Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

I see your posts day in and day out repeating this nonsense.  You realize that repeating it doesn't make it true, right?

It takes TWO to tango, my friend.  You guys need to stop acting like you have some moral high ground somewhere.  Pro-Tip: you don't.  No one does.

You made a comment about the poster but not his post. I'm curious if you think that we are in a "post truth society" and if not where do YOU specifically go to get truth? How many global sources do you think actually tells the truth? In your opinion do facts exist?

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

On 12/10/2020 at 7:29 AM, Joe Bryant said:

Are you suggesting anyone is saying they shouldn't? I'd assume everyone would agree someone sending something horrible like that needs to dramatically change. I don't know the details but making death threats is obviously super serious. 

But your post highlights another bigger thing. For some reason, there seems to be some odd assumption that healing, forgiving, generally not being a tool is somehow meant for the "other" side. Or it's meant for the one "who started it". I don't think it is. 

Because in almost every situation, there is "more to the story". Few people just wake up one day and out of the blue decide to be a tool. For most people, it's in response to something. It's a perceived disrespect. A snarky comment. Or a real aggression towards them. Or a zillion other things. That's what I mean about the cycle. 

My hope is we can drop so much of the "side" stuff and all of us try to be better. 

No way the country can heal.  Heck, this forum can't even heal when the moderator pops the one pro-Trump post in a pro-Trump thread full of anti-Trump guys trolling it all week. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 1:11 PM, Rich Conway said:

This isn't specific to you, @Joe Bryant, but you seem to be the one really pushing that this can be done, so...

I'm all for healing, really.  I'm all for forgive and forget.  I've forgiven and forgotten some truly heinous things done to me in my life.  The trick with forgiving and forgetting is that the person being forgiven stops doing the thing that requires forgiveness.  What do we do when tens of millions of people don't stop doing those things?  What's the next step, seriously.

I posted the above more than a month ago.  Since then, the attacks on democracy haven't abated, they have only increased.  Every courtroom loss leads to an even more non-sensical conspiracy theory, but Team Trump cheers it on and attacks democracy anyway.  The sane among us can't heal and move forward by simply ignoring the ever-increasing attacks on our system of government.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

I posted the above more than a month ago.  Since then, the attacks on democracy haven't abated, they have only increased.  Every courtroom loss leads to an even more non-sensical conspiracy theory, but Team Trump cheers it on and attacks democracy anyway.  The sane among us can't heal and move forward by simply ignoring the ever-increasing attacks on our system of government.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, I'm not suggesting people "simply ignore" the other side and their actions. As I understand, the actions they're taking in court are being responded to entirely appropriately by the legal system. And in what seems like every case, the legal system is delivering decisions denying the Pro Trump side. That's how the system responds to such challenges. 

The much bigger thing I've said repeatedly that's clearly not connecting is I don't think empathy and grace are conditional. I fully understand most people do. 

As I thought it would, this thread has been mostly discouraging and I'm pretty beat down from it. It's just one more thing I continue to wonder what I was thinking. 

The result for tons clearly will be continued division and hate for "the other". I think it's best I accept I've been ineffective at communicating an alternative for our side and just leave at that. 

I'm going to choose to do all I can to heal and move forward and extend empathy and grace. Without conditions. Fully accepting most will see that as naive at best. 

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

 

As I thought it would, this thread has been mostly discouraging and I'm pretty beat down from it. It's just one more thing I continue to wonder what I was thinking. 

The result for tons clearly will be continued division and hate for "the other". I think it's best I accept I've been ineffective at communicating an alternative for our side and just leave at that. 

Joe I don’t think it’s about you being an ineffective communicator.  What you’re looking for seems virtually impossible.  It’s not like footballguys is some cesspool of animosity while the rest of the world heals and moves on.  I don’t know if there’s any place on the internet that’s really managed to accomplish what you’re hoping for here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Joe I don’t think it’s about you being an ineffective communicator.  What you’re looking for seems virtually impossible.  It’s not like footballguys is some cesspool of animosity while the rest of the world heals and moves on.  I don’t know if there’s any place on the internet that’s really managed to accomplish what you’re hoping for here.

Thank you. You may well be right. But still feels like a failure on my part. At best, it's beat me down. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, I'm not suggesting people "simply ignore" the other side and their actions. As I understand, the actions they're taking in court are being responded to entirely appropriately by the legal system. And in what seems like every case, the legal system is delivering decisions denying the Pro Trump side. That's how the system responds to such challenges. 

The much bigger thing I've said repeatedly that's clearly not connecting is I don't think empathy and grace are conditional. I fully understand most people do. 

As I thought it would, this thread has been mostly discouraging and I'm pretty beat down from it. It's just one more thing I continue to wonder what I was thinking. 

The result for tons clearly will be continued division and hate for "the other". I think it's best I accept I've been ineffective at communicating an alternative for our side and just leave at that. 

I'm going to choose to do all I can to heal and move forward and extend empathy and grace. Without conditions. Fully accepting most will see that as naive at best. 

I don't think you should be discouraged, at least relative to the situation that I believe you're attempting to discuss.  Others are looking at a bigger, broader picture than you, which is where certain things might become discouraging.

