Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
spider321

Is this forum still just a liberal echo chamber?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I would.

You can start with crowd size from the very first days.  It has been unending since then.  Numbers just blatantly made up.  As clear as calling the sky brown and trying to defend it.  How can anyone be expected to have a discussion when basic and undeniable facts are pushed aside for complete untruths?  And, more importantly, those lies are then ignored by supporters as if it's not a big deal.

You'll see questions asked here "how do you disputes this?" when something like the above comes up and then it's nothing but crickets even though the posters are still around spouting off other thoughts and replies to something unrelated.

With regard to the bold, what would you like/expect to see?  I'd expect people to ignore inconsequential things like crowd size while offering thoughts on or defending things that might matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

 

15 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

There is an attack of objective truth by the Trump administration

Yes...and whats the rebuttal?  I think those saying that can very easily show where the administration has attacked objective truth.

 

It was just a play on the words in his statement.  His statement could be read that Trump has attacked us with objective truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tonydead said:

The knife cuts both ways and from your side you are only seeing one sharp end.  The tax bill thread is a perfect example of something that isn't debatable here that should be.  You just repeated the echo by saying it's "proving to be" while the other side just "laudes it's success".  You just can't help yourself.

Two questions:

1.  What's "my side"?

2.  "Can't help myself what?"

What's left to be debated exactly?  We are seeing the short term impacts its having.  Many will suggest those impacts have come and gone.  Now you just have to compare those short term impacts to the promises made.  Long term impacts are TBD.  By next year, we can start evaluating those and comparing those to the promises made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Thanks for pointing it out...eventually

Sorry man...just having some fun at the mental picture of Trump attacking us with objective truth.  Funny how that "of" can make a statement read two entirely different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BassNBrew said:

Sorry man...just having some fun at the mental picture of Trump attacking us with objective truth.  Funny how that "of" can make a statement read two entirely different ways.

No worries.  Lot's of coffee makes me type too fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Two questions:

1.  What's "my side"?

2.  "Can't help myself what?"

What's left to be debated exactly?  We are seeing the short term impacts its having.  Many will suggest those impacts have come and gone.  Now you just have to compare those short term impacts to the promises made.  Long term impacts are TBD.  By next year, we can start evaluating those and comparing those to the promises made.

1- You stated your side pretty well in your previous post.

2- Saying things like "What's left to debate?" when a post earlier you used it as an example of something that's subjective and gets debated 24x7x365.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I'm generally opposed to the idea as I have a good number of people in my real life who I see surround themselves with mostly people just like them and I don't think it's good for them. So I'm against blocking out the people that think differently. But there's a scale. Blocking extremists is different than blocking reasonable people not like you.

You sometimes hear people say stuff like "Liberals should get out of their bubble and read Breitbart so that they know where the other side is coming from." I think that's bad advice. A liberal who reads Breitbart will conclude, "Oh, man, the right is every bit as awful as I previously thought. This confirms my view that conservatives are horribly mistaken about everything, and possibly evil." That's counterproductive to actually understanding opposing views.

Liberals generally shouldn't read Breitbart. Liberals should read sources that are a bit less liberal than themselves. Baby steps, not gigantic leaps, are the way to go. Compare it to rock climbing, where in order to progress, you have to keep at least one hand or foot anchored to where it already is. If you try to move all four limbs at once, you fall. So liberals should engage with centrists or very moderate conservatives, not far-right people. (And vice versa.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tonydead said:

1- You stated your side pretty well in your previous post.

2- Saying things like "What's left to debate?" when a post earlier you used it as an example of something that's subjective and gets debated 24x7x365.

I stated my personal position and opinion of what's going on, sure.  Also, in the very post you quoted I said the tax bill is something to be debated and it's fine that it's debated and it was debated.  I don't see what's left to debate now that the results are coming in as I also said in the second post you quoted.  The tangible results either match the promises or they don't.  Just like with Obummer, you either got your $2500 or you didn't.  You either got to keep your doctor or you didn't.

