What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts? (1 Viewer)

The bigger issue to me is the vitriol that was thrown at Obama and Hillary by many of the same who are hardcore Trump supporters who then react in a scorched earht manner when you point out trumps failings. Its truly amazing to watch the contortions as folks now lambaste twitter/facebook et al and herd over to parler to enjoy a larger echo chamber of bitterness.
I honestly don't think that's an issue worth worrying about as you can't do anything about it. People are hypocritical. It's life. 

And this is EXACTLY the kind of verbal / mental "retaliation" I'm talking about. It just goes back and forth in a downward spiral until someone breaks the cycle. 

The hypocrisy of others may be frustrating. But it doesn't affect what I do. I don't let them control me like that. I've got my own struggles being hypocritical as it is. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bigger issue to me is the vitriol that was thrown at Obama and Hillary by many of the same who are hardcore Trump supporters who then react in a scorched earht manner when you point out trumps failings. Its truly amazing to watch the contortions as folks now lambaste twitter/facebook et al and herd over to parler to enjoy a larger echo chamber of bitterness.
I agree with you on this.  Conversely I never understood the hardcore support of Obama and Trump by their respective supporters. They’re human beings...they’re going to get some stuff right, they’re going to screw some stuff up.  For some reason we have come to associate the actions of our president with us.  If the guy I voted for did something wrong, that means I was wrong to vote for him.  If the guy (gender non specific form of “guy”) I didn’t vote for did something right, I was wrong for not voting for him.  And I’m never wrong.  I’m always in the right.  So it’s time to fight.

I just don’t get it.  And I’m running out of energy and brainpower to figure it out.

 
I honestly don't think that's an issue worth worrying about as you can't do anything about it. People are hypocritical. It's life. 

And this is EXACTLY the kind of verbal / mental "retaliation" I'm talking about. It just goes back and forth in a downward spiral until someone breaks the cycle. 

The hypocrisy of others may be frustrating. But it doesn't affect what I do. I don't let them control me like that. I've got my own struggles being hypocritical as it is. 
Im less concerned about the new paradigm on a personal level but on a societal and national level. Watch the Obama interview on 60 mins as well as the Farad https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/11/15/fareeds-take-trump-biden-election-transition-sot-gps-vpx.cnn piece here :  to understrand the larger implications.

 
Kind of what I did say to her and I pasted this video from a few years ago.....https://youtu.be/kNzXKYqYZWI
Sure. That's all you can do.

The bigger thing to me is have a discussion.

It's so easy to paint the other side as the most extreme. "All Liberals want free for all open borders". "All Conservatives want zero immigration ever". 

Neither of those are realistic. Or likely good positions.

So maybe we get to a point where we talk about it. And don't demonize or cancel the side instantly if they have a different opinion. 

 
I wish you all the happiness in the world. Just far far far away from me. Go to Seattle. Defund the police if you want. Turn your 8 year old into a transgender if you want. Take all the guns away in Seattle if you want. Riot all day if you want. Just far far far away from me. 
This is a big part of the problem, IMO. Who are you writing this to? Based on previous conversation in this thread, you’re writing it to Biden supporters, which means you must believe, as a general rule that Biden supporters are in favor of defunding the police, turning our children into transgenders (apparently by force), rioting, and taking away all the guns. You’ve created this villain in your own mind; it doesn’t exist in real life. 
On the other hand I’d love to go to Seattle sometime when the pandemic is over. Looks beautiful. 

 
Sure. That's all you can do.

The bigger thing to me is have a discussion.

It's so easy to paint the other side as the most extreme. "All Liberals want free for all open borders". "All Conservatives want zero immigration ever". 

Neither of those are realistic. Or likely good positions.

So maybe we get to a point where we talk about it. And don't demonize or cancel the side instantly if they have a different opinion. 
Agree 100%. The only thing is, I think they know already. 
Take @gordon gekko’s recent comments: 

1. He accuses us (Biden supporters? Anti-Trumpers?) of wanting to defund the police. Very very few of us want to defund the police. Many of us want to reform the police and do away, if we can, with institutionalized racism. But he knows this already. 
2. He writes “make your 8 year old a transgender”. Nobody I know wants to force being a transgender on anyone. But many people want transgenders to be treated with respect and dignity. But he knows this. 
3. He writes “go ahead and riot.” Most people are in favor of peaceful protest. Most peaceful protests don’t turn into riots and when they do its just wrong, full stop. But he knows this. 
4. He writes “go ahead and seize all the guns.” Most people who support gun control want what they regard as reasonable restrictions, like universal background checks and banning assault rifles. A very small minority wants to take away people’s guns that they already own. But he knows this. 
 