I think you're limiting the discussion to basic interactions between neighbors and friends, between acquaintances, or even between strangers.  In your average, non-political interaction, you're absolutely right, what you refer to as empathy and grace (or what some might call basic civility) are the proper behavior.  By way of example, one of my best friends is a staunch Trump supporter.  I think his information sources are questionable, and I think he's falling for the big con, but at the end of the day, I still text him to ask if he wants to smoke some ribs and drink a couple beers on Friday night.  Basic civility costs me nothing, and my friend works the same way in reverse.  However, hypothetically, that particular course of action comes to an end if the empathy and grace isn't a two way street.  It's important for me to clarify here, as you have harped on "this shouldn't be conditional".  My initial offer (or vice versa) doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, conditional, in that it shouldn't require the other side to proffer something/anything first.  However, should several attempts at basic civility be met with scorn and not reciprocated, the attempts on my side (or vice versa) would rightly come to an end.  But, back to clarification, that doesn't mean I should actively seek to denigrate the other side, but rather that an appropriate course of action would be to simply ignore the other person.  Back to my original example, if I reached out to my friend several times to ask about watching basketball, smoking some food, drinking a beer, etc., and each one was answered with something akin to "Screw you, damn socialists are ruining this country," it would be entirely appropriate for me to simply stop asking.  I think the relevant saying here is "The opposite of love is indifference."

Separately, there's another area where your hypothesis (empathy/grace/healing shouldn't be conditional) falls apart, and here is where you're discouraged because most have focused on this and you and others are simply talking past each other.  When you refer to "moving forward", most here are interpreting it as "moving forward politically and attempting to govern".  In that area, as opposed to basic interactions with neighbors, one can't simply stop trying if one receives scorn or derision in return.  Governing still needs to happen regardless.  This is the sense that I (and presumably most others) in the thread have been discussing.  At some point, if "the other side" doesn't want to work together, or even acknowledge that governing needs to happen at all, it is incumbent on "my side" to move forward without them.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Yep - folks complain about it but we still have some decent and thought provoking discussions. 

meh...the only people complaining about it are the ones that can't make a splash with their crazy on the other parts of the innerwebs...people that just want to argue and piss/moan but aren't willing to do what it takes to make a name for themselves with their peeps elsewhere.

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

The result for tons clearly will be continued division and hate for "the other". I think it's best I accept I've been ineffective at communicating an alternative for our side and just leave at that. 

At least as far as this board is concerned I dont think hate is a great word. I see people interact perfectly fine in FFA threads that you would think despise each other over here. 

Even fully willing to help out with IRL questions. 

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

I don't think you should be discouraged, at least relative to the situation that I believe you're attempting to discuss.  Others are looking at a bigger, broader picture than you, which is where is does become discouraging.

I think you're limiting the discussion to basic interactions between neighbors and friends, between acquaintances, or even between strangers.  In your average, non-political interaction, you're absolutely right, what you refer to as empathy and grace (or what some might call basic civility) are the proper behavior.  By way of example, one of my best friends is a staunch Trump supporter.  I think his information sources are questionable, and I think he's falling for the big con, but at the end of the day, I still text him to ask if he wants to smoke some ribs and drink a couple beers on Friday night.  Basic civility costs me nothing, and my friend works the same way in reverse.  However, hypothetically, that particular course of action comes to an end if the empathy and grace isn't a two way street.  It's important for me to clarify here, as you have harped on "this shouldn't be conditional".  My initial offer (or vice versa) doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, conditional, in that it shouldn't require the other side to proffer something/anything first.  However, should several attempts at basic civility be met with scorn and not reciprocated, the attempts on my side (or vice versa) would rightly come to an end.  But, back to clarification, that doesn't mean I should actively seek to denigrate the other side, but rather that an appropriate course of action would be to simply ignore the other person.  Back to my original example, if I reached out to my friend several times to ask about watching basketball, smoking some food, drinking a beer, etc., and each one was answered with something akin to "Screw you, damn socialists are ruining this country," it would be entirely appropriate for me to simply stop asking.  I think the relevant saying here is "The opposite of love is indifference."

Separately, there's another area where your hypothesis (empathy/grace/healing shouldn't be conditional) falls apart, and here is where you're discouraged because most have focused on this and you and others are simply talking past each other.  When you refer to "moving forward", most here are interpreting it as "moving forward politically and attempting to govern".  In that area, as opposed to basic interactions with neighbors, one can't simply stop trying if one receives scorn or derision in return.  Governing still needs to happen regardless.  This is the sense that I (and presumably most others) in the thread have been discussing.  At some point, if "the other side" doesn't want to work together, or even acknowledge that governing needs to happen at all, it is incumbent on "my side" to move forward without them.

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree the idea falls apart. You could well be ultimately right, and it certainly does seem like most folks feel empathy/grace/healing should be conditional, but I"m not giving up. I'm just going to accept that's where most everyone is right now. Interestingly, that's part of empathy on my part. All good. Mostly this was just me being discouraged and whining. 

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

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree the idea falls apart. You could well be ultimately right, and it certainly does seem like most folks feel empathy/grace/healing should be conditional, but I"m not giving up. I'm just going to accept that's where most everyone is right now. Interestingly, that's part of empathy on my part. All good. Mostly this was just me being discouraged and whining. 

