Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts?


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

OK. We agree then. I definitely try not to be a jerk or mock those with differing ideologies. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is good, too. 

At best, I extend the courtesy initially and assume they are there for the same reason I am.  If their actions prove me wrong (which happens often) I meet them where they're at.  If people feel like I'm being a jackoff to them, I probably am because I've extended that initial courtesy, they've chosen a different path and I am meeting them where they're at.  This, of course, only happens with those who continually try to engage after I've made it clear I am done with the conversation and see where it's going.  Between that initial interaction and the last action there's typically anywhere between 6-10 interactions in between trying to see true motives.  One thing I've learned, at least here, is if they are only responding in emojis or immediately mischaracterizing words and trying to twist them, it's mostly safe to assume moving on is the only answer.  Sometimes boredom gets the best of me though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Trump should be impeached again. If he's not impeached again, he must be prosecuted. The penalty for attempting to remain in power by corruptly overturning an election cannot simply be that it di

I agree 100%.   This is the slam dunk unity moment.   Everyone show that you readily recognize insanity and sedition.  Everyone show that you put country over party.  There is no world in wh

If the republicans want healing, they can vote the right way on impeachment, a vote ensuring this kind of monstrosity of a presidency never happens again, and work their way to being a civilized party

16 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

This is important too. 

I don't see this as some kumbaya thing where cats and dogs wind up holding hands. 

There are some people who never want to unite. At least not much. And that's ok. 

What @Terminalxylem spoke of above is right. We have to be smart and make good use of our time and energy. 

So I look at things in an "effort" and "benefit" matrix. How much effort is required? And what's the benefit? It's really that simple. 

It's possible one might seek out the hardcore Make Libs Cry guy and try to convert him. But it would take a ton of effort. And have a low chance of success.

It's much less effort to be kind to your normal neighbor who voted Trump without fanfare.

And it's zero effort to not mock the Trump voter on a message board. 

For most of the things I'm talking about, the "effort" or "cost" is swallowing your ego a little and denying yourself the juicy zinger moment where you burned the other side. (which is actually pretty empty anyways). Bottom line, it's just not that much effort. 

I'm pretty on the ground in local politics, mostly liberal people in my social circle, but end up engaging directly with a lot of people who aren't as well. 

The biggest hinderance I see to making this work is the utter unwillingness to approach reality from a lot of people on the right. In Washington we have had a lot of conversation around a sex ed bill that passed last year, and the things the people on the right say about it just aren't objectively true. We've got anti-max protests where groups of right-wingers will get together and swarm a store without masks because they see masks as tyranny. It seems like the only thing they want to see is that everything people on the left or who actually have expertise are out to get them. On the national level Republicans are just making things up so they don't have to accept the reality that Biden won the election. 

It's really hard to have a conversation with someone who won't accept any truth other than what you are saying is wrong and your motives are to cause harm. I don't know how we fix this, but I'm going to continue advocating for policy that helps people regardless of their partisan convictions and doing my best to treat those I disagree with with dignity. 

Edited by The Narrator
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Narrator said:

 

The biggest hinderance I see to making this work is the utter unwillingness to approach reality from a lot of people on the right.

I think for this, it's mostly the same thing I said earlier. 

It's low effort. The other side's behavior matters way less than our behavior. 

It's mostly, "Don't be a jerk". 

Sure, there will be some effort at times for some things. 

But I'm talking about starting with things like maybe we show grace and we don't mock the other side. Or maybe we don't reply back with "F your feelings too". Or we give someone the benefit of the doubt when it costs us nothing. That's low effort. 

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

I think for this, it's mostly the same thing I said earlier. 

It's low effort. The other side's behavior matters way less than our behavior. 

It's mostly, "Don't be a jerk". 

Sure, there will be some effort at times for some things. 

But I'm talking about starting with things like maybe we show grace and we don't mock the other side. Or maybe we don't reply back with "F your feelings too". Or we give someone the benefit of the doubt when it costs us nothing. That's low effort. 