I didn't say "what's left to debate" until after you said that I couldn't help myself, so I'm still wondering what your issue is with that initial comment where I agreed with you that things like the tax bill are debatable.  I DID go on to say that those sorts of things aren't what are so aggressively pushed back on rather it's the things that are objectively true that Trump supporters and Trump himself are trying to make subjective, but those aren't things like the tax bill.  If you thought that's what I was talking about, I apologize I wasn't clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

You sometimes hear people say stuff like "Liberals should get out of their bubble and read Breitbart so that they know where the other side is coming from." I think that's bad advice. A liberal who reads Breitbart will conclude, "Oh, man, the right is every bit as awful as I previously thought. This confirms my view that conservatives are horribly mistaken about everything, and possibly evil." That's counterproductive to actually understanding opposing views.

Liberal generally shouldn't read Breitbart. Liberals should read sources that are a bit less liberal than themselves. Baby steps, not gigantic leaps, are the way to go. Compare it to rock climbing, where in order to progress, you have to keep at least one hand or foot anchored to where it already is. If you try to move all four limbs at once, you fall. So liberals should engage with centrists or very moderate conservatives, not far-right people. (And vice versa.)

To be fair, though, there's only about two guys here who think Breitbart is a legitimate news organization. They're not very difficult to avoid here and on message boards in general (Free Republic excepting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I stated my personal position and opinion of what's going on, sure.  Also, in the very post you quoted I said the tax bill is something to be debated and it's fine that it's debated and it was debated.  I don't see what's left to debate now that the results are coming in as I also said in the second post you quoted.  The tangible results either match the promises or they don't.  Just like with Obummer, you either got your $2500 or you didn't.  You either got to keep your doctor or you didn't.

I didn't say "what's left to debate" until after you said that I couldn't help myself, so I'm still wondering what your issue is with that initial comment where I agreed with you that things like the tax bill are debatable.  I DID go on to say that those sorts of things aren't what are so aggressively pushed back on rather it's the things that are objectively true that Trump supporters and Trump himself are trying to make subjective, but those aren't things like the tax bill.  If you thought that's what I was talking about, I apologize I wasn't clear.

:shrug:  Of course it's still debatable, we aren't even through the first tax season of the first year.  Normal people are still debating it.

It doesn't matter when you said it.  You tired to use it as something that was subjective and debated 24x7x365 in a contrasting example to objective truths about the Trump Administration.  Then you turned around and said there is no debate about it.  That's exactly what you see all the time in this forum on subjects that should be debatable.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

You sometimes hear people say stuff like "Liberals should get out of their bubble and read Breitbart so that they know where the other side is coming from." I think that's bad advice. A liberal who reads Breitbart will conclude, "Oh, man, the right is every bit as awful as I previously thought. This confirms my view that conservatives are horribly mistaken about everything, and possibly evil." That's counterproductive to actually understanding opposing views.

Liberal generally shouldn't read Breitbart. Liberals should read sources that are a bit less liberal than themselves. Baby steps, not gigantic leaps, are the way to go. Compare it to rock climbing, where in order to progress, you have to keep at least one hand or foot anchored to where it already is. If you try to move all four limbs at once, you fall. So liberals should engage with centrists or very moderate conservatives, not far-right people. (And vice versa.)

How does this take us out of our bubble?  If all the Trump supporters are watching FOX, and we want to have a better understanding of Trump supporters, how does it make sense to read the Economist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

You sometimes hear people say stuff like "Liberals should get out of their bubble and read Breitbart so that they know where the other side is coming from." I think that's bad advice. A liberal who reads Breitbart will conclude, "Oh, man, the right is every bit as awful as I previously thought. This confirms my view that conservatives are horribly mistaken about everything, and possibly evil." That's counterproductive to actually understanding opposing views.