I still think you're conflating two things that are separate topics.  Basic civility, or empathy and grace, don't need to be conditional.  Moving forward (i.e. governing) does.

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

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree the idea falls apart. You could well be ultimately right, and it certainly does seem like most folks feel empathy/grace/healing should be conditional, but I"m not giving up. I'm just going to accept that's where most everyone is right now. Interestingly, that's part of empathy on my part. All good. Mostly this was just me being discouraged and whining. 

I think this board is made up of some really good, really caring people. People that do a lot of good in their lives as well as trying to extend that here as well.

I know this will probably be taken the wrong way, but I similarly find it discouraging and somewhat upsetting to hear how often you keep repeating how "disappointed" you are in us, as a community, in this thread and others like it. It implies, both directly and indirectly, that we don't have the same empathy and grace you do. And, while I think you certainly have those qualities, I completely disagree that many here don't, especially based on the responses here. I think some get bothered by that, too, and have tried to explain that, and yet you continue to respond by saying you disagree, you're disappointed, and I guess we'll never be capable of the level of empathy or grace you have. 

That's unfortunate, IMO, because many, including myself, have said repeatedly this is a place you should be proud of and you often find a way to be beaten down by the words of some really good people here.

ETA -- And to be clear, I'm quite sure it's not how you're intending your message to come across. I'm explaining that's how it's being received, at least by me. Which is a big problem with written words, sometimes. And for that same reason, when myself or others try to clarify our words in a thread like this, it would be good for all of us if we try to interpret them in the best light possible instead of the opposite.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thank you. You may well be right. But still feels like a failure on my part. At best, it's beat me down. 

Not at all. If anything you have been more successful at making this place more like what the world should be. Thank you for that. It's a gift I will always cherish. 

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I think this board is made up of some really good, really caring people. People that do a lot of good in their lives as well as trying to extend that here as well.

I know this will probably be taken the wrong way, but I similarly find it discouraging and somewhat upsetting to hear how often you keep repeating how "disappointed" you are in us, as a community, in this thread and others like it. It implies, both directly and indirectly, that we don't have the same empathy and grace you do. And, while I think you certainly have those qualities, I completely disagree that many here don't, especially based on the responses here. I think some get bothered by that, too, and have tried to explain that, and yet you continue to respond by saying you disagree, you're disappointed, and I guess we'll never be capable of the level of empathy or grace you have. 

That's unfortunate, IMO, because many, including myself, have said repeatedly this is a place you should be proud of and you often find a way to be beaten down by the words of some really good people here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I definitely sometimes am discouraged by things (there's a ton of content that is deleted that most don't see) but I don't think it's "often" at all.

I also have said often that when I talk about empathy or grace, I'm talking about what I need to do myself as well. If I've made it sound like I already "have" it, that's not correct.  I continually fall short there. I also think there are lots of really good people on this forum. I'd hope that was obvious. 

I do disagree a good bit. I think that's not especially unusual on a forum. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 

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

As I thought it would, this thread has been mostly discouraging and I'm pretty beat down from it. It's just one more thing I continue to wonder what I was thinking. 

The result for tons clearly will be continued division and hate for "the other". I think it's best I accept I've been ineffective at communicating an alternative for our side and just leave at that. 

I'm going to choose to do all I can to heal and move forward and extend empathy and grace. Without conditions. Fully accepting most will see that as naive at best. 

Joe, Your thought process and intent is incredibly admirable. You want to foster and encourage positive, well intentioned discussion between both sides. 

IMHO you have bent over backwards to accomodate and encourage pro trump people to express themselves and articulate their thoughts. You have let things posted from their perspective that would get people on the left whacked, purely to encourage them to feel they are being heard. As much of what is posted by a select few is entirely discouraging, they have a voice that needs to be heard. Several pro trump posters have since posted some well thought out and good discussion. This wouldnt have happened without your direct approach. Your patience is appreciated.

Those of us on the left want to hear something beyond the ridiculous ”We waz robbed”. We long for sanity. It is easy to turn to traditional left wing elitism and sneering when faced with the seemingly illogical. It is much harder to be patient, understanding and yes empathetic to those who share an alternate view. 

You may not have reached everyone with your objective, but you definitely have impacted a considerable number of left wing posters from reverting to easy arguments and be better posters. Sometimes this approach takes time. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, John Maddens Lunchbox said:

Joe, Your thought process and intent is incredibly admirable. You want to foster and encourage positive, well intentioned discussion between both sides. 

IMHO you have bent over backwards to accomodate and encourage pro trump people to express themselves and articulate their thoughts. You have let things posted from their perspective that would get people on the left whacked, purely to encourage them to feel they are being heard. As much of what is posted by a select few is entirely discouraging, they have a voice that needs to be heard. Several pro trump posters have since posted some well thought out and good discussion. This wouldnt have happened without your direct approach. Your patience is appreciated.

Those of us on the left want to hear something beyond the ridiculous ”We waz robbed”. We long for sanity. It is easy to turn to traditional left wing elitism and sneering when faced with the seemingly illogical. It is much harder to be patient, understanding and yes empathetic to those who share an alternate view. 

You may not have reached everyone with your objective, but you definitely have impacted a considerable number of left wing posters from reverting to easy arguments and be better posters. Sometimes this approach takes time. 