Conversely I know that most Trump supporters aren’t racist. Which is why I don’t spend my time pretending that they are. 

 
How are you defining retaliation? Is it retaliation to say "It's wrong to describe 78 million Joe Biden voters as anti-Christian"?
My wife fits in the pro-Biden, anti-Christian category.   That’s how she grew up.  To her credit, she has gone to church with my family and me a bunch over the years.  Our SIL is very Catholic, so she’s also had a lot more opportunity to observe, listen and participate in a non-judgmental way.   

Going to church has been eye opening for my wife.  Having a couple of serious Evangelical friends has been a huge positive for me.   A good friend who I originally met via FF is Mormon.  I’ve learned a lot from asking him questions and listening - really listening - to what he says.

If someone really struggles with being labeled “anti-Christian” because of who they voted for.....maybe go to church sometime with the most hardcore, devout Christian you know.  It’s an hour or so of your time.  Might be worth it for the experience.  We’ve found it helpful - and neither Mrs APK nor I identify with a religion.

(note:  this is not directed at you, it was more something I thought of while reading you and Joe discuss this topic.  Just wanted to share my own experience)

 
This is a big part of the problem, IMO. Who are you writing this to? Based on previous conversation in this thread, you’re writing it to Biden supporters, which means you must believe, as a general rule that Biden supporters are in favor of defunding the police, turning our children into transgenders (apparently by force), rioting, and taking away all the guns. You’ve created this villain in your own mind; it doesn’t exist in real life. 
On the other hand I’d love to go to Seattle sometime when the pandemic is over. Looks beautiful. 
How would you approach this conversation in real life?  Would you continue down this path, or would you move on to the next person, with the hope that it will probably be more productive?  I’ve basically come to the conclusion, after 45 years, that not every conversation will be with someone who is opening to hearing me.  And that’s ok.

 
How would you approach this conversation in real life?  Would you continue down this path, or would you move on to the next person, with the hope that it will probably be more productive?  I’ve basically come to the conclusion, after 45 years, that not every conversation will be with someone who is opening to hearing me.  And that’s ok.
For sure. You can't win them all. I frequently get email telling me I know nothing about Fantasy Football. :shrug:  

I get messages from people who think I'm an awful person in how I try to run the boards. :shrug:  

All you can do is what you think is right. A lot of people aren't going to agree with me. It's life. 

 
How would you approach this conversation in real life?  Would you continue down this path, or would you move on to the next person, with the hope that it will probably be more productive?  I’ve basically come to the conclusion, after 45 years, that not every conversation will be with someone who is opening to hearing me.  And that’s ok.
in real life I would change the subject (away from politics) if it was someone I knew, or terminate the conversation if it was someone I did not. 
 

But this is not real life, and one reason I appreciate this forum is that some of the constraints of real life are lifted. I do not intend to be rude to anyone here who disagrees with me and I am appreciative of the rules here against rude behavior. But on the other hand I don’t have to worry about hurting other peoples’ feelings. 

 
in real life I would change the subject (away from politics) if it was someone I knew, or terminate the conversation if it was someone I did not. 
 

But this is not real life, and one reason I appreciate this forum is that some of the constraints of real life are lifted. I do not intend to be rude to anyone here who disagrees with me and I am appreciative of the rules here against rude behavior. But on the other hand I don’t have to worry about hurting other peoples’ feelings. 
Fair enough.  You’ve always seemed like one of the nicest and most genuine people in this forum.

I guess my real question was “what are you hoping to accomplish by engaging person XYZ?” when hypothetically, person XYZ appears to deliberately miss the point.

Anyway, enjoy the discussion!

 
This is a big part of the problem, IMO. Who are you writing this to? Based on previous conversation in this thread, you’re writing it to Biden supporters, which means you must believe, as a general rule that Biden supporters are in favor of defunding the police, turning our children into transgenders (apparently by force), rioting, and taking away all the guns. You’ve created this villain in your own mind; it doesn’t exist in real life. 
On the other hand I’d love to go to Seattle sometime when the pandemic is over. Looks beautiful. 


If there are distinct living zones for conservatives and liberals, then it means liberals will have to live with and contend with the push from the most radical fringe elements of the left. And conservatives will have to live with and contend with the push from the most radical fringe elements of the right. Most conservatives won't want to go to Starbucks and have someone open carry a grenade launcher around them. But that's what the radical right will push for and conservatives will have to deal with that. Most liberals probably won't want all guns taken from them. But that's what the radical left will push for and liberals will have to deal with that.

