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.
Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Jayrod
Footballguy
Oh it is absolutely there, but has a smaller platform.
The liberal portions of society have prominent voices in Hollywood, network media, popular entertainment and academia.
The conservatives have Fox News, churches, businesses and farms.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Honest question - is this what people believe about red states, or is this what we are told people believe about red states?
Also my disconnect with why Trump was that guy people rallied around when a lot of his persona was dissing people and talking down to people - including the military and poor people that you highlighted in your post.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Trump's example was one example, and RC brought up another.
This is why outlets that perpetuate this stuff are a big problem with why we are so divided and why we struggle with genuine dialogue.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I don't disagree, but that is what people in Red states believe.
The insults are real though and we all know it and it's a legit problem. I ranted about it on here multiple times when Trump won in 2016.
TLEF316
Footballguy
I guess I'll just never understand how these supposed successful (so theoretically, intelligent) people actually thought that Donald J Trump was sincere in his support of their agenda.
Was it literally as simple as "he's not insulting us to our faces"? I mean yeah....he had the discipline not to do that, I guess. But pre-President Trump was NOTORIOUS for ####ting on and exploiting the little guy. It was basically his entire business model.
It just seems so odd that nearly 50% of the population was so willing to fall for a con-man who knows JUST ENOUGH about their way of life to exploit them. I mean...same deal with Fox news. Does anyone really believe for a second that Laura Ingraham (Of Glastonbury, CT...graduate of Dartmouth) gives a damn about what's going on in rural Oklahoma?
Was it literally as simple as "he's not insulting us to our faces"? I mean yeah....he had the discipline not to do that, I guess. But pre-President Trump was NOTORIOUS for ####ting on and exploiting the little guy. It was basically his entire business model.
It just seems so odd that nearly 50% of the population was so willing to fall for a con-man who knows JUST ENOUGH about their way of life to exploit them. I mean...same deal with Fox news. Does anyone really believe for a second that Laura Ingraham (Of Glastonbury, CT...graduate of Dartmouth) gives a damn about what's going on in rural Oklahoma?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrod
Footballguy
Trump was portrayed as a successful businessman and almost none of these people consider themselves the little guy. In fact most of the most adamant supporters of Trump I know are very successful.
He also insulted Pelosi and Obama and they loved that. He called out the media and was occasionally correct. And he at least paid lip service to the military and police and church people. The left calls them names.
The rest of Trump (his lying, cheating, vile insults and boorish behavior) was then just excused and sometimes secretly celebrated.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Would they feel the same way if Trump was their son-in-law (without the success) or their boss?
Jayrod
Footballguy
Of course not, but that wasn't the choice, was it?
It was him or Hillary, remember? I'm still furious at the Dems over that choice.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
See this is what I don't see or get. I understand they believe that, but where do they believe that most of that is coming from? Are you talking mostly cancel culture stuff, or am I missing something big?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Tim was suggesting the mask thing most of the summer so easy to see what anyone on this forum would think Biden was suggesting it.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Tim was suggesting to wear a mask at all times when leaving the house? And if so, what does that have to do with Biden and his plans for the country?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Ok. Again, what does that have to do with Biden's polices as represented by Fox as in the example? Do you think a majority of "the left" would also be for what tim was proposing?
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
Well, thank you for that example. It's a good one to illustrate what I was saying.
It's not my version of the truth. There are certain facts that aren't particularly disputable. And when we start to dispute them based on fringe viewpoints, we end up where we are.
Climate change is accepted by 97-98% of scientists. The opposing 2% can't backup the claims against it. So, I disagree that for every scientist for it there is one against it. It's more like for every 50 scientists for it, you can find one against it.
Thus, that's not an argument I'm willing to indulge when we can't get behind something with that kind of consensus. There's no gray area there. And it's not being "uppity" to have that viewpoint.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t have personal influence over Joe Biden but I certainly appreciate the compliment.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Almost 150K posts and dominating every single thread it gets hard to decipher your opinion from you pushing things from other politicians. Perhaps you and Karma should discuss the divide when posters here discuss masks mandates since it's you mainly pushing that.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Sure. But why do we care about debating this? Why this need to be right about something so irrelevant?
A friend of mine loves to say “do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?”
gianmarco
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Todem
Footballguy
Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality
Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
Then a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your T.V.
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
I'm the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality
Neon lights a Nobel Prize
A leader speaks, that leader dies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set you free
You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your own god's name
I'm every person you need to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality
I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of
I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of personality
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Mookie
Footballguy
I'm ignoring politics with my Trump friends for now. If Biden and the Democrats really want to reach across the aisle, I'd like to see Congress pass some "low hanging fruit" legislation. A great first step would be a new pandemic response bill. Then maybe focus upon infrastructure. If we can move forward on those issues, perhaps we can find some common ground and build upon that foundation.
dkp993
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
While I agree you can find a few scientists who dispute climate change, it’s hardly 1:1 with credible ones who support it. Just like there is a smattering of scientists, including a few respected physicians and public health officials, who believe natural herd immunity is the best pandemic control strategy. But every major professional society, representing the overwhelming majority of climatologists and infectious disease/control experts agrees with the mainstream views on these topics.