Proof on the bolded?

It's easier to be better posters after your guy has already won.  I don't think many people have been convinced to be better posters after four years of not as good posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Proof on the bolded?

It's easier to be better posters after your guy has already won.  I don't think many people have been convinced to be better posters after four years of not as good posts.

Just look at the recent Blade Runner post about the “Biden Crime family”. He got suspended, but it was rescinded. My gut feeling is that Joe feels that a lot of Blade Runners posts have some substance behind them and he wants to encourage that. That post was over the line on the left if someone says “Trump crime family”. Some dang fine left wing posters like saintsindome or sinn fein have suspensions for months over a snarky post or maybe even less. You feel some right wing posters have been unfairly singled out Im sure, but as Joe says every side feels the same way. Its a no win. 

It doesn’t matter who won or lost the election for Joe. I dont want to speak for him, but i assume he is sick of the snark, condescension and plain rudeness shown to each other here. Self reflection at ones own recent posts is always a good thing. Can you be better? Can i be better? Its hard not to post with emotion some times. Be interesting and bring something positive. That applies to all, not just you or me, right or left. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Proof on the bolded?

It's easier to be better posters after your guy has already won.  I don't think many people have been convinced to be better posters after four years of not as good posts.

I just came back from a two month suspension for posting literally nothing offensive at all. I got banned for "wasting the mods time". Which, I might consider valid if the person who I was "wasting their time on" didn't get banned (for a shorter time I might add) like a week or two later for actually being an ###### - not really feeling the healing vibes there. I don't have nearly the time invested as a unbelievable number of people here it seems but I have felt trolled by FBG Moderator and Maurile. I let the FBG troll go as it was a PM and could have been a mistake - I gave the mod the benefit of the doubt as I am sure they are busy. I didn't feel the same about Maurile. I can imagine for some, over the 4 years of Trump, there have been quite a few people feeling the same way as me, especially the super active posters.

In one thread I participated in there were like 3-4 people banned in like a week - totally screwed up a music draft. I think at least one long time poster was perma banned (or he/she hasn't logged in in like 6 months or is dead of COVID). With all this talk of healing are perma banned members getting their penalty lifted? I doubt it. And the real question is should they? IMO, no - why should they? But is does seem a little odd to want healing/grace without reciprocation but one thing that could easily be done is to offer grace to long time posters that are banned - as that is only in the power of the mods. But, I think we all know why bans aren't being lifted. The board is better for it (most likely) and really that is just a microcosm of the US. In many cases, it is just plain better to cut bait.

In my ample free board time I looked back through some of my old posts/threads and the board history in general. It took literally 10 seconds to see that politics used to be discussed on the Free For All board. The oldest pages I could navigate to had all sorts of political discourse. The Politics board appears to be created due to Trump. IMO, this also shows this isn't a "both sides" issue. One side, the Trump supporters, have caused enough outrage, vitriol, and anger that a board was spun off. There is such a thing as the straw that broke the camel's back and that applies to the banning of posters to the spinning off of a new board. I have a hard time believing, based on the board history, that people were getting banned right and left due to political discussions prior to Trump. I looked back at some of my discussions on COVID, trying to debunk, and show how ludicrous guys like jon_mx and supermike were being. Then, I hop back into the thread and immediately, there is the same trolling behavior of "ha, look how poorly South Korea is doing now!". Honestly, do I want to continue discourse with this guy? Do I want to have some sort of healing? Do I want to find common ground? Not really, unless that common ground is my ground that is rooted in fact and evidence. I don't see much hydroxychloroquine talk going on... but that was a big left v. right thing. Has any hydroxychloroquine supporter come out and said, "I was wrong." I highly doubt it.

Would I like to heal and move forward? Sure. But unlike the premise in this thread, that healing comes at a cost. If you are still a Trump supporter, that cost hasn't been paid.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rcam said:

In my ample free board time I looked back through some of my old posts/threads and the board history in general. It took literally 10 seconds to see that politics used to be discussed on the Free For All board. The oldest pages I could navigate to had all sorts of political discourse. The Politics board appears to be created due to Trump.

Just as an aside: I frequent three message boards regularly -- this one, Saintsreport, and Boards.Straightdope.com. All three have spun off separate spaces to discuss politics within the last few years.

Saintsreport is really locked down for political talk -- the political area is a wholly separate forum altogether, not merely a subforum. And that separate forum requires invitations and moderator vetting to view and post in certain subforums (for instance, separate "safe space" subforums for liberals and conservatives).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 4:48 PM, Joe Bryant said:

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.

This is such an odd position to take.

Objectively speaking, its either not true, or not relevant.

Clinton received millions of more votes than Trump.  The term "MAGA" is not broadly considered a positive attribute.  Across the electorate, this is not an example of one slogan "trounc[ing]" another.

 

It makes sense that you, individually, preferred "MAGA" to "I'm with Her" - the slogan was designed to resonate with white conservative males.  It invites people to imagine a time in the past when white males had many advantages not shared by women or people of color.  While "I'm with Her" suggests an opportunity to smash a particular glass ceiling - but to many white males - that is identity politics, and its not their identity.