I think this approach contributed to the last 4 years. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't.

But can you elaborate on why you do?

Not really. I have so many times before, it's exhausting, there's so many reasons I'm bound to forget several meaningful ones, but above all else - it doesn't matter. The ingredients with those on the right side of the ledger vary sample-to-sample but the result is the same. Nothing their own does matters; their support remains regardless.

Only one way to handle that - call it for what it is then act accordingly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Not really. I have so many times before, it's exhausting, there's so many reasons I'm bound to forget several meaningful ones, but above all else - it doesn't matter. The ingredients with those on the right side of the ledger vary sample-to-sample but the result is the same. Nothing their own does matters; their support remains regardless.

Only one way to handle that - call it for what it is then act accordingly.

Ok. If you change your mind, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. 

In my experience, "don't be a jerk" is most always a good way to go and hasn't contributed negatively. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think for this, it's mostly the same thing I said earlier. 

It's low effort. The other side's behavior matters way less than our behavior. 

It's mostly, "Don't be a jerk". 

Sure, there will be some effort at times for some things. 

But I'm talking about starting with things like maybe we show grace and we don't mock the other side. Or maybe we don't reply back with "F your feelings too". Or we give someone the benefit of the doubt when it costs us nothing. That's low effort. 

I don't say that to blame but to try to talk through how to respond to them, because that behavior makes it tough. It's usually only productive to worry about what I can control, and for the most part that's just me, and I think that's sort of what you're getting at. I think we're saying similar things.

One lesson that I've learned is that when you're discussing policy to only discuss policy. If you start to discuss personal characteristics your odds of having a productive discussion are basically zero. "That policy has the net effect of making life harder for XYZ people" is a much different statement than "you just don't care about XYZ people" 

Being kind and showing grace is a good thing, if not simply for the sake of it because it's the only chance you have at having a productive relationship with someone, and to me whether or not they deserve it doesn't really enter into the thought process. Who do I want to be and how can I achieve the best outcome are more what I try to go for. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

Ok. If you change your mind, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. 

In my experience, "don't be a jerk" is most always a good way to go and hasn't contributed negatively. 

It's less being a jerk and more not giving the benefit of the doubt. It was given before and this was the result. Fool me once, fool me twice 

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

I don't say that to blame but to try to talk through how to respond to them, because that behavior makes it tough. It's usually only productive to worry about what I can control, and for the most part that's just me, and I think that's sort of what you're getting at. I think we're saying similar things.

One lesson that I've learned is that when you're discussing policy to only discuss policy. If you start to discuss personal characteristics your odds of having a productive discussion are basically zero. "That policy has the net effect of making life harder for XYZ people" is a much different statement than "you just don't care about XYZ people" 

Being kind and showing grace is a good thing, if not simply for the sake of it because it's the only chance you have at having a productive relationship with someone, and to me whether or not they deserve it doesn't really enter into the thought process. Who do I want to be and how can I achieve the best outcome are more what I try to go for. 

:goodposting:

 

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

Being kind and showing grace is a good thing, if not simply for the sake of it because it's the only chance you have at having a productive relationship with someone, and to me whether or not they deserve it doesn't really enter into the thought process. Who do I want to be and how can I achieve the best outcome are more what I try to go for. 

I can get behind pretty much all of that when speaking with regard to the "rank and file" of either end of the political spectrum (e.g. your family, neighbors, co-workers, randos you are standing behind on line at the grocery store, etc.), with some exceptions of course (the aforementioned types that "you aren't going to reach, no matter what", etc.).  However, I also have zero problems with anyone who feels compelled to "meet them where they live" either.  Someone chooses to consistently have discussions in bad faith, or espouse outright, provable nonsense?  You get what you give at that point. 

That said, I absolutely have no desire for the general populace to extend any kind of "benefit of the doubt" to elected members of either major political party, particularly those at the national level/their leadership.  Many of them have put themselves on display for decades, so we know exactly who/what they are and what drives them.  The only thing they deserve to have extended to them is a repeated demand for accountability. 

