What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Solution Focused And Breaking The Blame / Defend Cycle (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
First thing. This is not about masks. If this turns into something masks it'll just prove my point.

There's another thread where people are going round and round over Dr. Fauci and what he'd said about masks. 

My observation is the result of the exercise is to engage in what seems to be meaningless back and forth never ending blame / defend / blame cycle ad nauseam.

It goes something like,

One side says, "Fauci said masks don't really help and there's no reason to wear them and they might have unintended consequences"

Other side then says, "Fauci has never said anything remotely like that."

Then someone posts a quote where Fauci said early on there's no reason to wear them and they might have unintended consequences.  (He of course now recommends wearing them.)

Other side then says, "Well, even though I guess he did say that, what Fauci really meant was..."

Rinse and repeat forever. 

I DO NOT think this virus was an evil attack. BUT if the goal of a country or person was to completely distract and disrupt a country and create maximum infighting and distraction so nothing positive was done, they'd look at us and think they'd hit a home run. They'd do their Dr. Evil laugh at us and marvel at how we look like children who can't stop blaming / defending each other.

Again, this is not about masks. This is about something way bigger. It's about being solution focused or blame focused.

I'd love us to be more solution focused. 

It's ironic to me that our foundation here is a football site. That kind of blame / defend time wasting is the opposite of what a football team (or any team or group) does if they want to be successful.

Successful teams don't do the "Let me blame you for yesterday. Or even last play". Their focus is on fixing an error and moving on to the next play. 

They are about: "Fix the problem and move forward". 

As society and on the forums, we seem unable to move forward. My fear is we never break the cycle.

Because to break the cycle, it takes someone admitting they might have possibly been wrong. 

And that's impossible for most people. And it's super discouraging. And 100% unproductive in my opinion. 

Please help us be more solution focused. Or at the least, focused on understanding and moving forward. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First we have to agree there's a problem.  Then we have to agree what the problem is.  Then we can move on to solutions.  Sadly, I think what you are seeing in many cases is a feature, not a bug.

 
sorry Joe not going to happen in politics.  every day work when someone screws up big time if they are not fired it's usually,  okay you messed up big time-now fix it.  just not so in politics as these so called reps of the PEOPLE care more about keeping their job than solving problems.  that involves assigning blame to the other side even if no blame is warranted.  pathetic.

Pelosi(sorry first one I thought of) tears up the state of the union speech on national TV.  does that look like someone who wants to huddle up and tackle problems we face?  I can do this for the other side also, just thought of Pelosi first.

 
The Commish said:
First we have to agree there's a problem.  
Click to expand...
Agreed. 

The hard part though is the practical way this plays out is "I have to admit 'my side' might have been wrong". And that's pretty rare.

In my instance (again this isn't about masks but to use this an example):

One side says, "Fauci said masks don't really help and there's no reason to wear them and they might have unintended consequences"

Other side then says, "Fauci has never said anything remotely like that."

And then the one side guy gives a quote showing the other side Fauci said exactly what he said he said.

Instead it could go like:

One side says, "Fauci said masks don't really help and there's no reason to wear them and they might have unintended consequences"

Other side then says, "I know. Here's the quote back on March 8 with exactly what he said. A few days later, he changed his recommendation and it's been that way since. I wished he hadn't said that and that was wrong".

THEN you can move on to solutions. 

Instead we have the endless back and forth distraction of arguing when Fauci said something what he really meant or a zillion other things. It's entertaining I guess for the people slapfighting about it, but the result is zero moves forward. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Agreed. 

The hard part though is the practical way this plays out is "I have to admit 'my side' might have been wrong". And that's pretty rare.

In my instance (again this isn't about masks but to use this an example):

One side says, "Fauci said masks don't really help and there's no reason to wear them and they might have unintended consequences"

Other side then says, "Fauci has never said anything remotely like that."

And then the one side guy gives a quote showing the other side Fauci said exactly what he said he said.

Instead it could go like:

One side says, "Fauci said masks don't really help and there's no reason to wear them and they might have unintended consequences"

Other side then says, "I know. Here's the quote back on March 8 with exactly what he said. A few days later, he changed his recommendation and it's been that way since. I wished he hadn't said that and that was wrong".

THEN you can move on to solutions. 

Instead we have the endless back and forth distraction of arguing when Fauci said something what he really meant or a zillion other things. It's entertaining I guess for the people slapfighting about it, but the result is zero moves forward. 
Click to expand...
Agreed....and that's exactly why I asked the question about shtick.  I figured people were just screwing around at this point.  There should be no question that comments were made, in error, early on.  They were also corrected early on so I can't really understand, from a logic perspective anyway, why someone would continue bringing up that the mistake was made as the reason they don't wear masks today.  It's basically saying "I was listening and behaving as requested when it was what I wanted to do, but when I stopped when it was something I didn't want to do".  