But, again, that the slogan appeals to a specific demographic does not mean that it was more broadly accepted, let alone "trounced" the opponents slogan.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Clinton received millions of more votes than Trump.  The term "MAGA" is not broadly considered a positive attribute.  Across the electorate, this is not an example of one slogan "trounc[ing]" another.

Exactly. Trump ran twice with "MAGA" and lost the popular vote both times. Which makes me wonder (and I'll have to go look) but it may have been the first time in our history the same president lost the popular vote more than once. I know W. lost the popular vote his first term but I believe won it for his 2nd term.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the board has changed much under Trump. I think the GOP establishment has changed.  I’m not sure the type of rabid posters who post on message boards have. During the Bush and Obama years, we had Ultimate Browns Fan and Lake City Gar and all kinds of wackos.  I’ve said before that I can remember a poster saying he hoped I was tortured to death by Uday and Qusay in my scoobygang days. 
 

And it’s the same from my side. I’ve been banned five of the last six months. I didn’t really get the second, three-month ban , but that’s OK. The world went on and I probably would have said something to deserve it eventually anyway. 
 

I don’t see a lot of value in pretending bad faith arguments are made in good faith. So I’m going to draw some timeouts. Which is fine. I have no right to post here or to insist that the site is moderated according to my preferences. 

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we seem things boiling up...its clear this is going to be really really really hard.

Because there are people unwilling to heal...and it does take everyone to want it to happen for it to happen.

Right now, we still have a POTUS spreading falsehoods about the election (both personally and through his legal team).  Talk of how Congress can just reject the vote and vote him in and so on.  Despite the court cases...including up to the Supreme Court...and them all basically saying the same thing.  And they have said it loudly enough and enough times that millions still believe it...some willing to take up arms against other citizens because of that it also seems.

I like the talk of grace Joe...I really do...it gets down to that part of healing that some don't like to see...and I will always keep trying.  I won't lash out to those who disagree...at a certain point just let them go.  Correct misinformation when it may be spread to keep others from believing...but after that...have to walk away a bit.  But while that works to make things a bit more peaceful here and elsewhere...I don't think it ends up getting us to healing either.  I think no matter what side you are talking about...too many are too dug in to see to facts that go against what they think they know.  To use that example of grace and the religious connotations...it reminds me of Psalm 95 and later in scripture  "If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts".  A sort of warning from Israel's previous actions.  Im not saying the left is "His voice" or the right...but the complete buying in to something to where nothing will ever convince someone otherwise reminded me of "harden not your heart".   Getting back then to grace...it is there for us to have...but we have to accept it, want it...if we turn away, if we have hardened our hearts and minds away we can be lost.

It is obviously a difficult path to follow both spiritually and now politically and just in every day life.  How to navigate some who will believe something that appears to be so non-factual...no matter what gets shown.  And not only believe it...but push those things on others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Amanda Chase

Not my President and never will be. The American people aren’t fools.

We know you cheated to win and we’ll never accept these results. Fair elections we can accept but cheating to win; never. It’s not over yet. So thankful President Trump has a backbone and refuses to concede. President Trump should declare martial law as recommended by General Flynn.

 

Facebook post from State Senator and GOP candidate for Governor in Virginia

 

This is what happens when people think all these election challenges are normal or appropriate.

  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Senator Amanda Chase

Not my President and never will be. The American people aren’t fools.

We know you cheated to win and we’ll never accept these results. Fair elections we can accept but cheating to win; never. It’s not over yet. So thankful President Trump has a backbone and refuses to concede. President Trump should declare martial law as recommended by General Flynn.

 

Facebook post from State Senator and GOP candidate for Governor in Virginia

 

This is what happens when people think all these election challenges are normal or appropriate.

Trump, and to a lesser extent McConnell and McCarthy, could make this better but he won't. I'm afraid the division is a feature and not a bug. And he will hold rallies for the next 4 years making it worse. I see dark times ahead. I'm afraid the violence is just beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Trump, and to a lesser extent McConnell and McCarthy, could make this better but he won't. I'm afraid the division is a feature and not a bug. And he will hold rallies for the next 4 years making it worse. I see dark times ahead. I'm afraid the violence is just beginning.

Sadly it looks like that...as much as I didn't want to believe it possible...people have bought into it too.  And if NY pursues charges after January, it just will enrage some even more.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Senator Amanda Chase

Not my President and never will be. The American people aren’t fools.

We know you cheated to win and we’ll never accept these results. Fair elections we can accept but cheating to win; never. It’s not over yet. So thankful President Trump has a backbone and refuses to concede. President Trump should declare martial law as recommended by General Flynn.

 

Facebook post from State Senator and GOP candidate for Governor in Virginia

 

This is what happens when people think all these election challenges are normal or appropriate.

She said Jan 6 is a big day. Why is that? Also this is what we will deal with for the next 4 years. 1/2-2/3 of GOP will say Biden isn’t a legitimate President and will use that to counter anything he tries to do. His Presidency is DOA or at least until the midterms when the people will have a chance to evaluate that strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the internet, social media, and the expansion of cable news, mankind is in a whole new regime.  Completely different realities are being created and people are highly incentivized psychologically to reside in information bubbles that make them feel good rather than seek objective truth.  While we all appreciate what Joe is trying to accomplish, I think the reduction in room temperature he's achieved over the last few months is about as good as it's going to get.  We're not going to have conservative vs. liberal conversations like we've had in the past.  The difference in our 'realities' is too great and the baseline agreements we took for granted in the past all need to be fought first before we can approach more substantive debate.  