I'm not creating a villain in my mind. I'm saying the country will be more peaceful for you, as a liberal, if you didn't have to contend with living near conservatives you didn't like and fringe radical lefties you didn't like at the same time. Living in different places reduces your problem, it doesn't eliminate it. But the same flips for the right side of the spectrum.

I assure you, if people had to declare their political affiliation and you had to live in a zone like Seattle mixed in with the radical lefties, and the only option would be to live with other declared liberals in liberal zones, you would eventually have to face the cancel culture calls to take all your guns, transgender up 8 year old kids and defunding the police.  Each side would be FORCED to live with the most radical elements of their own spectrum. This would naturally push most of the left into moderate positions and most of the right into moderate positions. Only then will actual open dialogue happen.

I have nothing against you Tim. But the easy way to have no more arguments is to separate everyone. We teach kids this. Some kids you aren't going to get along with so go play with someone else.

 
This is a big part of the problem, IMO. Who are you writing this to? Based on previous conversation in this thread, you’re writing it to Biden supporters, which means you must believe, as a general rule that Biden supporters are in favor of defunding the police, turning our children into transgenders (apparently by force), rioting, and taking away all the guns. You’ve created this villain in your own mind; it doesn’t exist in real life. 
On the other hand I’d love to go to Seattle sometime when the pandemic is over. Looks beautiful. 
You've never been to Seattle?  Oh man, it's terrific!  Top 5 US city for sure.  Traffic is awful, but Seattle in the summer is a treat. 

 
If there are distinct living zones for conservatives and liberals, then it means liberals will have to live with and contend with the push from the most radical fringe elements of the left. And conservatives will have to live with and contend with the push from the most radical fringe elements of the right. Most conservatives won't want to go to Starbucks and have someone open carry a grenade launcher around them. But that's what the radical right will push for and conservatives will have to deal with that. Most liberals probably won't want all guns taken from them. But that's what the radical left will push for and liberals will have to deal with that.

I'm not creating a villain in my mind. I'm saying the country will be more peaceful for you, as a liberal, if you didn't have to contend with living near conservatives you didn't like and fringe radical lefties you didn't like at the same time. Living in different places reduces your problem, it doesn't eliminate it. But the same flips for the right side of the spectrum.

I assure you, if people had to declare their political affiliation and you had to live in a zone like Seattle mixed in with the radical lefties, and the only option would be to live with other declared liberals in liberal zones, you would eventually have to face the cancel culture calls to take all your guns, transgender up 8 year old kids and defunding the police.  Each side would be FORCED to live with the most radical elements of their own spectrum. This would naturally push most of the left into moderate positions and most of the right into moderate positions. Only then will actual open dialogue happen.

I have nothing against you Tim. But the easy way to have no more arguments is to separate everyone. We teach kids this. Some kids you aren't going to get along with so go play with someone else.
Do you really think that defunding the police (which is really a reallocation of public resources) and allowing parents to make decisions about their transgender kids at age 8 are radical policies? 

 
Why do you think this is a unique perspective?  I would think most people know folks on either side of the aisle.  🤷‍♂️
I would hope it's not unique. In my experience it seems like people don't have as much real life friendly interaction with a broad spectrum as I do. But that's just my perception. And I hope I'm wrong. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, so you want government sponsored universal coverage, with supplemental private insurance for those who can afford it? I don't think that is an ideal solution for our out-of-control healthcare costs, but a heck of a lot better than trusting the corporate world to take care of it on their own.

And all doctors should be required to accept whatever flavor of Medicare you're endorsing, as it is inconsistent with medical ethics to deny people access to care based on inability to pay.
This is America, you can open a practice that doesn't accept Medicare.  But you better be the best doctor in the world that people will pay your price.

Now drug costs. Usa usa.....pay more than the rest of the world. Such a scam.

 
Why do you think this is a unique perspective?  I would think most people know folks on either side of the aisle.  🤷‍♂️
I don’t think it’s unique, but believe it’s a little unusual to have many close friends on both sides of the political spectrum. Extended family and acquaintances? Sure. But not good friends IMO.

I can only speak from my own experience, where none of my friends or coworkers openly support Trump. The only Trump supporters I know are older family members who are lifelong republicans or single issue voters, especially pro-life.

And to be clear, I have many friends from diverse backgrounds, except the non-college educated rural demographic, which overwhelmingly skews Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is America, you can open a practice that doesn't accept Medicare.  But you better be the best doctor in the world that people will pay your price.