If I'm being completely honest (and trying to NOT make this about masks) I think what you bring up here is a symptom of an even deeper problem.  That is, people not having good faith discussions.  Staying on the topic of the pandemic, way too often it goes like this:

Person A:  Trump's handling of this crisis has been an abject failure from his general messaging to his focused attacks on states he sees as a problem to him politically.

Person B:  No other President would have had any different outcome.  You really think it's Trump's responsible for the virus.

This is one of several responses you get IF you get an actual response beyond laughing emojis etc.  None of the response have much of anything to do with the initial comment.  It's very similar to the "what is right" vs "what is legal/illegal" discussions that go the same way.  

ETA:  And there is still good discussion to be had here.  It's just a matter of avoiding those who aren't interested in having good discussion.  Possum and I had a great back and forth a couple weeks back and I've had similar conversations with many others here on various topics.  If you keep it on the topic and meet people where they are instead of trying to make their position some sort of random outlying talking point, this place is still awesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In sports, sometimes the way to fix the problem and move forward is to get rid of someone. I think that can be viewed as blaming that person. They aren't necessarily blaming that person for all the problems on the team, but they are at least blaming that person for their personal performance and their contributions towards not making the team better. They have decided that person can't make the team better.

Something about the idea of making pie charts of blame definitely doesn't sit right with me. I'm not sure I have a huge problem with, for example, a coach blaming an individual player for their performance; or a GM blaming the coach for his performance; or an owner blaming the GM. But, I don't know that I'm all that interested in an exercise to determine who should get most of the blame and have the biggest piece of the blame pie. If any individual is bringing negative value to the team, that needs to change. I'm not sure how important it is to determine who is bringing the most negative value because all negative values, from -0.1 to -9999999, need to either improve or be removed from the team.

Interestingly, as I thought about this from the other thread, there seemed to be a focus on an idea that has almost become a bad word these days: personal responsibility. The comment was made "person X doing something wrong shouldn't excuse person Y being blamed for their own wrong doing." In general, I agree with that. It's about each person taking responsibility for their own actions and not blaming others. But, there are definitely some topics today that some people want to talk about personal responsibility and others don't. Others want to talk about "the system" or something else. And I get it. I think in different scenarios, different things seem to make sense to me.

Notice in the sports example of someone being "blamed", the "blaming" is made by someone who has the authority to do so. I think that's important in the world of blame. It's not the WR who gets to cut the LT. It's not the offensive coordinator who gets to fire the linebackers coach. Certain people are put in position and given the authority to "blame". As with a lot of things today (and maybe they've always been this way), everyone thinks they have the power to blame. That's part of cancel culture. I have a voice, therefore I should get to be part of attack on this person who did something wrong.

We each need to know our own role and act in that role. This is a good topic. I'll leave at this for now instead of continuing to ramble. I'm not even sure if what I've already typed is all that well thought out or not.

 
Being the last 7-8 months in an election year certainly has exasperated the issue. With the final goal being elected for whatever politcal position instead of working together to solve problems as most countries did COVID was weaponized. 

As with Monday morning QBs and talking about what Kevin Cash did last night in the World Series it is very easy to second guess when you know the end result. Did Trump shut down the country too early or too late? Would Biden have done different?  Made it better or worse?  We don`t know.

Just think we are at the point that both sides want the other to fail so bad and the end result is that it hurts all of us.   Do I think the Dems are upset that COVID has killed so many and derailed Trump?  Not really.   Do I think the GOP would be upset if under Biden the economy and stock market crashes or we are attacked on our soil?  Not really.   These would just be more points to rally their base audience.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Agreed....and that's exactly why I asked the question about shtick.  I figured people were just screwing around at this point.  There should be no question that comments were made, in error, early on.  They were also corrected early on so I can't really understand, from a logic perspective anyway, why someone would continue bringing up that the mistake was made as the reason they don't wear masks today.  It's basically saying "I was listening and behaving as requested when it was what I wanted to do, but when I stopped when it was something I didn't want to do".  

If I'm being completely honest (and trying to NOT make this about masks) I think what you bring up here is a symptom of an even deeper problem.  That is, people not having good faith discussions.  Staying on the topic of the pandemic, way too often it goes like this:

Person A:  Trump's handling of this crisis has been an abject failure from his general messaging to his focused attacks on states he sees as a problem to him politically.

Person B:  No other President would have had any different outcome.  You really think it's Trump's responsible for the virus.

This is one of several responses you get IF you get an actual response beyond laughing emojis etc.  None of the response have much of anything to do with the initial comment.  It's very similar to the "what is right" vs "what is legal/illegal" discussions that go the same way.  