Joe has done a great job of reducing the venom, but given the current information/misinformation landscape, it's going to be nearly impossible for the two sides to have constructive conversations.  If anything, the long term solution to this problem is less online engagement, not more.  People need to step away from the 'realities' that are presented to them on social media and cable news, and get back to experiencing the world face to face again.     

Edited by Captain Cranks
  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Captain Cranks said:

but given the current information/misinformation landscape, it's going to be nearly impossible for the two sides to have constructive conversations.  If anything, the long term solution to this problem is less online engagement, not more.  People need to step away from the 'realities' that are presented to them on social media and cable news, and get back to experiencing the world face to face again.     

I think you may be right. One thing I've seen repeatedly is online discussion is so difficult. Because so many times, you have such an incomplete picture of the person. It's a challenge for sure. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of what I mean. A poster recently mentioned something about how he had a real life friend that was an avid Trump supporter. 

I was shocked when he said it as I would have guessed this poster had no real life friends who weren't anti Trump. That's neither good nor bad. But it was a good picture of what I'm talking about in I have a very incomplete picture of most every poster here. 

And we often "fill in the gaps" for a person based on what we THINK is how they think. When we really don't know. 

And that can lead to not assuming the best of another person and not giving them the benefit of the doubt. 

It's why two old friends can disagree on Trump or Biden and still be ok as there is trust and knowledge there of the other person. Online, that's much more difficult. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Senator Amanda Chase

Not my President and never will be. The American people aren’t fools.

We know you cheated to win and we’ll never accept these results. Fair elections we can accept but cheating to win; never. It’s not over yet. So thankful President Trump has a backbone and refuses to concede. President Trump should declare martial law as recommended by General Flynn.

I'm not up on all my 'overthrow the government' lingo, but this sounds like the textbook definition of sedition:

Quote

noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

another:

Quote

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organisation, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or rebellion against, established authority.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shared this in the thread about Beth Moore but it's relevant here I think.

In the bible, the book of Romans, chapter 13 talks specifically about obeying and submitting to the government. It was suggested that should be the focus for Christians now who voted for President Trump. I don't disagree. But I also think we sound incredibly tone deaf if we can't see that's a big thing we're asking. 

I wrote:

Quote

 

Yes. Romans is always good.

But on a bigger picture, this is a perfect example of what I've tried to talk about in the Healing and Move Forward thread.

Think about how this plays out.

 

I tell a Trump voter, "You need to follow Romans 13 and obey and submit to the leaders of the country."

The natural reaction will be, "Well isn't that convenient? Your side spent the last 5 years "Resisting" and doing everything they could to thwart President Trump. Your side spent the last five years doing the opposite of Romans 13. Now that your guy is in, I'm supposed "obey" and "submit" and do basically the opposite of what your side has been doing since 2015?"

My answer is, "Yes". 

Because someone has to be the bigger person and go first. Someone has to break the cycle. 

Is it fair to ask one side to not give back to the other side what they've been doing to them? Nope. This isn't fair. 

I'd ask, what's the alternative? 

They will say, "The alternative is to do exactly to their side what they did to my side. I'll resist and oppose and do exactly like they did."

I would then ask, "Aside from being the opposite of Romans 13, where do you think that will get us?"

I think we all know where that will get us.

 

So yes, I'd say Romans 13 is the right thing.

But I also think those people like me asking Trump voters to follow Romans have to understand it's asking them to treat the other side in a way that is opposite to how they feel they've been treated.

While I think it's the right thing to ask, I won't pretend it's not a big ask. And I'll ask it accordingly. 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

In the bible, the book of Romans, chapter 13 talks specifically about obeying and submitting to the government. 

 

I’ve always wondered about this. 
Religious Christians who called themselves abolitionists organized the Underground Railroad and helped slaves escape, defying the will of the government. During World War II, religious Christians hid Jews from the Nazi Death camps (my own father was hidden in a monastery), again defying the will of the government. Today all of civilization looks back on these brave men and women and regard them as heroes, rightfully so. But didn’t they ignore Romans? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’ve always wondered about this. 
Religious Christians who called themselves abolitionists organized the Underground Railroad and helped slaves escape, defying the will of the government. During World War II, religious Christians hid Jews from the Nazi Death camps (my own father was hidden in a monastery), again defying the will of the government. Today all of civilization looks back on these brave men and women and regard them as heroes, rightfully so. But didn’t they ignore Romans? 

This gets difficult in some situations. Hitler is the most common example. You might be interested in Dietrich Bonhoeffer for more.

People have devoted years to working through this with a bad ruler. There also are other verses.

The Apostle Peter (who many put on just a slightly lower status than Paul, the writer or Romans, said in Acts 5:29 in response to government leaders telling them to not talk about Jesus:

Acts 5:29

Quote

But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority."

So it gets tricky.

It's also a good example of how it can be dangerous to cherry pick in the bible.

Bottom line is I think it's difficult. And I don't pretend to have any great understanding.

I do know, in the United States, Romans 13 seems to come up like clockwork whenever a politician wins that didn't have overwhelming Christian support. 

