Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How do you identify politically


How would you describe your political views?  

207 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Seriously?

I would have been shocked if that wasn't the result for this forum. 

Nationwide, he's got a 40% approval rating. 

Here, it's 3.5%

When the 4% of people here talk about this board being an echo chamber and far from representative of the whole, that's what they're talking about. They're not wrong. 

 

4%?  Are you seriously telling me that only 1 out of 25 posts here are pro Trump?  Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urbanhack said:

That's not an echo chamber IMO.

Thanks. But we'll just have to disagree there. 96% of the forum is united around the same thing.

Reading the forum, it reads exactly as I'd expect it would when 96% of the people are in agreement. 

I wish I was wrong as this lack of diversity is the biggest vulnerability of the forum. But it is what it is.

But the upside is for most everyone here, it's sweet as they get the comfortable privilege a huge majority brings. That's why I don't expect it'll change anytime soon. :shrug: 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, huthut said:

What % would you like to see? Should it be 50%? Are all opinions equally valid?

I don't know there's any magic number. It's been my experience, anytime the minority gets up to about 30% or so, things get tons more diverse and much better. I just know that 4% sucks. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know there's any magic number. It's been my experience, anytime the minority gets up to about 30% or so, things get tons more diverse and much better. I just know that 4% sucks. 

Once again, where are you getting 4%?  There are Trump fans who literally live in this forum. Never see them in the FFA or most other sub forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Once again, where are you getting 4%?  There are Trump fans who literally live in this forum. Never see them in the FFA or most other sub forums.

:confused: From the results of the poll question above. Actually it's worse than 4%. Latest is 3.38% that are Pro-Trump. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

So you believe one poll more than total posts?  

3.38% of the people polled said in this poll they were Pro Trump. That is exactly what I would have expected here. I'm not sure why this is in question. 

Are you saying posters are lying in the poll?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

3.38% of the people polled said in this poll they were Pro Trump. That is exactly what I would have expected here. I'm not sure why this is in question. 

Are you saying posters are lying in the poll?

Were voters lying in 2016?  Polls said Trump would lose.

Edited by Leroy Hoard
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Polls are rarely accurate. That fact does not have an expiration date.

In this case, we have thousands of pages of material that support the results of this poll. :shrug: 

3.38% of the people who voted here said they were pro Trump.

That feels right to me based on years of reading the forum.

But you seem to think that number is wrong for some reason. What's your opinion on what the real number is?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know there's any magic number. It's been my experience, anytime the minority gets up to about 30% or so, things get tons more diverse and much better. I just know that 96% sucks. 

That does make sense, but as a biased participant I don't know how you get there while Trump is president. Maybe if we had president Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush since 2016 there would be a much more even split. IMO supporting Trump is an emotional reaction, which puts it at odds for what I feel is a very analytical "show me the numbers" type website. I think fantasy football in general draws an analytical part of the population, it is not a random sample of the population at large like most political polls are. So when you get someone posting tweets from a literal (or I guess being generously they could just be trolling) neo-nazi in support of Trump, they get jumped on due to the source and general poor fact checking, and then it feels like they are being ganged up on when really they are posting something that is generously a distortion of what really is happening (not that non-Trump supporting posters can't also post misleading things). This is not a theoretical example, this has happened. For the record, I don't think the people posting that here are neo-nazis, but they sure have a low standard of facts when it supports their arguments. 

I personally try and post links that supporting arguments when when making a claim where that would be necessary, or at least staying around and arguing my opinion, and it is frustrating when that is very rarely reciprocated by Trump supporters. Tying into the emotional argument I mentioned previously, someone can (for example) talk about how much they love Trump because he is making America safer but they never show evidence of HOW he is making America safer. Since fantasy football is all about crunching numbers, and this is a fantasy football website, lets see some numbers.

Some examples: a post where I am posting a potentially controversial opinion, but at least trying to provide factual rationale for why I believe what I believe:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/785984-defund-the-police-update-jim-clyburn-don’t-let-our-movement-get-hijacked/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-22778110

Another example, where myself and another poster are engaged in conjecture, and I am engaged in the discussion and trying to give reasons why I believe what I believe, while they just make a post and run away when asked to provide their own rationale. How is that anything but trolling, where the post was made with disingenuous intent and no intention of supporting their argument or engaging in good faith conversation (link should go to first post of the "debate", I think there are 3 in total)?

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/786289-house-passes-bill-to-make-washington-dc-the-51st-state/?tab=comments#comment-22809973

Complaining about this forum feeling one sided feels like a double standard, where some people are forced to argue with facts and others are not, less we scare them off. There are plenty of topics where the poll results would be just as lopsided, it does not always mean it is biased.