Now drug costs. Usa usa.....pay more than the rest of the world. Such a scam.
Respectfully disagree. Not only is it unethical to deny patients based on ability to pay, it’s abusive of your peers who accept Medicare/caid, as it forces their practices to be overrun with patients offering poor reimbursement. The end result is we have a shortage of providers who take care of such patients, likely impacting their quality of care and contributing to provider burnout.

 
Respectfully disagree. Not only is it unethical to deny patients based on ability to pay, it’s abusive of your peers who accept Medicare/caid, as it forces their practices to be overrun with patients offering poor reimbursement. The end result is we have a shortage of providers who take care of such patients, likely impacting their quality of care and contributing to provider burnout.
So weak.  

How unethical is it to not provide care for tens of millions. 

 
By your standards, we take care of the people that pay well.  The richest country ever can't figure this out while everyone one else has.  Are people in Europe or Canada fighting for the American Healthcare system to be implemented there?  Please show me.

 
Do you really think that defunding the police (which is really a reallocation of public resources) and allowing parents to make decisions about their transgender kids at age 8 are radical policies? 


I believe if you had cities that only had conservative minded, they don't have to deal with those questions. They can focus their time and energy somewhere else. But of course they would have their own new set of problems in conservative only zones.

As for liberals, how radical and how conflicting those two specific issues become are now their problems for their cities and their zones. That would be an argument you can have with your liberal neighbors, city council members, schools, police departments, hospitals, etc, etc.

Partisan **** measuring contests are often an issue of basic logistics. I like Matt Waldman, so I read what he says about football. I respect his views and I like how he goes about engaging the community. I don't like Jason Wood, so I make sure to avoid him.  I think a lot of Eagles fans are caustic so I stay out of Eagles dedicated threads. There are restaurants where I didn't like the service so I didn't go back. There are local businesses where I pay a little more because I want to support small businesses that give jobs to fellow Americans and support the local community. We all make decisions every single day to opt in or opt out.

Who do people tend to get a long with in life? People like themselves. Who grew up in the same neighborhoods, came through the same schools, had the same kind of upbringing, immersed in the same kind of culture, etc, etc, etc.

I wish lefties all the happiness in the world. Far away from me. I recognize them as Americans but it doesn't mean I need to have unity with them on every single issue. It doesn't mean I need to spend time and energy to find middle ground with folks who simply have a different, not better and not worse just different, value structure and system than I do.

I've lived in heavily conservative areas and also in heavily liberal areas. Neither is a walk in the park. Both sides have drawbacks. But like all the rest of real life you have to pick your poison. Honestly I think my idea is going to reduce massive conflict. Give a three year immunity on capital gains taxes on single home property sales with the specific intent to move to a designated liberal or conservative zone. Then you are stuck only living in zones listed by your political preference. If you live in Seattle, you can move to SF, but you can't move to Texas or Florida.

If I can't change your mind, I can surely change your address. The latter will get you out of my face faster than the former. Nothing personal.

 
So weak.  

How unethical is it to not provide care for tens of millions. 
It is unethical to refuse necessary care based on inability to pay. IMO insurance information should be censored from healthcare providers, so it doesn’t influence treatment decisions.

By your standards, we take care of the people that pay well.  The richest country ever can't figure this out while everyone one else has.  Are people in Europe or Canada fighting for the American Healthcare system to be implemented there?  Please show me.
No, I think we should take care of everyone in need. Our healthcare system is mediocre at best, and definitely not something others should emulate.

But I don’t believe this is the type of healing the OP was referring to. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe if you had cities that only had conservative minded, they don't have to deal with those questions. They can focus their time and energy somewhere else. But of course they would have their own new set of problems in conservative only zones.

As for liberals, how radical and how conflicting those two specific issues become are now their problems for their cities and their zones. That would be an argument you can have with your liberal neighbors, city council members, schools, police departments, hospitals, etc, etc.

Partisan **** measuring contests are often an issue of basic logistics. I like Matt Waldman, so I read what he says about football. I respect his views and I like how he goes about engaging the community. I don't like Jason Wood, so I make sure to avoid him.  I think a lot of Eagles fans are caustic so I stay out of Eagles dedicated threads. There are restaurants where I didn't like the service so I didn't go back. There are local businesses where I pay a little more because I want to support small businesses that give jobs to fellow Americans and support the local community. We all make decisions every single day to opt in or opt out.

Who do people tend to get a long with in life? People like themselves. Who grew up in the same neighborhoods, came through the same schools, had the same kind of upbringing, immersed in the same kind of culture, etc, etc, etc.

I wish lefties all the happiness in the world. Far away from me. I recognize them as Americans but it doesn't mean I need to have unity with them on every single issue. It doesn't mean I need to spend time and energy to find middle ground with folks who simply have a different, not better and not worse just different, value structure and system than I do.