Edited by 5-ish Finkle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people I know want to see real policy changes that positively impact Americans.

People are generally pretty happy when times are prosperous and there is peace.

Just being friendly or nice or "restoring the soul" will not get it done with a large portion of the population IMHO.  That sounds nice, but people are sick of watching their quality of life deteriorate.

 

 

 

 

Edited by TripItUp
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5-ish Finkle said:

I can get behind pretty much all of that when speaking with regard to the "rank and file" of either end of the political spectrum (e.g. your family, neighbors, co-workers, randos you are standing behind on line at the grocery store, etc.), with some exceptions of course (the aforementioned types that "you aren't going to reach, no matter what", etc.).  However, I also have zero problems with anyone who feels compelled to "meet them where they live" either.  Someone chooses to consistently have discussions in bad faith, or espouse outright, provable nonsense?  You get what you give at that point. 

That said, I absolutely have no desire for the general populace to extend any kind of "benefit of the doubt" to elected members of either major political party, particularly those at the national level/their leadership.  Many of them have put themselves on display for decades, so we know exactly who/what they are and what drives them.  The only thing they deserve to have extended to them is a repeated demand for accountability. 

I don't disagree with any of that really. The kind of people who just spew misinformation and are jerks about it probably aren't going to be convinced by anyone who isn't close to them. I just avoid those conversations these days, it takes energy to engage people like that and I don't have extra energy.

I also think that elected officials should be judged on what policy they put forward and how they vote on what comes in front of them. Rhetoric matters way less than votes. 

Edited by The Narrator
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Narrator said:



I also think that elected officials should be judged on what policy they put forward and how they vote on what comes in front of them. Rhetoric matters way less than votes. 

I know a lot of people who didn't vote based on policy just in this forum.  See my Biden policy thread as exhibit A.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

I know a lot of people who didn't vote based on policy just in this forum.  See my Biden policy thread as exhibit A.  

The thread where you ignore all the policy people posted about?  I mean that thread has a lot of good discussion on policy wants.  

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

I'll go back and actually count the meaningful responses...it wasn't many.

I think thats a matter of opinion.  There were quite a few meaningful posts.  Posters here have talked about what they preferred about Biden...people have linked to his policy and platform a lot as well over the last several months.

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

Most people I know want to see real policy changes that positively impact Americans.

People are generally pretty happy when times are prosperous and there is peace.

Just being friendly or nice or "restoring the soul" will not get it done with a large portion of the population IMHO.  That sounds nice, but people are sick of watching their quality of life deteriorate.

Do you think many people are happy now? What about before the pandemic? Before Trump’s presidency?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@JoeBiden

It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature, and listen to each other again.

To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy. 

We are not enemies. We are Americans.
 

18:56 11/29/2020

 

♥️

 

Actions matter more than platitudes. But this is refreshing, needed, and gives me hope.

We cannot continue in the false dichotomy. We are not binary, the issues which need to be addressed are not 1/0, black/white, on/off.

But we absolutely have to get away from not hearing each other. “What does the other side believe? Well I think we should do the opposite.” and whataboutism is negative bull#### that paves the highway to nowhere.

Let’s start listening to one another instead of just waiting to speak.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:
13 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Most people I know want to see real policy changes that positively impact Americans.

People are generally pretty happy when times are prosperous and there is peace.

Just being friendly or nice or "restoring the soul" will not get it done with a large portion of the population IMHO.  That sounds nice, but people are sick of watching their quality of life deteriorate.

Do you think many people are happy now? What about before the pandemic? Before Trump’s presidency?

Folks on the right have convinced themselves that everything was garbage between 2008 and 2016, and then Jan 20, 2016 everything magically improved.  The economy was garbage before Trump, employment was awful, manufacturing jobs weren't coming back, etc.  It's as if the Obama economy is forever confined 2008-2010, ignoring the consistent growth since then.