ETA:  And there is still good discussion to be had here.  It's just a matter of avoiding those who aren't interested in having good discussion.  Possum and I had a great back and forth a couple weeks back and I've had similar conversations with many others here on various topics.  If you keep it on the topic and meet people where they are instead of trying to make their position some sort of random outlying talking point, this place is still awesome.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I think what gets me is often these are are not discussions in bad faith. 

They're just completely unproductive.

It's discussing how the deck chairs should be arranged on the Titanic.

I get discouraged when I see what looks like the vast majority of posts focused on that kind of unproductive back and forth. 

It's has been better some recently as we have fewer posters here. But I still think we can do tons better. 

 
And I think what gets me the most is I see people here I think are talented just completely wasting time slapfighting over arranging the Titanic deckchairs.

And I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel some guilt for creating the place. I'd love it if we shut down a week and all the smart people here spent the time they'd spend here (myself included) and put it toward doing good in real life. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. I think what gets me is often these are are not discussions in bad faith. 

They're just completely unproductive.

It's discussing how the deck chairs should be arranged on the Titanic.

I get discouraged when I see what looks like the vast majority of posts focused on that kind of unproductive back and forth. 

It's has been better some recently as we have fewer posters here. But I still think we can do tons better. 
Click to expand...
I guess these are two different things.  Certainly plenty of unproductive "conversations".  I've participated in them before...I try not to get sucked in as much anymore but it happens.  I will also say, if there was ever going to be a good time to shut this place down for a week, it's coming in the next few days.  :lmao:  

 
Maybe it's just my age, but the first I remember the tribalism taking over was during the Clinton impeachment, The language was almost the same as described above and it hasn't changed since. 

Bill Clinton had sex with that intern.....

No he didn't..

Yes he did.. 

No he didn't..

Yes he did.. 

No he didn't..

Yes he did.. 

Okay he did it, but it doesn't matter.. 

Yes it does..

No it doesn't..

Yes it does..

No it doesn't..

Yes it does..

No it doesn't..

 
Joe Bryant said:
And I think what gets me the most is I see people here I think are talented just completely wasting time slapfighting over arranging the Titanic deckchairs.

And I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel some guilt for creating the place. I'd love it if we shut down a week and all the smart people here spent the time they'd spend here (myself included) and put it toward doing good in real life. 
Click to expand...
Yeah.  

Back in the winter and early spring, I posted a lot more.  Now I'm a lot more sporadic.  

I know that coming here is going to be a lot of "Trump is awful," and at some point that discussion has just been had.  

Climate change thread:  Trump bad, no he's not.

SCOTUS thread:  Trump's bad, no he's not.  

Health Care:  Trump bad, no he's not.  

What's the point?

I see "the problem" is that people can't focus on the discussion at hand.  Everything is viewed within an overarching theme.  Masks are good.  I don't think there's a lot of honest intellectual debate against the masks.  I think that masks have somehow become symbolic of Trump.  Wearing masks proves Trump was wrong and bad.  And my God, if he'd just encourage masks...

And the Pro-Trump crowd needs to defend Trump.  And therefore, they feel the need to discredit masks.  And the Fauci quote just helps the Pro-Trump stance of masks maybe good maybe not.  

But we should just be able to focus on masks.  Take Trump out of it.  But he's the albatross.  The elephant in the room.  Somehow every discussion is framed in the context of Trump.  

I don't talk about masks being good to discuss masks.  I won't engage in any responses trying to elicit further discussion about the pro's/con's of masks.  My point is:  We keep making the mask discussion into a Trump discussion.  

We constantly lose sight of the issues that matter.  People spend more time debating each other's morals than the issues.  I don't approve of a lot of Trump's behavior.  But I never saw 2016 as "Is it ok to grab women against their will?" 

The Democrats impeach Trump in a partisan fashion--my god they're so crooked.  How can you vote for them?

The Republicans stand together in the senate--my god they're so crooked.  How can you vote for them??

The discussion always goes back to your character and morals.  And at that point, I don't want the discussion with you.  It's not everyone.  There are lots of guys that I've had great discussions with.  But there are plenty of others where the opposite is true.

Until we can stop questioning each other's morals and ethics and the like--we'll just keep pissing in the wind.

 
The Commish said:
I guess these are two different things.  Certainly plenty of unproductive "conversations".  I've participated in them before...I try not to get sucked in as much anymore but it happens.  I will also say, if there was ever going to be a good time to shut this place down for a week, it's coming in the next few days.  :lmao:  
Click to expand...
I think if we're going to do it, let's do it for the next 5 days starting now.  

Election night is going to be fireworks.  

 
jm192 said:
SCOTUS thread:  Trump's bad, no he's not.  

Health Care:  Trump bad, no he's not.  

What's the point?
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly it. 

For a huge portion of it, there is no point. It's just spinning around wasting time. 

Worse, I feel some responsibility as I'm enabling it.

Even worse, many of these folks seem like smart and capable people who would be able to do real good in the world advancing their cause if they weren't wasting time here. 