Everyone loves to point out hypocrisy and if a Christian voted for John McCain instead of Barack Obama and was frustrated his candidate lost, the natural thing for the Obama voter is to do the "I know you're bummed and all but don't forget about Romans 13..." That goes over about as well as you'd expect. 

The reality is if you're a Christian, and you're consistent, it's pretty clear. And that doesn't always feel great for people. It's a challenge. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

This gets difficult in some situations. Hitler is the most common example. You might be interested in Dietrich Bonhoeffer for more.

People have devoted years to working through this with a bad ruler. There also are other verses.

The Apostle Peter (who many put on just a slightly lower status than Paul, the writer or Romans, said in Acts 5:29 in response to government leaders telling them to not talk about Jesus:

Acts 5:29

So it gets tricky.

It's also a good example of how it can be dangerous to cherry pick verses out of the bible.

Bottom line is I think it's difficult. And I don't pretend to have any great understanding.

I do know, in the United States, Romans 13 seems to come up like clockwork whenever a politician wins that didn't have overwhelming Christian support. 

Everyone loves to point out hypocrisy and if a Christian voted for John McCain instead of Barack Obama and was frustrated his candidate lost, the natural thing for the Obama voter is to do the "I know you're bummed and all but don't forget about Romans 13..." That goes over about as well as you'd expect. 

The reality is if you're a Christian, and you're consistent, it's pretty clear. And that doesn't always feel great for people. It's a challenge. 

 

 

Thanks. I have read a couple books about Bonhoeffer. He was, IMO, a great man. 

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

I’ve always wondered about this. 
Religious Christians who called themselves abolitionists organized the Underground Railroad and helped slaves escape, defying the will of the government. During World War II, religious Christians hid Jews from the Nazi Death camps (my own father was hidden in a monastery), again defying the will of the government. Today all of civilization looks back on these brave men and women and regard them as heroes, rightfully so. But didn’t they ignore Romans? 

As was pointed out in the post Joe is referencing I think that the first part of Romans 13 was practical advice for a Christian living in Rome in the mid first century.  It was specifically to differentiate the Christians from the Jews of that time.  The Jews were rather rebellious during this period of history which over the next hundred years or so would be rather disastrous for them.  I'm pretty sure that this submitting to authority means pretty much that it was okay to use the coins that proclaimed Caesar as god or son of god.  It was okay to pretend to participate in civic religious (i.e. pagan) ceremonies.  Etc.     That none of that mattered.  (I also think it served as a "get out of jail" card if this text fell into the wrong hands.)   Sure that is glossing over some of the language Paul used, but I think if you read beyond 13:7 and on to the rest of Romans 13 it becomes easier to see that it doesn't replace being a decent human being and doing the right thing.  

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

Bottom line is I think it's difficult. And I don't pretend to have any great understanding.

Yeah, it can definitely be difficult. Acts 5:29 does sum it up nicely. We are to submit to the authorities, but God is the ultimate authority.

The way I approach it is to say, "If I'm going to break a law or go against an authority, I better be sure that I'm justified in doing so."  If I doubt whether my lawlessness is justified, then I should probably rethink it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

As was pointed out in the post Joe is referencing I think that the first part of Romans 13 was practical advice for a Christian living in Rome in the mid first century.  It was specifically to differentiate the Christians from the Jews of that time.  The Jews were rather rebellious during this period of history which over the next hundred years or so would be rather disastrous for them.  I'm pretty sure that this submitting to authority means pretty much that it was okay to use the coins that proclaimed Caesar as god or son of god.  It was okay to pretend to participate in civic religious (i.e. pagan) ceremonies.  Etc.     That none of that mattered.  (I also think it served as a "get out of jail" card if this text fell into the wrong hands.)   Sure that is glossing over some of the language Paul used, but I think if you read beyond 13:7 and on to the rest of Romans 13 it becomes easier to see that it doesn't replace being a decent human being and doing the right thing.  

Some random thoughts on this.

Jeremiah delivered God's word to Jerusalem in Jeremiah 38:

"Thus says the LORD: He who stays in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence, but he who goes out to the Chaldeans shall live. He shall have his life as a prize of war, and live. 3Thus says the LORD: This city shall surely be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon and be taken.” 

I think it fits the conversation here because God tells them to basically submit to Babylon. That's how they'll live. Anyone fighting will die. God's people had been disobeying him for many years so he uses Babylon and provides them an out by obeying him and surrendering. So, there, God's orders are to submit to these new authorities. But, we can then go to Daniel and see that Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have moments of not submitting to the authorities while in exile.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2020 at 12:58 PM, Sinn Fein said:

.... While "I'm with Her" suggests an opportunity to smash a particular glass ceiling - but to many white males - that is identity politics, and its not their identity.

But, again, that the slogan appeals to a specific demographic does not mean that it was more broadly accepted, let alone "trounced" the opponents slogan.

 

http://www.nmasercola.com/why-hillarys-campaign-failed-a-marketing-analysis

 

"With that in mind, Make America Great Again is a damn good slogan. It's four simple words, and it convey's a message that's aspirational, and while being broad enough to let a wide range of people pour their own ideas of what makes America great into it.  He developed this slogan early, only adding "Drain the Swamp" towards the end of his campaign, which worked hand in hand with his original messaging. 