I've lived in heavily conservative areas and also in heavily liberal areas. Neither is a walk in the park. Both sides have drawbacks. But like all the rest of real life you have to pick your poison. Honestly I think my idea is going to reduce massive conflict. Give a three year immunity on capital gains taxes on single home property sales with the specific intent to move to a designated liberal or conservative zone. Then you are stuck only living in zones listed by your political preference. If you live in Seattle, you can move to SF, but you can't move to Texas or Florida.

If I can't change your mind, I can surely change your address. The latter will get you out of my face faster than the former. Nothing personal.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that every person who is "conservative minded" thinks like you do.   You wouldn't have to deal with that issue right up until there are people in your zone want a different way to police or maybe have a transgender child.  Those people have to movie out even if they agree with most other of the conservative views?  Are you allowing only conservative media into your zone too?

 
I believe if you had cities that only had conservative minded, they don't have to deal with those questions. They can focus their time and energy somewhere else. But of course they would have their own new set of problems in conservative only zones.

As for liberals, how radical and how conflicting those two specific issues become are now their problems for their cities and their zones. That would be an argument you can have with your liberal neighbors, city council members, schools, police departments, hospitals, etc, etc.

Partisan **** measuring contests are often an issue of basic logistics. I like Matt Waldman, so I read what he says about football. I respect his views and I like how he goes about engaging the community. I don't like Jason Wood, so I make sure to avoid him.  I think a lot of Eagles fans are caustic so I stay out of Eagles dedicated threads. There are restaurants where I didn't like the service so I didn't go back. There are local businesses where I pay a little more because I want to support small businesses that give jobs to fellow Americans and support the local community. We all make decisions every single day to opt in or opt out.

Who do people tend to get a long with in life? People like themselves. Who grew up in the same neighborhoods, came through the same schools, had the same kind of upbringing, immersed in the same kind of culture, etc, etc, etc.

I wish lefties all the happiness in the world. Far away from me. I recognize them as Americans but it doesn't mean I need to have unity with them on every single issue. It doesn't mean I need to spend time and energy to find middle ground with folks who simply have a different, not better and not worse just different, value structure and system than I do.

I've lived in heavily conservative areas and also in heavily liberal areas. Neither is a walk in the park. Both sides have drawbacks. But like all the rest of real life you have to pick your poison. Honestly I think my idea is going to reduce massive conflict. Give a three year immunity on capital gains taxes on single home property sales with the specific intent to move to a designated liberal or conservative zone. Then you are stuck only living in zones listed by your political preference. If you live in Seattle, you can move to SF, but you can't move to Texas or Florida.

If I can't change your mind, I can surely change your address. The latter will get you out of my face faster than the former. Nothing personal.
I have plenty of conservative friends. I get along with them fabulously. I've lived in liberal dominated areas, where some some conservatives live who like it just fine. And I've lived in conservative dominated areas with liberals that like it just fine. But keep fighting the good fight, I guess.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have plenty of conservative friends. I get along with them fabulously. I've lived in liberal dominated areas, where some some conservatives live who like it just fine. And I've lived in conservative dominated areas with liberals that like it just fine. But keep fighting the good fight, I guess.  
He’s not fighting the good fight. Segregation based on political or cultural ideology is a horrible idea. 

 
You seem to be operating under the assumption that every person who is "conservative minded" thinks like you do.   You wouldn't have to deal with that issue right up until there are people in your zone want a different way to police or maybe have a transgender child.  Those people have to movie out even if they agree with most other of the conservative views?  Are you allowing only conservative media into your zone too?


These are more than fair questions

1) I did say this situation would create a new set of problems

2) I did say it wouldn't be easy, there would still be conflict. The goal is to reduce massive conflict but accept no one can avoid all conflict.

3) People can vote for how they want to be governed in these zones. Would Texas support "Defund The Police" ( I think not personally but vote on it) Do they want their 8 year old to have the option to go transgender or do they want the person to become a legal adult before that decision is made? Vote on it.

4) There would be multiple conservative and liberal zones. Maybe Florida is more appealing for a different leaning of conservative than Texas. Maybe Seattle is a different leaning of liberal than San Francisco. My take is the spectrum of liberal would naturally filter into different zones and become strongholds for those views.  Maybe Seattle is the prime Defund The Police liberal spot but SF would not.