Now I suppose the argument is people should be able to waste time however they like. My problem is I feel like I'm enabling the time wasting. AND these people appear capable of tons more. 

And sorry to be venting my worries in public. Just thinking out loud. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
It's ironic to me that our foundation here is a football site. That kind of blame / defend time wasting is the opposite of what a football team (or any team or group) does if they want to be successful.
Click to expand...
We're football fans, not a team.   We irrationally hate the other side and the officials (unless they're making calls that favor us) and take winning and losing more personal and serious than we ever should.  

 
The Commish said:
First we have to agree there's a problem.  Then we have to agree what the problem is.  Then we can move on to solutions.  Sadly, I think what you are seeing in many cases is a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...
It's a feature as old as the country itself. We fought wars based on whether taxation and slavery were really problems.

 
cockroach said:
We're football fans, not a team.   We irrationally hate the other side and the officials (unless they're making calls that favor us) and take winning and losing more personal and serious than we ever should.  
Click to expand...
Agreed. I get it. 

 
jm192 said:
Yeah.  

Back in the winter and early spring, I posted a lot more.  Now I'm a lot more sporadic.  

I know that coming here is going to be a lot of "Trump is awful," and at some point that discussion has just been had.  

Climate change thread:  Trump bad, no he's not.

SCOTUS thread:  Trump's bad, no he's not.  

Health Care:  Trump bad, no he's not.  

What's the point?

I see "the problem" is that people can't focus on the discussion at hand.  Everything is viewed within an overarching theme.  Masks are good.  I don't think there's a lot of honest intellectual debate against the masks.  I think that masks have somehow become symbolic of Trump.  Wearing masks proves Trump was wrong and bad.  And my God, if he'd just encourage masks...

And the Pro-Trump crowd needs to defend Trump.  And therefore, they feel the need to discredit masks.  And the Fauci quote just helps the Pro-Trump stance of masks maybe good maybe not.  

But we should just be able to focus on masks.  Take Trump out of it.  But he's the albatross.  The elephant in the room.  Somehow every discussion is framed in the context of Trump.  

I don't talk about masks being good to discuss masks.  I won't engage in any responses trying to elicit further discussion about the pro's/con's of masks.  My point is:  We keep making the mask discussion into a Trump discussion.  

We constantly lose sight of the issues that matter.  People spend more time debating each other's morals than the issues.  I don't approve of a lot of Trump's behavior.  But I never saw 2016 as "Is it ok to grab women against their will?" 

The Democrats impeach Trump in a partisan fashion--my god they're so crooked.  How can you vote for them?

The Republicans stand together in the senate--my god they're so crooked.  How can you vote for them??

The discussion always goes back to your character and morals.  And at that point, I don't want the discussion with you.  It's not everyone.  There are lots of guys that I've had great discussions with.  But there are plenty of others where the opposite is true.

Until we can stop questioning each other's morals and ethics and the like--we'll just keep pissing in the wind.
Click to expand...
This is what's unique about now that's never been true in the time I've been here.  We have a President who loves to make EVERYTHING about himself.  The self promotion angle is his thing.  He speaks about all the topics of the day in terms of himself.  As such, the moral aspect always oozes into the conversation.  It also enters the conversation because his moral compass is different than any modern era President.  So, when we attempt to have a policy discussion and the policy is so obviously misguided and really indefensible, people still feel the need to argue/defend so it goes to morals. 

Great example is immigration reform.  We could argue all day/night about the pros/cons of policy, only we don't have tangible policy to talk about.  We have the actions of this administration to talk about.  So, I agree 100% that we need immigration reform.  We need more people at the border to process immigrants (lawyers/judges etc).  We need to upgrade our points of entry etc etc.  But what do we get?  We get separating kids from their parents as an attempt to deter people from coming here.  So the actions take over completely because, well, they aren't theoretical and they aren't policy proposals.  They are real things that are happening.  Now, of course, very few (I've learned not to say "no one") will want to argue that this is the correct approach, because morally, most of us know it isn't.  But in this world of "deny a win at any cost" people go down that path anyway and deflect, "whatabout" and whatnot just to avoid giving the other "side" a win.  What then comes from that is this notion of "well, if he's gonna defend it, he must approve of it" which isn't illogical on it's face and then the pissing match between two individuals who probably both agree that separating the kids from their parents isn't a good step to take.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
This is what's unique about now that's never been true in the time I've been here.  We have a President who loves to make EVERYTHING about himself.  The self promotion angle is his thing.  He speaks about all the topics of the day in terms of himself.  As such, the moral aspect always oozes into the conversation.  It also enters the conversation because his moral compass is different than any modern era President.  So, when we attempt to have a policy discussion and the policy is so obviously misguided and really indefensible, people still feel the need to argue/defend so it goes to morals. 