Liberal generally shouldn't read Breitbart. Liberals should read sources that are a bit less liberal than themselves. Baby steps, not gigantic leaps, are the way to go. Compare it to rock climbing, where in order to progress, you have to keep at least one hand or foot anchored to where it already is. If you try to move all four limbs at once, you fall. So liberals should engage with centrists or very moderate conservatives, not far-right people. (And vice versa.)

I don't agree with this if you have your brain turned on while listening.  I will often listen to Hannity or Christian radio on the way home.  It's easy enough to set aside bias confirmations if you're listening for the reasons they believe what they are saying instead of just what they are saying.  And I learn a lot.  Sometimes I wonder if Hannity really believes half of what he says, he's got 36 million reasons a year to go ahead and say it anyway.  I just wish there were lefty am radio stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:shrug:  Of course it's still debatable, we aren't even through the first tax season of the first year.  Normal people are still debating it.

It doesn't matter when you said it.  You tired to use it as something that was subjective and debated 24x7x365 in a contrasting example to objective truths about the Trump Administration.  Then you turned around and said there is no debate about it.  That's exactly what you see all the time in this forum on subjects that should be debatable.  

 

What's left to debate then because I'm at a loss.  Taxes were established for everyone 12/31.  The impacts are determined even if the people haven't realized the impacts yet.  As to the taxes, I specifically said they were something subjective and subject to debate 24x7x365 and they were, though many wouldn't engage for what IMO were obvious reasons.  I guess one is still open to debate them even though they are officially law and the results are rolling in, but I don't see the point.  The debate window seemed to be during the time it was being proposed.  Now we're at the stage where the results should be measured against the promises.  I genuinely don't know what's left to debate about the policy.  The results will speak for themselves and render all the :hophead: and speculation around them months ago moot.  

TL'DR:  What are "normal people" still debating?  I'd be interested in that for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

What's left to debate then because I'm at a loss.  Taxes were established for everyone 12/31.  The impacts are determined even if the people haven't realized the impacts yet.  As to the taxes, I specifically said they were something subjective and subject to debate 24x7x365 and they were, though many wouldn't engage for what IMO were obvious reasons.  I guess one is still open to debate them even though they are officially law and the results are rolling in, but I don't see the point.  The debate window seemed to be during the time it was being proposed.  Now we're at the stage where the results should be measured against the promises.  I genuinely don't know what's left to debate about the policy.  The results will speak for themselves and render all the :hophead: and speculation around them months ago moot.  

TL'DR:  What are "normal people" still debating?  I'd be interested in that for sure.

The bold verb is missing in what you specifically said and your entire two paragraphs were talking in the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tonydead said:

With regard to the bold, what would you like/expect to see?  I'd expect people to ignore inconsequential things like crowd size while offering thoughts on or defending things that might matter.

 

I don't think it was the crowd size that was a big deal.  more the fact that the President and the WH blatantly lied about it to the American people, telling us that we couldn't believe what our eyes told us.  and if they will lie about something so inconsequential, what will they do with the bigger issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

You sometimes hear people say stuff like "Liberals should get out of their bubble and read Breitbart so that they know where the other side is coming from." I think that's bad advice. A liberal who reads Breitbart will conclude, "Oh, man, the right is every bit as awful as I previously thought. This confirms my view that conservatives are horribly mistaken about everything, and possibly evil." That's counterproductive to actually understanding opposing views.

Liberal generally shouldn't read Breitbart. Liberals should read sources that are a bit less liberal than themselves. Baby steps, not gigantic leaps, are the way to go. Compare it to rock climbing, where in order to progress, you have to keep at least one hand or foot anchored to where it already is. If you try to move all four limbs at once, you fall. So liberals should engage with centrists or very moderate conservatives, not far-right people. (And vice versa.)

