dressed like a normal person, etc. It’s only by specifically administering a test of cognitive aptitude that you would discover that this person is not going to be able to intellectually comprehend the tasks and concepts which will be required for the job. They “pass” as normal unless you use the test to ferret them out.

So, given this phenomenon, it makes sense that Duke Power opted to use an IQ test when hiring black applicants. With a white applicant, you can usually figure out in the interview whether the individual is too dumb to be able to do the job. With a black applicant, you need some extra information to help you make an informed hiring decision.

I'm not sure I can name a single very articulate East Asian.

Francis Fukuyama and John Yoo come immediately to mind.

Right, I was sticking to standups. If we’re expanding it to women who got famous doing comedic acting, I’m sure there were others before Lucy. I’m not super familiar with the big stars of vaudeville and radio, but I imagine there were women among them. (Gracie Allen comes to mind.)

Entirely possible this is just culture(no coincidence the first really successful woman comedian was Ellen, not exactly a proper lady).

Carol Burnett and Joan Rivers both have her beat by decades. (Whoopi Goldberg also found massive success several years before Ellen did.)

I, for one, also knew that @self_made_human is Indian. You can’t replace me just yet, Claude!

I picked such a perfect time to end my decade-long sojourn in the wilderness of Jags fandom and to come home to the Chargers. Jim Harbaugh has this entire team massively overperforming, to the point where I am currently ruminating over how much I’d be willing to spend for a ticket if they end up hosting a playoff game. The sky is the limit for what this team can achieve once its onerous cap obligations are finally cleared out and Joe Hortiz can truly start crafting the team in his and Harbaugh’s image.

I’m on record stating that the Chargers will never have an organic base of local support in the Los Angeles market, but honestly if they keep things on the current trajectory, perhaps I’ll have to eat my words. Even if they get absolutely BTFO in the playoffs this season, it will still be the best Chargers season I’ve seen in at least a decade, and will have filled me with (probably dangerous) hope.