Edited by huthut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We remember that "liberal echo chamber" and "anti-trump echo chamber" arent the same thing right?

You'd have to be insane to argue this place isn't anti trump. 

You're right - it's both.  Even if Trump gets ousted and all the Conservatives here who hated him come back to the fold, you're looking - I bet - at maybe another 5 or 10 posters total.  Still a minuscule number compared to the overall liberals here.  

I think you're seriously over-estimating the # of anti-Trump posters of the poll who identify as conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, huthut said:

That does make sense, but as a biased participant I don't know how you get there while Trump is president. Maybe if we had president Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush since 2016 there would be a much more even split. IMO supporting Trump is an emotional reaction, which puts it at odds for what I feel is a very analytical "show me the numbers" type website. I think fantasy football in general draws an analytical part of the population, it is not a random sample of the population at large like most political polls are. So when you get someone posting tweets from a literal (or I guess being generously they could just be trolling) neo-nazi in support of Trump, they get jumped on due to the source and general poor fact checking, and then it feels like they are being ganged up on when really they are posting something that is generously a distortion of what really is happening (not that non-Trump supporting posters can't also post misleading things). This is not a theoretical example, this has happened. For the record, I don't think the people posting that here are neo-nazis, but they sure have a low standard of facts when it supports their arguments. 

I personally try and post links that supporting arguments when when making a claim where that would be necessary, or at least staying around and arguing my opinion, and it is frustrating when that is very rarely reciprocated by Trump supporters. Tying into the emotional argument I mentioned previously, someone can (for example) talk about how much they love Trump because he is making America safer but they never show evidence of HOW he is making America safer. Since fantasy football is all about crunching numbers, lets see some numbers.

Some examples: a post where I am posting an opinion, but at least trying to provide factual rationale for why I believe what I believe:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/785984-defund-the-police-update-jim-clyburn-don’t-let-our-movement-get-hijacked/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-22778110

Another example, where myself and another poster are engaged in conjecture, and I am engaged in the discussion and trying to give reasons why I believe what I believe, while they just make a post and run away when asked to provide their own rationale. How is that anything but trolling, where the post was made with disingenuous intent and no intention of supporting their argument or engaging in good faith conversation (link should go to first post of the "debate", I think there are 3 in total)?

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/786289-house-passes-bill-to-make-washington-dc-the-51st-state/?tab=comments#comment-22809973

Complaining about this forum feeling one sided is feels like a double standard, where some people are forced to argue with facts and others are not, less we scare them off. There are plenty of topics where the poll results would be just as lopsided, it does not always mean it is biased.

Just couldn't resist, could you.  That's EXACTLY the problem here.

  • Love 1
  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

96% of the posts in this forum are anti trump?  Show me.

Wow.  You have to be trolling at this point.  If you can't look at the PSF and tell that it's overwhelmingly anti-Trump/liberal, I don't know how anyone is going to be able to help you.  You're just set in your ways.  96% seems about right.  Heck, I'll even spot you another 3% and say 93%.  

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BladeRunner said:

Wow.  You have to be trolling at this point.  If you can't look at the PSF and tell that it's overwhelmingly anti-Trump/liberal, I don't know how anyone is going to be able to help you.  You're just set in your ways.

Show me. Link to the 96%?

Edited by Leroy Hoard
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Just couldn't resist, could you.  That's EXACTLY the problem here.

That sentence might be a mistake and distract from the argument :shrug: Just something feels off about reading Joe complain about the bias, and I that was how I articulated it. I probably could have done a better job. 

Edited by huthut
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Wrong yet again. Math is fundamental.

It is, but you're the one saying that my 5 posts account for 4% of ALL posts in the PSF.  

You might want revisit that "Math is Fundamental" quote you just made.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Seriously?

I would have been shocked if that wasn't the result for this forum. 

Nationwide, he's got a 40% approval rating. 

Here, it's 3.5%

When the 4% of people here talk about this board being an echo chamber and far from representative of the whole, that's what they're talking about. They're not wrong. 

 

Anti Trump yes...but within that is where I disagree with some of the echo chamber talk.  We have a several that have voted republican for a while but are anti Trump now.  There are disagreements left and right even within those of us who lean left.  The progressive vs more moderate posters. 
I think much still comes down to where Trump and the GOO are today.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

You're right - it's both.  Even if Trump gets ousted and all the Conservatives here who hated him come back to the fold, you're looking - I bet - at maybe another 5 or 10 posters total.  Still a minuscule number compared to the overall liberals here.  

I think you're seriously over-estimating the # of anti-Trump posters of the poll who identify as conservative.