Great example is immigration reform.  We could argue all day/night about the pros/cons of policy, only we don't have tangible policy to talk about.  We have the actions of this administration to talk about.  So, I agree 100% that we need immigration reform.  We need more people at the border to process immigrants (lawyers/judges etc).  We need to upgrade our points of entry etc etc.  But what do we get?  We get separating kids from their parents as an attempt to deter people from coming here.  So the actions take over completely because, well, they aren't theoretical and they aren't policy proposals.  They are real things that are happening.  Now, of course, very few (I've learned not to say "no one") will want to argue that this is the correct approach, because morally, most of us know it isn't.  But in this world of "deny a win at any cost" people go down that path anyway and deflect, "whatabout" and whatnot just to avoid giving the other "side" a win.  What then comes from that is this notion of "well, if he's gonna defend it, he must approve of it" which isn't illogical on it's face and then the pissing match between two individuals who probably both agree that separating the kids from their parents isn't a good step to take.
Click to expand...
But this highlights the disconnect.  

Someone decide that a policy is indefensible and if someone agrees with it, they're immoral.  

Health Care as an example:

The ACA is getting a lot of attention the last few weeks with the ACB nomination.  And Democrats love to say if you're against the ACA, you don't want little girls with brain tumors to live.  C'mon.

There are reasonable concerns to have with the ACA.  And it should be acceptable to express those concerns and discuss it.  But it quickly turns into:  "So, you don't want little girls with brain tumors to get life-saving treatments?!"  "Should sickness bankrupt you?!"  "Why do you hate the poor?"

And so when you paint it as "What do you mean you hate little girls with brain tumors?"  Yes, you make people look immoral.  But you don't understand the problems with the ACA that concern people.  You don't further any discussion of how to improve health care.  You've called the other guy an @$$hole, and made him believe that you're one as well.  

It's absurd.  Let's take all of the emotional points, and challenges to your morality out and just discuss health care.  

 
I dont know how this gets fixed anytime soon, if ever.

I mean we live in a country that went from shaming people that were wearing masks to shaming people that weren't wearing masks. 

In a week. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
I dont know how this gets fixed anytime soon, if ever.

I mean we live in a country that went from shaming people that were wearing masks to shaming people that weren't wearing masks. 

In a week. 
Click to expand...
It's not the masks.  

You don't behave like me, think like me, then you're bad.  Because my beliefs and actions are good.  That's why I believe and do them.  Anything to the opposite is an exercise in evil and satanism.  This is how Americans think now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
It's not the masks.  

You don't behave like me, think like me, then you're bad.  Because my beliefs and actions are good.  That's why I believe and do them.  Anything to the opposite is an exercise in evil and satanism.  This is how Americans think now.
Click to expand...
That's how I see it too.

It feels like it used to be people could have different opinions on something. And there was some sort of understood acceptance the other person was a good person.

Even on delicate or hot topics.

But now it seems like if you have "the other" view, you're evil.

And regardless of the issue or the side, the answer is ALWAYS, "Well they started it".  

It's like we've reverted as society from adults to spoiled brat children.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll add:

People have started chaining things together.  I don't know when it happened, but it seemed prominent after the 2016 election.

Trump is racist.  You voted for Trump. Therefore you are also racist. 

Racism wasn't on the ballot.  It's not a fair conclusion.  Biden was accused of sexual assault.  I don't think you voting for Biden equates to you supporting sexual assault.  

Not to open a can of worms, but:  I live in Kentucky.  A lot of people, several prominent attorneys included, feel that a murder or manslaughter charge isn't justified based on the facts that are known.  But instead of focusing on the facts, it becomes "Those people don't think black lives matter."  "The Grand Jury doesn't think black lives matter."  "Daniel Cameron, the black AG doesn't think black lives matter."  

And again, I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of the Breonna Taylor situation.  My point is:  drawing conclusion A based on the facts presented doesn't mean that you can't also think black lives matter.  But message board posters try to link those kind of things.  And they shame people that don't draw the right conclusion.  

We used to live in a world where you were presumed a good person until you gave others a reason to doubt it.  Now if you present the wrong opinion on an issue--someone may twist it into you're a racist.  And now you've got to defend yourself.  Because if you stay silent, well you're just admitting guilt.  There are no winners.  We argue endlessly about which side is less awful.  We attack each other's character.  

And are we somehow better?  Have we improved our own lots or anyone else's?  Of course  not.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
As society and on the forums, we seem unable to move forward. My fear is we never break the cycle.

Because to break the cycle, it takes someone admitting they might have possibly been wrong. 

And that's impossible for most people. And it's super discouraging. And 100% unproductive in my opinion. 

Please help us be more solution focused. Or at the least, focused on understanding and moving forward. 
Click to expand...
This is the answer. And it'll never happen. It's more complicated than this, but succinctly - what you described is our society and they vote in representatives they align with.