I may have typically conservative leanings but I also believe in as local governance. If Seattle decides it wants 8 year olds and their families to be transgender, then so be it. If they vote for it. If you want that to be your single issue driving your family decision, then apply to switch from conservative to liberal into that zone. But there would be an exit tax after first initial declaration and you couldn't vote for two years in that zone if your application is accepted. And zones would have the right to refuse you to switch to live in their zones.

My point is nothing is perfect but obviously logistics would need to be worked out on a deeper level.

Do I think there should be some kind of media control? No. If people want to turn on CNN, let them. If they want to turn on OANN, let them. If they love Chris Cuomo, let them. If they love Ben Shapiro, let them.

Here's the reality. You pick your poison in life. You won't find a place that lines up with you 100 percent politically. But what about 90 percent?  Again, if there is a single issue situation ,  a person of their family has to weigh that out. Is that one issue more than the 90 percent? I can't speak for you or that person. Maybe it is and maybe the trade offs are worth it.

You've asked more than fair questions. How would you see the best way to resolve your questions if you were in charge of a system that had conservative or liberal only zones?  What is your deeper thinking on this?

 
He’s not fighting the good fight. Segregation based on political or cultural ideology is a horrible idea. 


Who is one of the most respected analysts at FBG over time?

Jene Bramel.

I've never heard a bad work about Dr Bramel here. Only praise and respect. And he's earned it.

Does Bramel argue with people? Never. He simply says the games will be played and everyone will find out, and people who disagree will either be proven right or wrong given time and games played. He NEVER argues with people.

That's all I'm pushing for, a logistical situation that accepts political differences and putting people in a situation that limits the arguments. You no longer have two factions in a big city going to war politically and spending their time and energy there. You go to a place where there's a good chance 90 percent of the people see 90 percent of the politics like you do and you can focus then on building a better life instead of the typical partisan **** measuring contest. Then people can start to look at how to build better schools locally, youth programs, helping the needy, focusing on improving the community outreach.

Tim, what's your genius idea? Have everyone sing campfire songs and argue it out over and over again and have it get nowhere? Because that's what happens now?

That you have to be friends with everyone happens in cartoons, not real life.

No more arguments, liberals can't say conservatives are stealing something from them or cheating them out of something, you liberals can have it EXACTLY YOUR WAY ALL THE TIME. Just without conservative minded people living there and the removal of their skills and local tax dollars. You want to defund the police? No arguments. Do it. See how it works out when you have a social worker roll up on the scene and gets stabbed to death. But if it happens, don't complain about it. You got it how you wanted it. Eat the whole meal. Same for conservatives. You want open carry and two guys get into a firefight over a parking spot with automatic weapons? Don't complain about it. You got it how you wanted it. Eat the whole meal.

No arguments. Live where you can get your politics and policy most of how you want it. But live with it.  SF is liberal all the way to the bone. Also they've essentially decriminalized petty theft to the point that a ton of Walgreens closed down. Now local people can't get their medicine, and that punishes elderly people who don't have cars and who might not be very mobile otherwise. But those elderly will walk miles through streets covered in feces, homeless and used needles.  You wanted it? You voted for it? Live with it. Don't complain to me. I won't care because I will live somewhere else. Have your own digs where you can be as Beta as you want to be Tim, with no arguments.

Have it your way. Live with it. Own it. Eat the whole meal. But shut up about it. BOTH sides of the spectrum.

Call it "segregation" Tim, call it an inciting term because you are neck deep in political tribalism. "But people should not be divided!"  Where are we having this discussion? On a football board where people naturally separate based on local sports teams. People are divided NATURALLY no matter what you do. My stance is the same, let people vote first and foremost with their feet and with their wallet.

 
Here is the question no one is asking.

Is this "healing and moving forward" worth your time?  Maybe the one singular thing everyone here can agree with is your most precious resource in life is time. It's so valuable. I don't see it as a productive use of time to try to convince someone to think like I do if their value system is different. Not better and not worse, just different.

Silence and ghosting people to me is healing and moving forward. You acknowledge that both sides have better ways to use their time. People choose friends this way. No one tries to be friends with everyone. You stick to your own group where you share values and bonding rituals.

We were never designed to be "one tribe", the problem is not that there are two tribes, the problem is that the two tribes are mixed in proximity to each other. I think there is plenty of healing and moving forward to be had if people came to terms with letting the liberals have Seattle and letting the conservatives have Texas.

Nearly all people are just not worth my time. And I'm not worth the time of nearly all other people if you flip it around. Live and let live is about as much peace as anyone needs. What did Mario Puzo say about Don Corleone and Don Tattaglia? They weren't going to send Xmas cards, but they wouldn't keep killing each others sons and that had to be enough.