I agree that liberals shouldn't read Breitbart, but neither should conservatives or centrists.  This doesn't have anything to do with bubble-building.  It's more about having an intellectually-healthy diet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Slapdash said:

This has echos of what @TobiasFunke and @Henry Ford have said at times.  There is an attack on objective truth by the Trump administration and those actively supporting it.  Where is the room for reasonable discourse there?

I think this is interesting in that we seem to have arrived at a place where everything has to be about Trump. 

I see this board as about us. 

I think one can have lots of reasonable discourse over topics. I don't have to use any "truth" from the administration. I can talk about it from facts I can support. 

I'm not discussing things with the Administration. I'm discussing things with you folks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jomar said:

I don't think it was the crowd size that was a big deal.  more the fact that the President and the WH blatantly lied about it to the American people, telling us that we couldn't believe what our eyes told us.  and if they will lie about something so inconsequential, what will they do with the bigger issues?

And this is a recurring thing too...lying about stiff that’s easy to verify...

I have a friend who was like that, would just lie to the point nobody ever believed what he said.  Stupid crap too when there was zero reason to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jomar said:

I don't think it was the crowd size that was a big deal.  more the fact that the President and the WH blatantly lied about it to the American people, telling us that we couldn't believe what our eyes told us.  and if they will lie about something so inconsequential, what will they do with the bigger issues?

Exactly, and everything they touch must wither and die.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

The bold verb is missing in what you specifically said and your entire two paragraphs were talking in the present.

I don't have any idea what you're saying at this point.  Can you enlighten me as to what "normal people" continue to debate about the law?  That was your assertion, correct?  I'm curious....TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:
5 hours ago, Slapdash said:

This has echos of what @TobiasFunke and @Henry Ford have said at times.  There is an attack on objective truth by the Trump administration and those actively supporting it.  Where is the room for reasonable discourse there?

I think this is interesting in that we seem to have arrived at a place where everything has to be about Trump. 

I see this board as about us. 

I think one can have lots of reasonable discourse over topics. I don't have to use any "truth" from the administration. I can talk about it from facts I can support. 

I'm not discussing things with the Administration. I'm discussing things with you folks. 

Not sure I understand Joe....part of the "us" is the group who are actively supporting Trump as Slapdash has said.  A lot of those people fit the same description that Slapdash outlines here.  I like your optimism, but I think it's optimism for the sake of optimism and not really rooted in reality.  For example, if you started a math conversation with someone who refused to acknowledge 2+2=4, how much work would you be willing to put forth to have a conversation about the quadratic equation or just addition in general?  That's pretty much where we're at as it pertains to policy on this board right now.  Throw on top of that the fact that there's virtually no new legislation being introduced by this administration and the pickings are slim.  Should we try to talk about all the bills introduced and passed onto the Senate where they're just going to sit and collect dust?  It's complete dysfunction at the moment and it's filtering down to this board.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Normally, there is a spirited debate about policy that occurs.  People can agree to disagree, but not here.  I can state my case on what a joke I think the tax bill is and is proving to be while gobirds or don't noonan or whomever laudes it's successes.  That's subjective stuff that gets batted around 24x7x365. 

I've gone back and read this a few times and about all I can change here, is the bold.  When I said the bold I meant on the things that Trump and his supporters are trying to convert from objective to subjective, not the tax bill.  If that doesn't clear it up @tonydead maybe we should just move on because I am really at a loss as to what your point is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

How does this take us out of our bubble?  If all the Trump supporters are watching FOX, and we want to have a better understanding of Trump supporters, how does it make sense to read the Economist?

Yes, I poorly phrased my first paragraph in the post you quoted. I said “want to know where the other side is coming from” and “understand opposing views.” What I really meant was “want to engage with the other side in a way that might lead you to productively modify your own views.” Nobody is right about everything. On the stuff that we’re currently wrong about, it’s helpful for us to be argued out of our current position and into one that is better supported. This is more likely to happen when we engage with views that are somewhat adjacent to our own rather than views that are completely on the other side of the spectrum. Even where the correct view is the one completely on the other side of the spectrum, we generally can’t get there directly from here — not in one big jump. We generally have to nudge ourselves along a little at a time.