 
Trump didn't start this trend, that much I will agree with.

But have we ever had  a President that has relished the division as much as this guy?  Literally spends his days pounding away at Twitter saying divisive things as much as he possibly can. Always playing to his ever shrinking base.

Show me the "both sides equally" on that one.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Trump didn't start this trend, that much I will agree with.

But have we ever had  a President that has relished the division as much as this guy?  Literally spends his days pounding away at Twitter saying divisive things as much as he possibly can. Always playing to his ever shrinking base.

Show me the "both sides equally" on that one.
Click to expand...
Yeah man.  Your side is good and right.  We get it.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Don't you mean "both sides have good people"?
Click to expand...
We're in a thread about being solution based and breaking the blame/defend cycle, and your contribution is "show me how my side did this?"  

So what I mean is "read the room."

I actually felt the discussion was pretty solid.  And here you come with the same old "Trump is bad."  

At what point do you get tired of logging in to type the same stuff?  I get it.  Trump is bad, and Dems are just fantastic.  

But it's just not worth coming here to rehash the "my side good, your side bad" over and over.

 
jm192 said:
We're in a thread about being solution based and breaking the blame/defend cycle, and your contribution is "show me how my side did this?"  

So what I mean is "read the room."

I actually felt the discussion was pretty solid.  And here you come with the same old "Trump is bad."  

At what point do you get tired of logging in to type the same stuff?  I get it.  Trump is bad, and Dems are just fantastic.  

But it's just not worth coming here to rehash the "my side good, your side bad" over and over.
Click to expand...
So sorry for speaking the truth. So sorry if it it somehow ruined the thread for you.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
So sorry for speaking the truth. So sorry if it it somehow ruined the thread for you.
Click to expand...
Right.  You’re justified in being an @$$ because Orange Man bad.  People who don’t believe like you are the ones in the wrong and should stop the division. 
 

But you should keep being a ##### because  your side is in the right.

Good thread @Joe Bryant

 
Joe Bryant said:
That's how I see it too.

It feels like it used to be people could have different opinions on something. And there was some sort of understood acceptance the other person was a good person.

Even on delicate or hot topics.

But now it seems like if you have "the other" view, you're evil.

And regardless of the issue or the side, the answer is ALWAYS, "Well they started it".  

It's like we've reverted as society from adults to spoiled brat children.
Click to expand...
We used to have a difference of opinions. I’d say “we need to get off fossil fuels because they are finite and pollute, and we rely on foreign supplies” and maybe you’d say “it would sink businesses to invest in the technology needed to do it” and we’d discuss it the merits of the idea. Now, in order to have that discussion, we first have to argue about whether windmills cause cancer. And when I say “there’s no proof of that” the response is “of course not you only watch cnn.” This goes the other way as well, but how do you argue with someone who is showing you Breitbart opinion articles as their proof? If you read Breitbart and believe their stories, how do you argue with someone who thinks a document from an official office would be truthful when the deep state is tied into everything?

 
Leroy Hoard said:
So sorry for speaking the truth. So sorry if it it somehow ruined the thread for you.
Click to expand...
It didn't ruin the thread for anyone. But it's not really where I'd love for the thread to go.

What you're describing is an example of what's wrong. I think we all get that.  We have plenty of threads that are mostly "Trump is terrible". Please take that to one of those.

What I'd love to see is moving towards what can fix the bigger problem of how we stop making disagreement = evil.  It's not easy. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
It didn't ruin the thread for anyone. But it's not really where I'd love for the thread to go.

What you're describing is an example of what's wrong. I think we all get that.  We have plenty of threads that are mostly "Trump is terrible". Please take that to one of those.

What I'd love to see is moving towards what can fix the bigger problem of how we stop making disagreement = evil.  It's not easy. 
Click to expand...
Something that is not evil can still be wrong.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Trump didn't start this trend, that much I will agree with.

But have we ever had  a President that has relished the division as much as this guy?  Literally spends his days pounding away at Twitter saying divisive things as much as he possibly can. Always playing to his ever shrinking base.

Show me the "both sides equally" on that one.
Click to expand...
Yep, remember when republicans dragged the girl scouts for pointing out that ACB was the 5th woman appointed to the supreme court? 

Oh....wait....

 
jm192 said:
You’re right and the rest of us are just wrong and dumb.  Thanks for stopping by and imparting the knowledge on us.  Feel free to visit the other threads.
Click to expand...
Why add this stuff though?  Is that part of the solution?  I see this constantly too...and I don't think it furthers any discussion to jump to the complete extreme with something that wasn't even claimed.

Can we all just not react to the extreme when we disagree with someone?  And by we all I am including myself.

 
sho nuff said:
Why add this stuff though?  Is that part of the solution?  I see this constantly too...and I don't think it furthers any discussion to jump to the complete extreme with something that wasn't even claimed.