I wish you all the happiness in the world. Just far far far away from me. Go to Seattle. Defund the police if you want. Turn your 8 year old into a transgender if you want. Take all the guns away in Seattle if you want. Riot all day if you want. Just far far far away from me. Good luck to you. And stay away from my stomping grounds and I'll stay away from yours. We won't send Xmas cards but we won't kill each other, and that has to be enough.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself.  It's worth it to me if there is mutual agreement to meet halfway.  That's my only condition.  People not willing to do that, I am not wasting time on any longer.  That applies to all things, not just politics.  I know I am not changing minds and that's never my goal anymore so I'll always start a conversation in good faith, but if it's clear that's not reciprocated, then I'm cutting bait and moving on.  It's time to focus on the things we agree on and work towards solutions in those areas.

 
I have no idea and I don't remember reading anything from that poster before.  I just hate the condescending attacks on the folks that have different opinions than you.
It's been a shared alias for 15+ years.  The shtick ran its course years ago and now, it's just trying too hard.  

Plus, we aren't supposed to use alias accounts, right @Don't Noonan?  As a guy who just told somebody else to play by the house rules, I find this business a tad askew.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been a shared alias for 15+ years.  The shtick ran its course years ago and now, it's just trying too hard.  

Plus, we aren't supposed to use alias accounts, right @Don't Noonan?  As a guy who just told somebody else to play by the house rules, I find this business a tad askew.
To be perfectly clear, I haven't read more than one line of any of the posts by GG lately.  I have no idea what "opinion" he's even taking.  Like you said, whoever it is is trying too hard.  They can have at it, though.  I'd rather read Mr. Ishida's Bookstore again before venturing into those posts.

 
I don't want to turn this into church but reading this morning and this seemed relevant. 

For you non church guys, the book of Romans is a key book of the bible for Christians on how we should live. It was written after Jesus lived by the Apostle Paul.

‭‭Romans‬ ‭12:9-19‬ ‭NLT‬‬

“Don’t just pretend to love others. Really love them. Hate what is wrong. Hold tightly to what is good. Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other. Never be lazy, but work hard and serve the Lord enthusiastically. Rejoice in our confident hope. Be patient in trouble, and keep on praying. When God’s people are in need, be ready to help them. Always be eager to practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you. Don’t curse them; pray that God will bless them. Be happy with those who are happy, and weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with each other. Don’t be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don’t think you know it all!

Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honorable. Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.

Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the Lord.”



 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't speak for anyone other than myself.  It's worth it to me if there is mutual agreement to meet halfway.  That's my only condition.  People not willing to do that, I am not wasting time on any longer.  That applies to all things, not just politics.  I know I am not changing minds and that's never my goal anymore so I'll always start a conversation in good faith, but if it's clear that's not reciprocated, then I'm cutting bait and moving on.  It's time to focus on the things we agree on and work towards solutions in those areas.


That's a very practical personal policy.

But here is where the rubber meets the road. If you engage with 100 people and your rate of positive return is like X number of people, where will the rate of returns be low enough where it's not worth it to engage those 100 potentials?  I guess I can't answer that for you, but the question of diminishing returns has to be a factor in general.

I agree, it's good to to have views around you that don't always agree. It's good to see the world in a different light and this is a good way to learn about the world, others and yourself. However, where is the line between open viewpoints and actual value systems? What if you can mutually agree to discuss with someone across the aisle but their value system is simply incompatible to how you want to live life/have local public policy?

These are obviously difficult questions. Thank you for engaging.

 
I honestly don't think that's an issue worth worrying about as you can't do anything about it. People are hypocritical. It's life. 

And this is EXACTLY the kind of verbal / mental "retaliation" I'm talking about. It just goes back and forth in a downward spiral until someone breaks the cycle. 

The hypocrisy of others may be frustrating. But it doesn't affect what I do. I don't let them control me like that. I've got my own struggles being hypocritical as it is. 
This is how I feel the democratic party should act under Biden. Don't worry about the hypocrisy and bad faith arguments that a lot of the opposition is going to take NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. 

Just do good things while you have the opportunity to. You're going to be heavily criticised, whether it's for cancelling student debts or wearing tan pants, so just do the best you can for the most you can. 

 
I hope it goes without saying but I'll add to just to be super clear. When I share some verses like that from Romans, I share it as a way I TRY to operate. I fall way short of that lots of the time. That's the goal. I'm a long ways from having it all figured out or doing it right. 

 
That's a very practical personal policy.

But here is where the rubber meets the road. If you engage with 100 people and your rate of positive return is like X number of people, where will the rate of returns be low enough where it's not worth it to engage those 100 potentials?  I guess I can't answer that for you, but the question of diminishing returns has to be a factor in general.