Quality of life generally improved under Obama (once we got passed the 2008 recession).  That improvement continued under Trump (up until 2020, of course).  Objectively looking back at the Obama/Biden era, I see no reason to assume quality of life would deteriorate under the Biden administration, whereas it has unquestionably deteriorated under 2020 Trump.  

I think this is a major part of the problem - the echo chamber of right wing media has a significant number of people convinced that everything the right does is brilliant and everything from the left is evil, stupid, wrong, and will lead to Venezuela style socialism.  I listen to Rush and other right wing radio all the time - I know that's what they say.  It makes it very difficult to find common ground when one side is unwilling to engage in good faith.

IMO the worst thing the democrats can do is give oxygen to irrational republican fears - "defund the police", "socialism", "Green New Deal", "reparations", anything from AOC & the Squad, etc.  Stop giving the Right Wing blogosphere ammunition.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Folks on the right have convinced themselves that everything was garbage between 2008 and 2016, and then Jan 20, 2016 everything magically improved. 

It kind of did for the working class.  🤷‍♂️

Which is one of the reasons you saw so much energy on the right.  

Edited by TripItUp
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TripItUp said:

Which is one of the reasons you saw so much energy on the right.  

IMO, the energy from the right was driven primarily from the desire to taste liberal tears - i.e. a rejection of political correctness, environmentalism, etc.  If there was a perceived improvement in quality of life, that perception stemmed completely from the right wing echo chamber repeating nonsense, which is essentially my point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moleculo said:

 

IMO the worst thing the democrats can do is give oxygen to irrational republican fears - "defund the police", "socialism", "Green New Deal", "reparations", anything from AOC & the Squad, etc.  Stop giving the Right Wing blogosphere ammunition.

Can you please elaborate on this? 

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

Can you please elaborate on this? 

Democrats are terrible at messaging.  "Stop asking police to do social or psychiatric work" somehow becomes "defend the police" and the right wing echo chamber convinces millions of people that Joe Biden wants to let criminals roam the streets freely.  "Medicare for all" somehow becomes "socialism" and the right wing echo chamber convinces millions of people that the democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Democrats are terrible at messaging.  "Stop asking police to do social or psychiatric work" somehow becomes "defend the police" and the right wing echo chamber convinces millions of people that Joe Biden wants to let criminals roam the streets freely.  "Medicare for all" somehow becomes "socialism" and the right wing echo chamber convinces millions of people that the democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela.

This has long been a “complaint.” Bogged down by nuance. Too wonky.

Conversely, GOP is better at sloganeering. They pay more attention to what will play in Peoria.

Its not that Democrats are unaware of this. But simple solutions tend to bog down when applied to complex problems. Thus the objection isn’t taken seriously because they feel like better ideas develop better policy.

Trevor Noah was not wrong. We like binary thinking, it feels like common sense. Keep it simple & binary. Lengthy explanations with caveats feels disingenuous.

 

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

This has long been a “complaint.” Bogged down by nuance. Too wonky.

Conversely, GOP is better at sloganeering. They pay more attention to what will play in Peoria.

Its not that Democrats are unaware of this. But simple solutions tend to bog down when applied to complex problems. Thus the objection isn’t taken seriously because they feel like better ideas develop better policy.

Trevor Noah was not wrong. We like binary thinking, it feels like common sense. Keep it simple & binary. Lengthy explanations with caveats feels disingenuous.

 

the problem as i see it is that when liberals try to distill something down to an easy slogan, they are completely oblivious to how their slogan will be used against them.  "defund the police" is a perfect example.  If you are coming from the position that the police have been oppressing your family for generations, this slogan makes a hell of a lot of sense.  However, this idea scares the crap out of millions of Americans.  It's completely tone deaf.  I don't know what a better message needs to be but this ain't it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BoerumHill said:

This has long been a “complaint.” Bogged down by nuance. Too wonky.