Can we all just not react to the extreme when we disagree with someone?  And by we all I am including myself.
Click to expand...
I made 3 or 4 posts about the problems and why I post less.  I had several good interactions.  The thread has been really positive and I had hope that we might actually see some progress.

Then here comes someone who more or less says, “but I should act that way because Trump is just so bad it’s justified.”

He goes on to double down two or three times.  We’re not going to make any progress.  Some people don’t want any discussion other than “I’m right you’re wrong.”  So I’ll let him be right and move on.

I was really excited when I stumbled onto the PSF.  At first I enjoyed the back and forth.  Then I realized more often than not the argument always devolves into Trump bad, Republicans bad, Democrats bad. 
 

And while I appreciate the discourse.  At some point we’ve had it.  Just make your avatar red or blue and we’ll know your stance.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think that's exactly it. 

For a huge portion of it, there is no point. It's just spinning around wasting time. 

Worse, I feel some responsibility as I'm enabling it.

Even worse, many of these folks seem like smart and capable people who would be able to do real good in the world advancing their cause if they weren't wasting time here. 

Now I suppose the argument is people should be able to waste time however they like. My problem is I feel like I'm enabling the time wasting. AND these people appear capable of tons more. 

And sorry to be venting my worries in public. Just thinking out loud. 
Click to expand...
There are some people here who have over 300 pages of Trump only posts at 25 posts per page. That is not counting the other stuff.  That is not counting reading all the other stuff. So we are talking hundreds and hundreds of hours invested into talking about Trump to strangers. I am not a Trump fan but I never really think about him until I go into the PSF.

I come here first to read about football, the Shark Pool and for my membership.  I can only handle 5 minutes at a time in the PSF.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat said:
There are some people here who have over 300 pages of Trump only posts at 25 posts per page. That is not counting the other stuff.  That is not counting reading all the other stuff. So we are talking hundreds and hundreds of hours invested into talking about Trump to strangers. I am not a Trump fan but I never really think about him until I go into the PSF.

I come here first to read about football, the Shark Pool and for my membership.  I can only handle 5 minutes at a time in the PSF.
Click to expand...
You're part of a majority. But that majority is over whelmed by the volume of the partisans that dominate all 'conversations.'

 
MAC_32 said:
You're part of a majority. But that majority is over whelmed by the volume of the partisans that dominate all 'conversations.'
Click to expand...
I agree.   

When I post in a thread and then go back to work or be with my family sometimes I don`t even check in until the next day.  By then the same 5-10 people have put me 3 pages behind.  I think those are the guys JB is talking about.

 
As a participant in meaningful discussion, a few things must occur:

1. Refrain from insults, name-calling, snark, hostile emojis/laughing smiley or otherwise incendiary responses. Disagree nicely.

2. Be willing to admit when you’re wrong, or when there are gaps in your knowledge. None of us are infallible or all-knowing.

3. Even if you don’t agree 100%, acknowledge validity of opposing viewpoints.

4. Recognize when a discussion is nonproductive, and disengage from the back-and-forth. An “agree to disagree” emoji might help:  :hifive: :rant: :hifive:

5. If all else fails, the ignore function helps. I try to minimize it, as I believe it contributes to the potential for an echo chamber, but unfortunately a few posters are insufferable. But this site really is pretty good at weeding out bad behavior.

6. Work on improving empathy. Ask yourself, “what would it take to accept an opposing viewpoint?” If the answer is nothing, there’s no good reason to argue IMO.

To be clear, I do not abide by all these rules all the time. But I’m trying to do better, and hope others are as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
But this highlights the disconnect.  

Someone decide that a policy is indefensible and if someone agrees with it, they're immoral.  

Health Care as an example:

The ACA is getting a lot of attention the last few weeks with the ACB nomination.  And Democrats love to say if you're against the ACA, you don't want little girls with brain tumors to live.  C'mon.

There are reasonable concerns to have with the ACA.  And it should be acceptable to express those concerns and discuss it.  But it quickly turns into:  "So, you don't want little girls with brain tumors to get life-saving treatments?!"  "Should sickness bankrupt you?!"  "Why do you hate the poor?"

And so when you paint it as "What do you mean you hate little girls with brain tumors?"  Yes, you make people look immoral.  But you don't understand the problems with the ACA that concern people.  You don't further any discussion of how to improve health care.  You've called the other guy an @$$hole, and made him believe that you're one as well.  