Because there are always gray areas, 100% consensus is nearly impossible in any scientific discipline. When both “versions” can’t simultaneously be true, how do you decide which is right? At what point can an opinion be considered invalid? If your belief is diametrically opposed to the prevailing expert sentiment, how do you prove it?
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Not picking on you specifically, but the idea that liberals are guided by an emotional response to Trump, as opposed to rational rejection of his policy, is just as inaccurate as urban folks summarily dismissing rural Trump supporters as ignorant.
FTR, both Trump the person and many of his policies are horrible in the eyes of many.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Why does he have to prove it? It's okay to have the minority opinion on things. The majority in DC will figure out the actual policies. The discussions on this forum seem to always have to end with a winner and a loser, someone trying to own the other guy with zingers, or simliar nonsense.
I apologize for being too dramatic last night saying how discouraged I was about the forum.
But I am discouraged. I am discouraged that we've seemed to have lost the ability to discuss with any nuance. Where everything has to be a black or white line.
Obviously, as I said earlier, some things are easily objective. The estimated size of a crowd. That's easy. I think most of the things we talk about though aren't like that.
One can have an opinion on the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes without their opinion being "false" or "fake news".
It seems like people used to have a conversation more like this.
"This is how I see our society doing this..."
And the response be something more like,
"Ok. I see it differently. I see our society doing this..."
Instead of:
"This is how I see our society doing this..."
And the response be,
"That's false."
That's just not conducive to getting anywhere in my my opinion. In fact, I think that kind knee jerk judgment deeming the other person's opinion on a subjective topic as false is what has us where we are.
Does every fringe idea deserve merit? Of course not. I'm talking about sincere discussion with reasonable people.
I apologize for being too dramatic and I truly hope we can move forward with healing. Clearly it'll take work though.
But I am discouraged. I am discouraged that we've seemed to have lost the ability to discuss with any nuance. Where everything has to be a black or white line.
Obviously, as I said earlier, some things are easily objective. The estimated size of a crowd. That's easy. I think most of the things we talk about though aren't like that.
One can have an opinion on the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes without their opinion being "false" or "fake news".
It seems like people used to have a conversation more like this.
"This is how I see our society doing this..."
And the response be something more like,
"Ok. I see it differently. I see our society doing this..."
Instead of:
"This is how I see our society doing this..."
And the response be,
"That's false."
That's just not conducive to getting anywhere in my my opinion. In fact, I think that kind knee jerk judgment deeming the other person's opinion on a subjective topic as false is what has us where we are.
Does every fringe idea deserve merit? Of course not. I'm talking about sincere discussion with reasonable people.
I apologize for being too dramatic and I truly hope we can move forward with healing. Clearly it'll take work though.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I think you and others are talking past each other a bit. In your example, the initiation of the discussion is "This is how I see our society doing this..." and the response has come to be "That's false." I don't think anyone is denying that's an inappropriate response, and that "the problem" in this instance is the response.
Instead people are suggesting that, in large part, that's not how the conversations go these days. Rather, the initial salvo in the conversation is typically something like the Fox News headline from last night, "Biden's first priority? Require face coverings when Americans step outside their front door". What response would you suggest to that? How can any understanding or reconciliation occur in that case?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
..and at least that one is specifically focused on climate scientists. What gets lost in the shuffle a bit is when stuff like COVID hits and then you have doctors and scientists weighing in. However, are they actually epidemiologists or experts? Are they duplicated studies and findings?
That's a perfect example.
I would say, "Really? That doesn't seem right. Does it to you? Where has Biden said that was his first priority or what makes them say that?"
If the person says, "Because FOX SAID SO", then the conversation is probably done.
In lots of cases though, I've found it to be way different than that. If the person wants to have a conversation, they come back with "He said this _____________ and his chief of staff indicated ___________ and this story says day one priority will be ______________" and then maybe you have a discussion.
My fear is we never get there though because people are instantly dismissed as "fake news" or refusing to deal in "facts". Or dismissing as petty. I think there's a lot more nuance involved.
That's really all I'm saying. I'll back out here for a while as I'm buried in other work.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I was going to post something similar.
IMO what we should expect from most discussions and debates around here is a baseline fundamental starting point, and then discuss the differing ideas of how to tackle that problem. What I see more and more is starting points so far apart that the discussion can't even get going. How can we discuss the best way to tackle COVID if we don't agree that it's even serious? Same for climate change? How do we address systemic problems with race if we don't agree that these things exist? On and on and on....