I agree, it's good to to have views around you that don't always agree. It's good to see the world in a different light and this is a good way to learn about the world, others and yourself. However, where is the line between open viewpoints and actual value systems? What if you can mutually agree to discuss with someone across the aisle but their value system is simply incompatible to how you want to live life/have local public policy?

These are obviously difficult questions. Thank you for engaging.
This doesn't seem all that tough to do.  It's relatively easy to engage any/everyone to see where they're at and it doesn't take long to see if there's a mutual desire to engage in honest discussion or not.  So, the bold doesn't even factor in for me.  I don't assume one way or the other.  People aren't all that difficult to read.  I'd much rather engage a person who is coming from an honest place and we agree on but 1 policy objective rather than a person who agrees with me on many policy objectives are it's for purely political reasons and there's no real depth to their position.  Similarly, and I've said it here a million times, I am much more likely to have a productive conversation with someone I disagree with 100% on political positions yet come across as someone genuine who really has a stake in their position outside of talking points than I am a person who is morally bankrupt and insincere in their positions even if they are the same as mine.  So if I find 10 out of a 1000 then I'm happy that I found those 10.  It's not a wasted effort in my view.

 
I don't want to turn this into church but reading this morning and this seemed relevant. 

For you non church guys, the book of Romans is a key book of the bible for Christians on how we should live. It was written after Jesus lived by the Apostle Paul.

‭‭Romans‬ ‭12:9-19‬ ‭NLT‬‬
I know, as a Christian, I like to share the more non-controversial scriptures with others. It's easier. But, I think it helps to also point out the more radical approaches that we see in scripture. Most people will agree with "Love your neighbor" so that's an easy one to share and discuss. "Love your enemy" is much tougher and will certainly see more pushback. "Bless those who persecute" isn't going to be viewed favorably by a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian. Never take revenge? Leave that God? No way!

Earlier in Romans (5:8), it says "But Christ died for us while we were still sinners, and by this God showed us how much he loves us." When I struggle with how I view other people's opinions and actions, especially those of other Christians, it helps me to remember what God did for me despite me being his enemy:  Romans 5:10 "...while we were God's enemies, he made friends with us through his Son's death."

 
It is unethical to refuse necessary care based on inability to pay. IMO insurance information should be censored from healthcare providers, so it doesn’t influence treatment decisions.

No, I think we should take care of everyone in need. Our healthcare system is mediocre at best, and definitely not something others should emulate.

But I don’t believe this is the type of healing the OP was referring to. 
Ok agree.

 
‘Reach Out to Trump Supporters,’ They Said. I Tried.

"I do not want them to suffer, but I also refuse to spend any more time trying to understand and help the architects of my oppression."
Gee. As @Gr00vusthoughtfully pointed out above, is it any wonder why many conservative voters view liberals as sanctimonious* ##-holes?

"If Trump supporters decide they want the same, they can always reach out to me. They know where to find me. Ahead of them."

*sanctimonious - making a show of being morally superior to other people.

 
Gee. As @Gr00vusthoughtfully pointed out above, is it any wonder why many conservative voters view liberals as sanctimonious* ##-holes?

"If Trump supporters decide they want the same, they can always reach out to me. They know where to find me. Ahead of them."

*sanctimonious - making a show of being morally superior to other people.
Yeah, this thing doesn't go back together unless / until we can treat each other as human beings instead of malodorous ciphers. We won't agree on everything, but there are basic concerns we all share - and that goes not just for people in this country, but people in other countries as well. If we could focus on that, and not get so hung up on the leaf node issues, we'd have a shot at more harmony.

In the meantime, maybe you do think like whoever wrote that quote, but at least don't say it out loud, don't put it out there to make things even worse than they already are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bigger issue to me is the vitriol that was thrown at Obama and Hillary by many of the same who are hardcore Trump supporters who then react in a scorched earht manner when you point out trumps failings. Its truly amazing to watch the contortions as folks now lambaste twitter/facebook et al and herd over to parler to enjoy a larger echo chamber of bitterness.
This has been going on since the beginning of elections.....both sides do it....I find it hilarious

 
Sweet J said:
"both sides do it" is the center square of my bingo card.
I know the BOF SIDEZ thing is fun for some to mock.

I talk about both sides doing things a good bit as it helps me keep my hypocrisy in check. I see one side getting upset over something that is often very similar to the thing they just did. The reality is both sides DO do a lot of the same things. In some ways, it's frustrating. In other ways, it's encouraging as the sides have a lot in common. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top