So I’ll amend my previous post. If you want to do an ethnography of FOX viewers, go ahead and watch FOX. If you want to expose yourself to a different point of view that might actually change your mind for the better, read the Economist.

(That last paragraph is true in part for the reason that Ivan mentioned: The Economist has objectively better journalistic standards than FOX News does. But that’s not the point I’m trying to draw attention to. Even if you hold journalistic quality constant, my point is that you’re more likely to trade in less accurate views for more accurate ones by engaging with people you already share a decent amount of common ground with. Engaging with people whose views are too far away from your own will cause you to dig in your heels and refuse to give an inch — which is not conducive to changing your mind for the better.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I've gone back and read this a few times and about all I can change here, is the bold.  When I said the bold I meant on the things that Trump and his supporters are trying to convert from objective to subjective, not the tax bill.  If that doesn't clear it up @tonydead maybe we should just move on because I am really at a loss as to what your point is.

Right, you used the tax bill as a contrasting example.  Which is a bad example because, according to you, it's no longer subjective.  You spent several posts since defending why there is no longer any debate on the tax bill putting it right back in the opposite bucket.  My point is that the knife cuts both ways because the other side always does that.  As much as Trump supporters convert objective stuff to subjective, you're taking subjective stuff and converting it to objective.

We should move on, you've talked it in circles and nothing you've posted suggest anything contrary to what I just stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Right, you used the tax bill as a contrasting example.  Which is a bad example because, according to you, it's no longer subjective.  You spent several posts since defending why there is no longer any debate on the tax bill putting it right back in the opposite bucket.  My point is that the knife cuts both ways because the other side always does that.  As much as Trump supporters convert objective stuff to subjective, you're taking subjective stuff and converting it to objective.

We should move on, you've talked it in circles and nothing you've posted suggest anything contrary to what I just stated.

Well, other than it not being me that's converted it, rather time has.  That's not the same thing at all as far as I can see.  And I didn't really intend it to be an example as you took it, but I now see how you read it, so I appreciate the explanation.  However, your assertion is that "normal people" are still debating (aka still in it's subjective phase) and I've asked for examples of what's being debated.  I'm still interested in hearing what those debates are, or point me to them and I can read them for myself.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Commish said:

Not sure I understand Joe....part of the "us" is the group who are actively supporting Trump as Slapdash has said.  A lot of those people fit the same description that Slapdash outlines here.  I like your optimism, but I think it's optimism for the sake of optimism and not really rooted in reality.  For example, if you started a math conversation with someone who refused to acknowledge 2+2=4, how much work would you be willing to put forth to have a conversation about the quadratic equation or just addition in general?  That's pretty much where we're at as it pertains to policy on this board right now.  Throw on top of that the fact that there's virtually no new legislation being introduced by this administration and the pickings are slim.  Should we try to talk about all the bills introduced and passed onto the Senate where they're just going to sit and collect dust?  It's complete dysfunction at the moment and it's filtering down to this board.

The number of people here actively supporting Trump is minuscule. It feels like we're fabricating some sort of enemy when in reality 99% of the board is on the same side. I'd rather us discuss it here amongst ourselves. I don't think we have many people here denying 2+2=4. 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

The number of people here actively supporting Trump is minuscule. It feels like we're fabricating some sort of enemy when in reality 99% of the board is on the same side. I'd rather us discuss it here amongst ourselves. I don't think we have many people here denying 2+2=4. 

I could name many, but that would not serve me well.  

ETA: To elaborate, not many are not denying 2+2=4, but many are supportive of people who are denying that 2+2=4. 

Edited by Mister CIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

The number of people here actively supporting Trump is minuscule. It feels like we're fabricating some sort of enemy when in reality 99% of the board is on the same side. I'd rather us discuss it here amongst ourselves. I don't think we have many people here denying 2+2=4. 