Conversely, GOP is better at sloganeering. They pay more attention to what will play in Peoria.

Its not that Democrats are unaware of this. But simple solutions tend to bog down when applied to complex problems. Thus the objection isn’t taken seriously because they feel like better ideas develop better policy.

Trevor Noah was not wrong. We like binary thinking, it feels like common sense. Keep it simple & binary. Lengthy explanations with caveats feels disingenuous.

 

"policy that accurately reflects data we have accumulated over time and would cause more benefit than harm that is nuanced and well thought out" would be a bad hat 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

the problem as i see it is that when liberals try to distill something down to an easy slogan, they are completely oblivious to how their slogan will be used against them.  "defund the police" is a perfect example.  If you are coming from the position that the police have been oppressing your family for generations, this slogan makes a hell of a lot of sense.  However, this idea scares the crap out of millions of Americans.  It's completely tone deaf.  I don't know what a better message needs to be but this ain't it.

"Strengthen our police forces with resources strong in mental health when the situations arise that would benefit from their presence instead of an everyday police officer"  

It's really glaring how bad Democrats are at this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Narrator said:

"policy that accurately reflects data we have accumulated over time and would cause more benefit than harm that is nuanced and well thought out" would be a bad hat 

San serif was specifically designed with small text mind. Let’s workshop this merch.

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

This has long been a “complaint.” Bogged down by nuance. Too wonky.

Conversely, GOP is better at sloganeering. They pay more attention to what will play in Peoria.

Its not that Democrats are unaware of this. But simple solutions tend to bog down when applied to complex problems. Thus the objection isn’t taken seriously because they feel like better ideas develop better policy.

Trevor Noah was not wrong. We like binary thinking, it feels like common sense. Keep it simple & binary. Lengthy explanations with caveats feels disingenuous.

Good policy is developed from nuance. I don't think the average american has the intelligence nor patience to see it through and that's how we've ended up where you described. We don't prioritize being informed. We want to be told what to think - keep it clear and concise, simple and binary. 

I think dems are fools for consistently mismanaging their branding, but at the same time I hold our citizenry to a similar level of accountability. We get the representation our actions dictate we want - we deserve this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Good policy is developed from nuance. I don't think the average american has the intelligence nor patience to see it through and that's how we've ended up where you described. We don't prioritize being informed. We want to be told what to think - keep it clear and concise, simple and binary. 

I think dems are fools for consistently mismanaging their branding, but at the same time I hold our citizenry to a similar level of accountability. We get the representation our actions dictate we want - we deserve this.

It's also worth noting too, some of this isn't exactly just poor marketing or being too wordy.

Trump running with "Make America Great Again" vs Clinton's "I'm With Her" in 2016 is an example of being trounced in the marketing department. Clarity wins. 

Democrats often aren't being misunderstood.

But it's pretty clear what these folks meant telling the Minneapolis mayor to "Get the _____ out of here" when he wouldn't agree a Yes / No answer on "will you commit to defunding the Minneapolis Police Department". They're not being misunderstood. 

Or articles like "Let's Abolish The Police Force". 

Now obviously, those are not elected officials saying this. But it gets all mixed in.

I don't know the power structure exactly, but it doesn't seem like it shouldn't have to be Bernie Sanders being conflicted like this. It's just too easy for the other side when he talks about nobody he knows running for office is talking about defunding the police and then has a bunch of clips about politicians defunding and even dismantling the police.

I don't know the answer and I know everyone loves diversity of opinion. But in this case, it seems like it's less bumbling the message and losing it in translation or not saying it clearly and more just actually saying things. 

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

It's also worth noting too, some of this isn't exactly just poor marketing or being too wordy.

Trump running with "Make America Great Again" vs Clinton's "I'm With Her" in 2016 is an example of being trounced in the marketing department. Clarity wins. 

Democrats often aren't being misunderstood.