Like people have said, a big part of the equation and problem arrives when people are getting their info from sources that lead with the example that you posted. How can you start an honest, fruitful discussion like that? IMO this is more prevalent on the right side of the spectrum as most of the "fake news" and railing against the mainstream media is a big thing there. But what that does is makes them more likely to find the "truth" from shoddy sources. As people have pointed out when talking about the bias charts and sites like that - you don't see the left version of channels like Fox News, Breitbart, Info Wars, etc.. used as sources of info nearly as much as you do as their right leaning counterparts.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Congressionally...yeah...in the public, its going to take time. Things are very toxic out there. Have only barely discussed it with one friend who voted Trump...and he is not what people would see as the typical all-in Trump guy. More of a reluctant Trump voter who mostly is just voting for Republican policies vs. Democratic policies. We had talks already leading up to the election with our other friend we fish with (who is a long time democrat). The Trump voting friend is the one who brought up the Four Seasons thing for us to laugh about Saturday night. He is definitely not one on the "this was stolen" train. Said his dad was at first but is more and more just saying its over lets move on (actually had run past his dad's house that afternoon and noticed his Trump sign wasn't out anymore).
But other comments on social media and to people even posting positive stories are just nasty. I had posted a story about Doug Emhoff (the 2nd Dude as some now call it and not sure why that made me laugh). A positive story of him posting the picture of he and Kamala after it was called by the networks and that he was proud of her. A story about him as a white Jewish man, and her the first woman VP-elect...and biracial and just their blended family and making it all work. And that was a sort of picture of America and the good things that happen in homes across the country. And got a few nasty comments as well.
Its also hard to heal with Ive seen several messages posted along the lines of "You all want Unity and Healing now after 4 years of acting the opposite you two faced hypocrites" And seeing that from people I would not have expected it from at all. We are so far gone and hoping its not just a never ended cycle. Biden and hopefully those wanting to move forward can ignore the vitriol and just be kind...be "understanding" as much as possible...continue to offer to help make things better.
gianmarco
Footballguy
If I had to pick 2 words from the last 4 years that have potentially caused the most damage, it's "Fake News"
I know it may sound like hyperbole, but that phrase, which essentially Trump began (I read someone else coined the phrase a couple years earlier, but not in the same context), has caused irreparable harm. I find it very, very similar to the whole anti-vaxx issue. One fraudulent article by a disreputable physician in Britain trying to link MMR vaccines to autism has caused untold damage. Money and time wasted in research repeatedly disproving the link. So much distrust for years trying to reverse that damage. We are finally there, for the most part, save a very select few.
"Fake news", now used so often to describe something that someone doesn't want to hear or get behind, has sowed so much distrust in our press and our media. Yes, there is always going to be some inherent bias, but when we can't get behind actual truths getting reported and simply yell "Fake News!", it's created this environment where the lines between truth and fiction get erased. Don't like what the economic numbers look like this quarter? Fake news. Covid spiking in a certain region due less mask use? Fake news.
I don't know if that genie can ever be put back in the bottle. I hope, over time, that things will eventually improve with respect to that. I hope that, now with Trump no longer in charge, we can decrease the use of that phrase. I think the MSM has to take some responsibility and try to avoid being too sensationalistic to help combat that. But, I'm pretty sure the damage has already been done.
And this ability to just dismiss someone or something with the simple phrase "fake news", especially when there is truth to it on either side, is going to make it difficult for many to move forward and come together. This erosion of truth is going to be difficult to repair, but I don't see things getting better until that can happen.
I know it may sound like hyperbole, but that phrase, which essentially Trump began (I read someone else coined the phrase a couple years earlier, but not in the same context), has caused irreparable harm. I find it very, very similar to the whole anti-vaxx issue. One fraudulent article by a disreputable physician in Britain trying to link MMR vaccines to autism has caused untold damage. Money and time wasted in research repeatedly disproving the link. So much distrust for years trying to reverse that damage. We are finally there, for the most part, save a very select few.
"Fake news", now used so often to describe something that someone doesn't want to hear or get behind, has sowed so much distrust in our press and our media. Yes, there is always going to be some inherent bias, but when we can't get behind actual truths getting reported and simply yell "Fake News!", it's created this environment where the lines between truth and fiction get erased. Don't like what the economic numbers look like this quarter? Fake news. Covid spiking in a certain region due less mask use? Fake news.
I don't know if that genie can ever be put back in the bottle. I hope, over time, that things will eventually improve with respect to that. I hope that, now with Trump no longer in charge, we can decrease the use of that phrase. I think the MSM has to take some responsibility and try to avoid being too sensationalistic to help combat that. But, I'm pretty sure the damage has already been done.