It's absurd.  Let's take all of the emotional points, and challenges to your morality out and just discuss health care.  
Click to expand...
I don't know why my response to you was deleted...hopefully you got to read it before it died.  I'm not going to repost it because I don't know why it was deleted.  I'll just say I thought we were having good dialogue and I've always had good encounters with jm192 here.  I'll just say that these sorts of things you bring up here aren't what I had in mind with my comments above.  We agree 100% on these kinds of comments.  Whether it's "why do you like to kill babies?" or "Why do you hate the poor?"...those kinds of things are nonsense regardless of who they are coming from.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to get rid of the blame / defend cycle get you can start by getting rid of Pelosi, McConnell and the the majority of congress that are more interested in party than the good of the country.   They need to learn to propose bills with less pork and be willing to compromise for the common good.

 
Terminalxylem said:
4. Recognize when a discussion is nonproductive, and disengage from the back-and-forth. An “agree to disagree” emoji might help:  :hifive: :rant: :hifive:
Click to expand...
Yes, the back-and-forth, to me, is worse than when I think someone has an opinion that makes no sense or that I think is possibly even a lie or trolling. Let. It. Go.

I've been thinking recently about the phrase "agree to disagree". The phrase makes it sound like we need both parties to agree to something (that there's a disagreement and it is ok). But, that's really not needed in order for me to walk away and be ok with the situation. I prefer something like, "I'm ok that we disagree," or even "I'm ok that you think that about me and are misunderstanding, or even misrepresenting, my position." 

 
Terminalxylem said:
As a participant in meaningful discussion, a few things must occur:

1. Refrain from insults, name-calling, snark, hostile emojis/laughing smiley or otherwise incendiary responses. Disagree nicely.

2. Be willing to admit when you’re wrong, or when there are gaps in your knowledge. None of us are infallible or all-knowing.

3. Even if you don’t agree 100%, acknowledge validity of opposing viewpoints.

4. Recognize when a discussion is nonproductive, and disengage from the back-and-forth. An “agree to disagree” emoji might help:  :hifive: :rant: :hifive:

5. If all else fails, the ignore function helps. I try to minimize it, as I believe it contributes to the potential for an echo chamber, but unfortunately a few posters are insufferable. But this site really is pretty good at weeding out bad behavior.

6. Work on improving empathy. Ask yourself, “what would it take to accept an opposing viewpoint?” If the answer is nothing, there’s no good reason to argue IMO.

To be clear, I do not abide by all these rules all the time. But I’m trying to do better, and hope others are as well.
Click to expand...
Do you follow some of these threads at all?  Nobody accepts any opposing views here.

 
Summer Wheat said:
Do you follow some of these threads at all?  Nobody accepts any opposing views here.
Click to expand...
I fully accept I may be too naive but I think accepting other views is part of a bigger approach including some of the other points he listed. 

It's not just accepting opposing views. It's being rational. It's trying to understand the "other" side. It's making it less aggressive. It's a lot of things. 

But nearly all of them involve some effort. Where just being a tool and slamming everything is easy. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I fully accept I may be too naive but I think accepting other views is part of a bigger approach including some of the other points he listed. 

It's not just accepting opposing views. It's being rational. It's trying to understand the "other" side. It's making it less aggressive. It's a lot of things. 

But nearly all of them involve some effort. Where just being a tool and slamming everything is easy. 
Click to expand...
Agree...I think being rational is a big thing and having respect for others.  That is hard...I know it...I struggle with it with some for sure. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I fully accept I may be too naive but I think accepting other views is part of a bigger approach including some of the other points he listed. 

It's not just accepting opposing views. It's being rational. It's trying to understand the "other" side. It's making it less aggressive. It's a lot of things. 

But nearly all of them involve some effort. Where just being a tool and slamming everything is easy. 
Click to expand...
I am with you.   I have read your posts the last year so I know you have tried.   Much easier said than done though

 
Joe Bryant said:
Summer Wheat said:
Do you follow some of these threads at all?  Nobody accepts any opposing views here.
Click to expand...
I fully accept I may be too naive but I think accepting other views is part of a bigger approach including some of the other points he listed. 

It's not just accepting opposing views. It's being rational. It's trying to understand the "other" side. It's making it less aggressive. It's a lot of things. 

But nearly all of them involve some effort. Where just being a tool and slamming everything is easy. 
Click to expand...
I am hoping you guys really mean "nobody agrees with opposing views here"....I think that's what you mean or maybe "people aren't comfortable having opposing views".  Accepting a POV means it's something you buy into.  It's no longer "opposing".  If SW was trying to say one of the other things, then I agree and for those people it's an issue but I'd remove the "nobody".  I understand many of the opposing positions of mine...many of them I've held myself at times and because of life experiences or new information I have changed my mind.  There are some, however, I'll never understand.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
The Folly of Pandemic Censorship
2 3
Replies
127
Views
3K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
GordonGekko
WSJ: Democrats Suddenly Discover POTUS Joe Biden Is 79 Years Old (7/8/22 17:51 PST)
Replies
48
Views
995
Prinefan
P
AAABatteries
What would life be like if independents had their way?
Replies
10
Views
433
tymarsas
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top