I'm going by the poll results coupled with my decades participation in these forums. People can make any narrative they want if their primary argument is "everyone is lying and i don't believe any of it"  :shrug:

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm going by the poll results coupled with my decades participation in these forums. People can make any narrative they want if their primary argument is "everyone is lying and i don't believe any of it"  :shrug:

Great post.  Have you talked to  @Leroy Hoard?  He could use some of your sage advice.  ;)

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. But we'll just have to disagree there. 96% of the forum is united around the same thing.

Reading the forum, it reads exactly as I'd expect it would when 96% of the people are in agreement. 

I wish I was wrong as this lack of diversity is the biggest vulnerability of the forum. But it is what it is.

But the upside is for most everyone here, it's sweet as they get the comfortable privilege a huge majority brings. That's why I don't expect it'll change anytime soon. :shrug: 

I guess to me "echo chamber" is more insidious than what goes around here.  To me that means you only seek out views that are the same as yours and only want to hear views that are the same as yours.   Just because these boards are majority liberal, that doesn't = echo chamber.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. But we'll just have to disagree there. 96% of the forum is united around the same thing.

Reading the forum, it reads exactly as I'd expect it would when 96% of the people are in agreement. 

I wish I was wrong as this lack of diversity is the biggest vulnerability of the forum. But it is what it is.

But the upside is for most everyone here, it's sweet as they get the comfortable privilege a huge majority brings. That's why I don't expect it'll change anytime soon. :shrug: 

If the theories suggested by some guys are true then these discussions should become much more balanced in January 2021 when there is no longer a reason to be anti-Trump and it's politics as normal.  I don't expect it but I don't believe everyone that says this forum isn't far left either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

If the theories suggested by some guys are true then these discussions should become much more balanced in January 2021 when there is no longer a reason to be anti-Trump and it's politics as normal.  I don't expect it but I don't believe everyone that says this forum isn't far left either.

The change will be YUGE!!!  The most wonderful change ever seen!

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I guess to me "echo chamber" is more insidious than what goes around here.  To me that means you only seek out views that are the same as yours and only want to hear views that are the same as yours.   Just because these boards are majority liberal, that doesn't = echo chamber.  

This is the typical sequence of someone going against the mob.  

1.  Post a fairly well thoughtout post.

2.  A couple of posters will give it a laughing emoji..

3.  The only response will be to try to attack the weakest point often mischacterizing it.

4.  That post will get 6 likes no matter how horrible the point is.

Most everyone in here jusy wants confirmation of their views. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

This is the typical sequence of someone going against the mob.  

1.  Post a fairly well thoughtout post.

2.  A couple of posters will give it a laughing emoji..

3.  The only response will be to try to attack the weakest point often mischacterizing it.

4.  That post will get 6 likes no matter how horrible the point is.

Most everyone in here jusy wants confirmation of their views. 

 

If you think its just the “mob that does that” you are wrong.  The laughing thing...you should check out how often that goes on outside this so called mob.

Also, I think the issue is many would disagree what was called a well thought out post.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

If you think its just the “mob that does that” you are wrong.  The laughing thing...you should check out how often that goes on outside this so called mob.

Also, I think the issue is many would disagree what was called a well thought out post.

And by many you meam the mob. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

If you think its just the “mob that does that” you are wrong.  The laughing thing...you should check out how often that goes on outside this so called mob.

Also, I think the issue is many would disagree what was called a well thought out post.

We are in the age of Trumpism where four star generals and Intel briefings are to be ignored in favor of the gut instincts of an inexperienced president with no military background or expertise. 

One solution is for some of us to lower our standards of debate.  Normally I wouldn't value an opinion if it's not supported by logic, reason, or facts.  But perhaps I just need to accept "You just feel that way because you hate Trump" or "fake news" as a legitimate counterarguments. 

The board would get along better if it went something like this:

- Hey, I think it's disgusting that Trump retweeted a video of a man yelling, "White Power!"

- Oh, you're just crying because you hate Trump.  Everything he does is wrong in your eyes.

- Got me there.  Awesome counterpoint.  You win. Let's discuss something else now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I mean if you think that, you aren’t  paying attention to what others are doing.   
And your thought  calling it a mob isnt really helping either 

Just calling it what it is.  People who study the behavior call it mob or herd mentality or group think.  You may be in denial that goes on in here and offended, but it absolutely does and is a fitting description. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

We are in the age of Trumpism where four star generals and Intel briefings are to be ignored in favor of the gut instincts of an inexperienced president with no military background or expertise. 

One solution is for some of us to lower our standards of debate.  Normally I wouldn't value an opinion if it's not supported by logic, reason, or facts.  But perhaps I just need to accept "You just feel that way because you hate Trump" or "fake news" as a legitimate counterarguments. 

The board would get along better if it went something like this:

- Hey, I think it's disgusting that Trump retweeted a video of a man yelling, "White Power!"