And this ability to just dismiss someone or something with the simple phrase "fake news", especially when there is truth to it on either side, is going to make it difficult for many to move forward and come together. This erosion of truth is going to be difficult to repair, but I don't see things getting better until that can happen.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I'm saying this once in the interest of trying to point out why "your side" isn't always right in the discussions and then I'm bowing out. I don't have the time nor energy today for the usual suspects to come in here with the same old stupid personal attacks.
First, your use of the term "anti-vaxx", or similar, usually is going to start off any discussion or debate on the wrong foot. You're labeling a group of people and it's usually meant in the form of an insult (even if you personally aren't doing that many of this board do). Second, everyone that is against vaccinating their children isn't solely because of autism. The liberal playbook to argue that is always science and autism and there are plenty of people that are against vaccines so it's not just a select few. It may be just a select few that are open about it because no one wants the liberal shaming that occurs. When many liberals start a conversation with you have to give every single damn vaccine to your child or you don't care about public safety and you're okay killing people that's a way bigger problem than "fake news". I mean, people do speak with their doctors, make their own choices based on the information they have, and don't need the stupid government dictating everything in their life. You know the same government that screws up elections, healthcare, and literally everything else they touch because everything is about money. Sorry for the rant but you should choose a better comparison than the stupid vaccine thing
timschochet
Footballguy
I’m a little distraught that I was the apparent source of your discouragement. I still am of the opinion that you misunderstood my responses last night. But even if you didn’t, I’m hardly representative of anyone else here, much less people in general. So please don’t be discouraged.
Based on what you’ve written here I want to add that we share the same goal of sincere discussion with reasonable people.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
So much this. and it's compounded with:
1. It is associated with Trump and anything that is against him. To be fair, that probably included a lot of the media - right and left. So now what most would consider good sources of info are lumped into "fake news" because they did something negative about Trump.
2. "mainstream media" seems to be some ill-defined specter that I still can't seem to get people do describe when they say that phrase. We talking CNN? Do people include BBC/PBS/Rueters in there? What?
3. Along with #2, there is more and more people getting their news from social media. I think this is going along with the theme that MSM can't be trusted, so we need to get the real truth from other sources online. This is a huge problem that I only see getting worse and is going to divide us even further.
sho nuff
Footballguy
And with #3, the frustration comes in when AP, Reuters, BBC are scoffed at...by the same who would consider PJMedia, RedState, Conservative Treehouse and the like to be legitmate sources of information.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Tim,
I think those of us born and raised and our early adulthood was during the Cold War have an exaggerated idea of "unity" being normal. I'm not the historian others are around here but I tend suspect deep divisions are the normal state. (I guess with the qualifier that maybe being a war one way or another might be the true normal state.)
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I don't think anywhere in his post was he claiming that everybody thinks exactly the same. My take was that he was pointing out how hard it is to put the toothpaste back in the tube when misinformation like that one study he cited comes out and is spread around, and how important it is for us to be able tell the difference.
I understand where you are coming from though, and your frustration.
Quick thought - I believe the positive value a statement and posture and attitude this brings is impossible to overrate. Thanks.
timschochet
Footballguy
There were deep divisions. And there were fringe groups. The John Birch Society believed that Eisenhower was a Soviet Spy.
But when Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley reported the news, no one said “fake news” or refused to believe it. People disagreed with each other but they disagreed from the same source.
Doug B
Footballguy
That's not the thrust of Gerson's article IMHO. Also IMHO -- the parts in red and blue stand alone.
whoknew
Footballguy
I honestly thought that the autism thing was the reason everyone - or at least almost everyone - chose not to vaccinate. What are the other reasons?
Doug B
Footballguy
A lot gets hung up on perceptions about the bolded.
...
I would like to add that "fringe" does not necessarily have to mean "crazy, loony, detached from reality". I think it as a literal fringe that speaks to numbers -- a big rug with a thin fringe. Surface area is 99% rug and 1% fringe.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I disagree but that's cool. It's a pretty broad brush to be sure - but a pretty consistent observation.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I think Biden will sincerely reach out and try to bridge the divide. And I think Mitch McConnell will do the exact same thing that he did with Obama; smile, and tell him to stick his liberalism where the sun don't shine, and Republican voters will cheer and deny that Biden ever tried to reach across the aisle.
Doug B
Footballguy
"The media is liberal" is an old idea and IMHO has always been broadly true in any nation with a free press. Succinctly and without detail: it's because a free press is one of the main avenues for advocating change in society. People who make a career of media work have been often drawn to that aspect the profession -- "make a difference", "change the status quo" and so on.
That's a top-of-the-mountain view. If you focus in tightly, there have always been conservative writers, commentators, and opinion leaders -- they were just heavily outnumbered.
Similar threads