Hillary never had this. In fact, by my count, she had three campaign slogans vying for the spotlight, and none of them very strong. "I'm With Her", " Love Trumps Hate" , and "Stronger Together" were each used at different points in the election run, and each are unsuccessful for various reasons.

First off, before I discuss the failures of each, I have to just state that having three to begin with is a big problem. This meant that there was no single rallying cry for her supporters, which meant that her message could never fully unify an audience.  In addition, none of these messages emphasize a "vision". Regardless of your politics, "Make America Great Again" is a mission statement, something most candidates need. 

None of Hillary's slogans do this. "I'm With Her" is okay, and makes it feel like you're picking your "team" , but it doesn't inspire. "Love Trumps Hate" aims to be inspiring, but it's an odd message, and it was a poor choice of words to use the opponent's name in the slogan. "Stronger Together" is perhaps the most uniting of the three, but it still doesn't show a plan or a vision for what the future holds with Hillary. 

None of them are effective as Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" , and they definitely don't work as well as her husband's first presidency, "Putting People First", and considering his ability to connect with people, that's a travesty. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2020 at 7:43 PM, Doug B said:

 

GROOT ... doesn't look like "Democrats making lists". One person posting one reaction to one specific threat against her person. Still ill-advised, but not the monolithic voice of an entire political party.

 

Many conservatives are making lists. I registered on Parler from the beginning. The mantra there in private, esp from established pundits, is to not argue, don't complain, don't fight, don't get into a mud slinging contest with those where no one is going to change their minds, just provide evidence of where conservatives are not welcome and cut off your dollars to them.  I know lots of people who cancelled Red Zone, MLBTV and NBA League Pass over the kneeling/anthem/social justice stuff. Also know lots of people quietly phasing out all products linked to the Uighurs, i.e. is this product made by slave labor in a concentration camp where people are tortured, sterilized and having their organs harvested. No one wants to be party to genocide. You buy an IPhone or a pair of Nikes and wonder if a child put that together while having a gun stuck to the side of their head. So you decide not to buy them.

To be fair about it, you'll also see those on the left eventually phasing out places like Cabelas, Chick-fil-a and Papa Johns.

The fact that Parler exists is telling everyone where this is all head with political tribalism. For every left leaning medium, there will be some created right leaning counterpart. There is no discussion of "healing" nor middle ground. There's just both sides trying to shame each other into silence.

If a place clearly leans left, be prepared to lose conservative dollars. Not a question of if, but when.

If a place clearly leans right, be prepared to lose liberal dollars. Again, not a question of if, but when.

I agree with this sentiment. If you are unhappy about something, don't try to change anyone's mind. Vote with your wallet. Cancel your membership. Cancel your subscription. Don't eat at that restaurant. Don't buy that brand. Don't watch that movie or listen to that song. People don't bend the knee when you sit down and attempt to talk to them reasonably. But they sure do start to listen when they look at their children's plates and see there is no food there anymore. Silence is not assent. Silence is not surrender. Silence is not a path to peace. Silence is just a precursor to choking someone out financially.  Dignity only happens with dollars. Ever met a homeless person who was labeled a tough guy? Neither have I. It's all fun and games and entitlement until you watch all your customers turn around and never come back.

This is where political tribalism is going to wage it's war now. You'll see the final body count by following the money. Always follow the money.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

http://www.nmasercola.com/why-hillarys-campaign-failed-a-marketing-analysis

 

"With that in mind, Make America Great Again is a damn good slogan. It's four simple words, and it convey's a message that's aspirational, and while being broad enough to let a wide range of people pour their own ideas of what makes America great into it.  He developed this slogan early, only adding "Drain the Swamp" towards the end of his campaign, which worked hand in hand with his original messaging. 

Hillary never had this. In fact, by my count, she had three campaign slogans vying for the spotlight, and none of them very strong. "I'm With Her", " Love Trumps Hate" , and "Stronger Together" were each used at different points in the election run, and each are unsuccessful for various reasons.

First off, before I discuss the failures of each, I have to just state that having three to begin with is a big problem. This meant that there was no single rallying cry for her supporters, which meant that her message could never fully unify an audience.  In addition, none of these messages emphasize a "vision". Regardless of your politics, "Make America Great Again" is a mission statement, something most candidates need. 

None of Hillary's slogans do this. "I'm With Her" is okay, and makes it feel like you're picking your "team" , but it doesn't inspire. "Love Trumps Hate" aims to be inspiring, but it's an odd message, and it was a poor choice of words to use the opponent's name in the slogan. "Stronger Together" is perhaps the most uniting of the three, but it still doesn't show a plan or a vision for what the future holds with Hillary. 

None of them are effective as Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" , and they definitely don't work as well as her husband's first presidency, "Putting People First", and considering his ability to connect with people, that's a travesty. "

:shrug:

She gained 3 million more votes than Trump. 
 

She lost the election because MAGA resonated with conservative white males in key states. 
 

To the extent you are measuring marketing success among that group- then yes Trump did better than Clinton. 
 

But if you are talking about overall - then no. The objective evidence shows that more voters were attracted to Clinton (and Biden) than Trump’s MAGA. 
 

  • Thanks 1
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...