But it's pretty clear what these folks meant telling the Minneapolis mayor to "Get the _____ out of here" when he wouldn't agree a Yes / No answer on "will you commit to defunding the Minneapolis Police Department". They're not being misunderstood. 

Or articles like "Let's Abolish The Police Force". 

Now obviously, those are not elected officials saying this. But it gets all mixed in.

I don't know the power structure exactly, but it doesn't seem like it shouldn't have to be Bernie Sanders being conflicted like this. It's just too easy for the other side when he talks about nobody he knows running for office is talking about defunding the police and then has a bunch of clips about politicians defunding and even dismantling the police.

I don't know the answer and I know everyone loves diversity of opinion. But in this case, it seems like it's less bumbling the message and losing it in translation or not saying it clearly and more just actually saying things. 

I think it's because we are a nation full of over consumers. Of course messaging gets lost in translation - we inundate ourselves with information and only retain the info that tickles our confirmation bias. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

I think it's because we are a nation full of over consumers. Of course messaging gets lost in translation - we inundate ourselves with information and only retain the info that tickles our confirmation bias. 

What I'm saying though some of this is not getting lost in the translation. It's very clear. And that can be an issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this thread and thinking about the film Invictus. South Africa after Apartheid had much greatest divisions than we do but managed to unify through sport. Sports are a terrific unifying factor. Rural Trump lovers and urban Biden supporters may not have a ton in common but bring up the NFL and more often than not their passions are similar. 

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

What I'm saying though some of this is not getting lost in the translation. It's very clear. And that can be an issue. 

I follow. What gets through the filter of those that don't prioritize being informed is info that tickles their confirmation bias. Dont get me wrong, I'm susceptible to this too. We all are. But we prioritize being informed. Most don't - and lack that awareness. 

That's the problem. And there is no solution. Until we change our priorities anyway...which we won't. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

It's also worth noting too, some of this isn't exactly just poor marketing or being too wordy.

Trump running with "Make America Great Again" vs Clinton's "I'm With Her" in 2016 is an example of being trounced in the marketing department. Clarity wins. 

Democrats often aren't being misunderstood.

But it's pretty clear what these folks meant telling the Minneapolis mayor to "Get the _____ out of here" when he wouldn't agree a Yes / No answer on "will you commit to defunding the Minneapolis Police Department". They're not being misunderstood. 

Or articles like "Let's Abolish The Police Force". 

Now obviously, those are not elected officials saying this. But it gets all mixed in.

I don't know the power structure exactly, but it doesn't seem like it shouldn't have to be Bernie Sanders being conflicted like this. It's just too easy for the other side when he talks about nobody he knows running for office is talking about defunding the police and then has a bunch of clips about politicians defunding and even dismantling the police.

I don't know the answer and I know everyone loves diversity of opinion. But in this case, it seems like it's less bumbling the message and losing it in translation or not saying it clearly and more just actually saying things. 

So, let me get this straight - one side has maybe 5% of them who are legitimately saying defund the police and none of those people are really people of consequence for that side and then on the other side we have basically every leader of that side come out and blatantly lie and claim Biden and most Democrats are for defunding the police.  And the first side is the one that needs to heal and move forward?  It's real easy for me to answer this one as I'm not part of either side but it's pretty obvious to me one group is consistently full of it and consistently willing to do or say anything to win.  If I were on the first side in this scenario I would have a hard time not telling the other group to pound sand.  The GOP (at least the ones in power) lost any moral compass they had in the last 10 years.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

If I were on the first side in this scenario I would have a hard time not telling the other group to pound sand.  The GOP (at least the ones in power) lost any moral compass they had in the last 10 years.

That's mostly what is happening as far as I can tell. I was probably dumb to think we could move forward. Most people would much rather make sure each side "pays" for the past. 

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

That's mostly what is happening as far as I can tell. I was probably dumb to think we could move forward. Most people would much rather make sure each side "pays" for the past. 