Why make it sound like 1% of the board supports Trump when your own poll shows a different number at 11%?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think this is interesting in that we seem to have arrived at a place where everything has to be about Trump. 

I see this board as about us. 

I think one can have lots of reasonable discourse over topics. I don't have to use any "truth" from the administration. I can talk about it from facts I can support. 

I'm not discussing things with the Administration. I'm discussing things with you folks. 

This is a political subforum in the time of the most divisive and dishonest president in our republic's history.  He attacks the concept of truth as well as the function of justice and the media in this country daily.  It is an unprecedented threat to system of government. Of course he is the focus.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

This is a political subforum in the time of the most divisive and dishonest president in our republic's history.  He attacks the concept of truth as well as the function of justice and the media in this country daily.  It is an unprecedented threat to system of government. Of course he is the focus.  

89% of the people agree with you over and over on a daily basis.  Now what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tonydead said:

89% of the people agree with you over and over on a daily basis.  Now what?  

Far less than that many people agree with me on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

This is a political subforum in the time of the most divisive and dishonest president in our republic's history.  He attacks the concept of truth as well as the function of justice and the media in this country daily.  It is an unprecedented threat to system of government. Of course he is the focus.  

I wouldn't be here if there wasn't an alleged criminal enterprise and traitors in the WH.  Just like I wasn't in the Bush and Obama years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

The number of people here actively supporting Trump is minuscule. It feels like we're fabricating some sort of enemy when in reality 99% of the board is on the same side. I'd rather us discuss it here amongst ourselves. I don't think we have many people here denying 2+2=4. 

Nobody on this board is denying 2+2=4 so cut it out with that crap.  As an owner don't acknowledge that bs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JuniorNB said:

This is how I feel also. Trying to get an understanding of how the other side feels and why they feel that way is an important factor in trying to wrap my head around what's happening in this country. The 'line' you talk about is what I need to work on. I've always been against blocking people. Just seemed kind of like admitting they got under my skin and I'm bowing out. Always felt like I'm awarding the trolls a victory. Getting under peoples' skin is what they wake up every day trying to do. But I know I'd have about 75% less suspensions here if I'd just block the trolls. My responses to them is usually what makes me cross the line. But I'd really hate to start blocking anyone with a different opinion. All that does is serve to make myself totally closed minded.

Just to clarify, are you saying 63 million people trolled you by voting for Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

Nobody on this board is denying 2+2=4 so cut it out with that crap.  As an owner don't acknowledge that bs.  

Puts to rest any argument against this being an echo chamber. :lmao:

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

Nobody on this board is denying 2+2=4 so cut it out with that crap.  As an owner don't acknowledge that bs.  

When there are signed checks by Donald Trump written to Michael Cohen as reimbursement and you still won't admit that he committed campaign finance violations. When he tweets to Michael Cohen to be careful or news will come out about his father-in-law and you still can't admit that it's witness intimidation. When there's a list of nine people who have now been indicted and or sentenced 4 crimes involving Russians or lying about Russians but you still can't admit that Trump was involved with the Russians. These are all example of someone telling you 2 + 2 and you not coming up with 4.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

The number of people here actively supporting Trump is minuscule. It feels like we're fabricating some sort of enemy when in reality 99% of the board is on the same side. I'd rather us discuss it here amongst ourselves. I don't think we have many people here denying 2+2=4. 