- Oh, you're just crying because you hate Trump.  Everything he does is wrong in your eyes.

- Got me there.  Awesome counterpoint.  You win. Let's discuss something else now. 

You're literally posting this in a thread where the polling shows that this form is overwhelmingly liberal and in an echo chamber.

In fact it's a thread YOU started under the guise of wanting to know more but turned out that you really weren't interested in anything other than hearing only your point of view.

 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

This is the typical sequence of someone going against the mob.  

1.  Post a fairly well thoughtout post.

2.  A couple of posters will give it a laughing emoji..

3.  The only response will be to try to attack the weakest point often mischacterizing it.

4.  That post will get 6 likes no matter how horrible the point is.

Most everyone in here jusy wants confirmation of their views. 

 

I find it ironic that you post some of this, especially #2 which seems to be a complaint, because about the only time I get a laugh emoji and 0 reply is from posters like GoBirds.  So that has nothing to do with "the mob", it's what happens on social media.   I contribute to this too, but I also think you overestimate how much #1 happens in these threads too.  Mostly it's a snarky comment or a quick link.  Do you think a majority of the posts are "well thought out"?    Mostly what what I see is instead of discussion about what was said, it's an argument about the source that was linked.  I am a big part of that, because like I've said before, if we can't even mildly agree on where we get our info and how to read that, it's really hard to have a fruitful discussion.   For me, I don't care at all if somebody is disagreeing with me, but I do have trouble talking to them is they are linking me to Fox and Daily Kos for their info.  

As far as #3 goes, even you and I have had talks on these lines.   We all need to get a little bit better at slowing down and asking "what did you mean by that", "how do you define X", or "if I understand you correctly..." We go back and forth in the BLM thread and have completely different definitions of things and it add to the disconnect.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Just calling it what it is.  People who study the behavior call it mob or herd mentality or group think.  You may be in denial that goes on in here and offended, but it absolutely does and is a fitting description. 

Calling posters a “mob” certainly sounds like a pejorative. It’s the type of thing that lead to a back and forth resulting in personal attacks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sho nuff said:

And your thought  calling it a mob isnt really helping either 

 

7 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

So that has nothing to do with "the mob", it's what happens on social media.   .  

 

31 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Calling posters a “mob” certainly sounds like a pejorative. It’s the type of thing that lead to a back and forth resulting in personal attacks.

 

Seems several posters have taken offense to the use of the term 'mob'.  Mob psychology is a branch of social psychology which explains the ways in which the psychology of a crowd differs from and interacts with that of the individuals.  It is a word that is used by professionals who study the group behavior.  Now that word is offensive.  But other racially charged terms like 'white privilege' coined by far-left elitists, no one in here can understand how that could possibly be offensive.  Weird, but not weird.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

 

 

 

Seems several posters have taken offense to the use of the term 'mob'.  Mob psychology is a branch of social psychology which explains the ways in which the psychology of a crowd differs from and interacts with that of the individuals.  It is a word that is used by professionals who study the group behavior.  Now that word is offensive.  But other racially charged terms like 'white privilege' coined by far-left elitists, no one in here can understand how that could possibly be offensive.  Weird, but not weird.  

the term 'mob' is different than 'mob psychology' which is what you just defined

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, djmich said:
9 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

If the theories suggested by some guys are true then these discussions should become much more balanced in January 2021 when there is no longer a reason to be anti-Trump and it's politics as normal.  I don't expect it but I don't believe everyone that says this forum isn't far left either.

The change will be YUGE!!!  The most wonderful change ever seen!

I'm not as optimistic as you guys.  I don't think it just "snaps back".  I mean, this place still can't let go of "but Obama" and he was just your average politician.....I'm pretty confident this place is going to be "but Trump" for a really long time...not to mention "anti-whichever politicians enabled him" for a long time.  From a moral perspective it's going to be a long road to hoe.  I DO think, should the GOP actually get back to legislating, that might give this place something to focus on rather than the individuals in office.  That's another large piece of this puzzle IMO.  When you give the collective legislation to focus on, there's generally pretty good discussion.  So far, the only thing provided in that area that impacts any of us directly was the tax bill which turned out exactly as we predicted it would.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Seems several posters have taken offense to the use of the term 'mob'.  Mob psychology is a branch of social psychology which explains the ways in which the psychology of a crowd differs from and interacts with that of the individuals.  It is a word that is used by professionals who study the group behavior.  Now that word is offensive.  But other racially charged terms like 'white privilege' coined by far-left elitists, no one in here can understand how that could possibly be offensive.  Weird, but not weird.  

How would you rate the dismissiveness and condescension in this post relative to the examples you're always complaining about? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...