I have no problem making lying bullies* or the people that supported them for four years "pay".  There's the idea of turning the other cheek and there's standing up against obvious wrongdoing.  I won't belabor the point because we don't see eye to eye on this but I won't give in and just move on when many of these same people continue to support things like this or at least allow it to continue by not standing up for what is right.

*In case that isn't clear, that is directed at Trump

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I have no problem making lying bullies* or the people that supported them for four years "pay".  There's the idea of turning the other cheek and there's standing up against obvious wrongdoing.  I won't belabor the point because we don't see eye to eye on this but I won't give in and just move on when many of these same people continue to support things like this or at least allow it to continue by not standing up for what is right.

*In case that isn't clear, that is directed at Trump

You hypocrites are amazing.

I hope the Republicans remember this new payback ideology from the left when they get power next. And it will happen. So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

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

That's mostly what is happening as far as I can tell. I was probably dumb to think we could move forward. Most people would much rather make sure each side "pays" for the past. 

And this isn't a sides things for me and I wish people wouldn't always paint it as such.  I've voted for many more Republicans than Democrats in my life.  Even when I agreed with some of the policies from the right I never liked having the label of a Republican.  I'm not a democrat or a liberal unless you just want to classify me as something.  But I am a person who was raised to know what wrong is and to not support it.  I'm disappointed beyond belief in the countless people who chose to turn their back on that simple thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BladeRunner said:

You hypocrites are amazing.

I hope the Republicans remember this new payback ideology from the left when they get power next. And it will happen. So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

I'm not part of the left, try again.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I'm not part of the left, try again.

You're on the side that's advocating it, so that makes you a lefty.

And yeah, we get it. berate and denigrate conservatives all day long, defend Democrats all day long but then claim you're not a lefty.  I don't think you're fooling anyone.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

And this isn't a sides things for me and I wish people wouldn't always paint it as such. 

Sorry. Should have said "group".

Quote

If I were on the first side in this scenario I would have a hard time not telling the other group to pound sand

All good. I'm way in the minority on this. I'm ok with that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sorry. Should have said "group".

All good. I'm way in the minority on this. I'm ok with that. 

Sorry, Joe, but there really ain't going to be any healing going on here. As you can see, most of them don't want it.  They want revenge.

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

I think 2 things are hugely needed for healing and change:

1) Ability to admit when we are wrong about something.

2) Holding both sides to the same standard. That means offering grace equally while also not making excuses or equivocating.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Sorry, Joe, but there really ain't going to be any healing going on here. As you can see, most of them don't want it.  They want revenge.

If revenge in your book is for the people in charge to get voted out because of supporting a corrupt administration then yes, I want revenge.  Otherwise, I have no clue what you are talking about - what exactly is revenge in this context? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

That's mostly what is happening as far as I can tell. I was probably dumb to think we could move forward. Most people would much rather make sure each side "pays" for the past. 

It has nothing to do with payback. It has everything to do with being nice and passive is one reason how we ended up here in the first place. Definition of insanity to try to do that again. I'm not saying be a jerk as you put it the other day, but the correct approach is to be direct. That will upset many people along the way and that's just a cost of doing business. If we are to ever get America back on the tracks we must make facts great again. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

It has nothing to do with payback. It has everything to do with being nice and passive is one reason how we ended up here in the first place. Definition of insanity to try to do that again. I'm not saying be a jerk as you put it the other day, but the correct approach is to be direct. That will upset many people along the way and that's just a cost of doing business. If we are to ever get America back on the tracks we must make facts great again. 

Of course is has to do with payback. It's making sure the other side sufficiently pays for what they did. And the great part is the person extracting payment gets to decide the cost. It's a fantastic system to ensure we stay divided.

And as we've said many times before, the make facts great again stuff is cute but it's almost always way more nuanced. It's one side saying it's a fact erasing college debt is the right move. And the other side saying it's a fact that's not the best move. There are a handful of the easily settled "X number of people at a rally". But most are way more more nuanced. But that won't stop people from dismissing the other group as "just not accepting facts". It's foolproof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...