That's what's happening and why the active trump supporters whine in every thread about echo chambers and the like.  I can give you a multitude of posts in just about any of the threads where people are denying 2+2=4 (but in political terms obviously).  Any post that tries to narrow the Mueller investigation to simple collusion between Trump himself and Russia.  That's a direct rejection of simple, establish fact.  When one says the Mueller investigation has turned up "nothing", that's ignoring a ton of established fact.  Any post where a personal anecdote is dismissed as a lie because it goes against a predetermined narrative.  Any time an intentional misrepresentation of one's words occurs (this happens a lot all over the place and from all the "sides'....the most common that I've noticed is when one says "at minimum you are putting X above Y when supporting Trump" and the rebuttal is "so all Trump supporters are Y!!!!"...it's usually around racism)  The list goes on.  I'm good with the bold approach above.  I suspect it will only piss off the active Trump supporters further.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to celebrate that the campaign manager for Trump "only" received a jail sentence of 4 years, would that make this a Trump echo chamber?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Commish said:

That's what's happening and why the active trump supporters whine in every thread about echo chambers and the like.  I can give you a multitude of posts in just about any of the threads where people are denying 2+2=4 (but in political terms obviously).  Any post that tries to narrow the Mueller investigation to simple collusion between Trump himself and Russia.  That's a direct rejection of simple, establish fact.  When one says the Mueller investigation has turned up "nothing", that's ignoring a ton of established fact.  Any post where a personal anecdote is dismissed as a lie because it goes against a predetermined narrative.  Any time an intentional misrepresentation of one's words occurs (this happens a lot all over the place and from all the "sides'....the most common that I've noticed is when one says "at minimum you are putting X above Y when supporting Trump" and the rebuttal is "so all Trump supporters are Y!!!!"...it's usually around racism)  The list goes on.  I'm good with the bold approach above.  I suspect it will only piss off the active Trump supporters further.

 

I think a lot of what is happening is they are applying the same standards that were applied to Clinton about the email servers.  You know the let us know when he is charged and convicted of a crime but until then he didn't commit a crime.  But any reasonable person knows both created a crime.  But most people on this forum have to play sides so this is what we end up with.

The other issue is people insist on winning a discussion instead of having a discussion.  If the other guy doesn't see it my way then he's obviously trolling and should be banned from posting.  See the gun control threads and the way KC or Stealthy gets treated.  Neither one of them are trolling they just have a different view than the "echo chamber".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Commish said:

That's what's happening and why the active trump supporters whine in every thread about echo chambers and the like.  I can give you a multitude of posts in just about any of the threads where people are denying 2+2=4 (but in political terms obviously).  Any post that tries to narrow the Mueller investigation to simple collusion between Trump himself and Russia.  That's a direct rejection of simple, establish fact.  When one says the Mueller investigation has turned up "nothing", that's ignoring a ton of established fact.  Any post where a personal anecdote is dismissed as a lie because it goes against a predetermined narrative.  Any time an intentional misrepresentation of one's words occurs (this happens a lot all over the place and from all the "sides'....the most common that I've noticed is when one says "at minimum you are putting X above Y when supporting Trump" and the rebuttal is "so all Trump supporters are Y!!!!"...it's usually around racism)  The list goes on.  I'm good with the bold approach above.  I suspect it will only piss off the active Trump supporters further.

 

If someone truly does refuse to acknowledge 2+2=4, then it's probably best to not engage.

I started a new thread here on the topic. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/774582-truth-and-facts/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I think a lot of what is happening is they are applying the same standards that were applied to Clinton about the email servers.  You know the let us know when he is charged and convicted of a crime but until then he didn't commit a crime.  But any reasonable person knows both created a crime.  But most people on this forum have to play sides so this is what we end up with.

The other issue is people insist on winning a discussion instead of having a discussion.  If the other guy doesn't see it my way then he's obviously trolling and should be banned from posting.  See the gun control threads and the way KC or Stealthy gets treated.  Neither one of them are trolling they just have a different view than the "echo chamber".

 

I don't disagree with this actually except for the scope changes.  The standard stuff like the bold you mention is spot on IMO.

I would disagree with the gun control thread.  I was in there for a long time and it's pretty clear shtick took the place of actual discussion (at least with KC...in my opinion).  I haven't been in there in a long time because I got tired of replying to the same thing over and over after trying to actually engage in genuine discussion with Stealthy.  He has his talking points and he sticks to them.  That's fine.  I can absolutely see why people think he's trolling because of the lengths he goes to in order to stay on talking points.  He does (or did while I was in there) anything and everything he could to say the same thing over and over....kind of the very definition of echo chamber if you will ;)  It's clear his mind is made up and no amount of information is going to change it.  That became clear to me when he kept referring to me as one who was anti-gun and wanted to take all the guns away from everyone despite dozens of posts explaining my actual position that was nothing like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

If someone truly does refuse to acknowledge 2+2=4, then it's probably best to not engage.

I started a new thread here on the topic. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/774582-truth-and-facts/

 

And then listen to how bad of an echo chamber this place is....it's a vicious circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

And then listen to how bad of an echo chamber this place is....it's a vicious circle.

I don't think there's much debate there is relatively zero support here for Trump. His approval poll numbers here are a tiny fraction of what they are for the US population. 

I believe it's easy to say the makeup up this board makes it an Anti Trump Echo Chamber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, I think in general Echo Chambers are ungood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't think there's much debate there is relatively zero support here for Trump. His approval poll numbers here are a tiny fraction of what they are for the US population. 

I believe it's easy to say the makeup up this board makes it an Anti Trump Echo Chamber. 

I disagree. The support for Trump is definitely a minority here. It’s not zero, not “relatively zero” or anything close to it. 

An echo chamber does not mean primarily from one side, it means almost ALWAYS from one side, at such a level that you can’t hear the other side as well. That’s not the case here, never has been. 

But- if you really don’t like the fact that the majority of posts are from one side, there is a simple solution: get rid of the political sub forum and return political discussion back to the free for all. That will open it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't think there's much debate there is relatively zero support here for Trump. His approval poll numbers here are a tiny fraction of what they are for the US population. 

I believe it's easy to say the makeup up this board makes it an Anti Trump Echo Chamber. 

I'm not debating that this place is incredibly anti-trump.  What I can't reconcile is the "try not to be the echo chamber" and "if people aren't willing to accept facts, it's best not to engage them".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't think there's much debate there is relatively zero support here for Trump. His approval poll numbers here are a tiny fraction of what they are for the US population. 

I believe it's easy to say the makeup up this board makes it an Anti Trump Echo Chamber. 

The logical follow up question to ask here is why your board attracts this kind of makeup from its body politic. I don't know if FBGs is in the majority or the minority in this regard; there seem to be plenty of others where anti-Trumpism is strong and, anecdotally speaking, they seem to be mostly ones where the moderation is a little more restrictive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

I'm not debating that this place is incredibly anti-trump.  What I can't reconcile is the "try not to be the echo chamber" and "if people aren't willing to accept facts, it's best not to engage them".

I think what he's saying is that if you have someone hell bent on claiming Trump won the popular vote in 2016, then what is the point of engaging them?  That's a 2+2 example.   You can look up the numbers and clearly see Clinton won the popular vote.  You can link them to the numbers but if they insist the numbers are wrong then what's the point of a 10 page argument engaging them.

I know why people engage them.  It's because they want to win a discussion.  We all are guilty of it at times.

I can't recall the last political thread where you didn't have to declare a side before having the discussion.  Most people are unable to even discuss a topic without using the terms liberal or conservative to make their points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I think what he's saying is that if you have someone hell bent on claiming Trump won the popular vote in 2016, then what is the point of engaging them?  That's a 2+2 example.   You can look up the numbers and clearly see Clinton won the popular vote.  You can link them to the numbers but if they insist the numbers are wrong then what's the point of a 10 page argument engaging them.

I know why people engage them.  It's because they want to win a discussion.  We all are guilty of it at times.

I can't recall the last political thread where you didn't have to declare a side before having the discussion.  Most people are unable to even discuss a topic without using the terms liberal or conservative to make their points.

Yes, whether Trump won the popular vote is an example of a 2+2=4 analogy that is correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.