Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Can we please stop with the "Trying to catch everyone being a hypocrite" game?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, rockaction said:

It's a Mean Girls reference. It's when somebody keeps trying to use a neologism in a context or within a sphere of conversation and nobody else adopts it. The quote from the movie is when Rachel McAdams's character Regina tells Lacey Chabert's character that her attempt at coining slang is off, which a pretty harsh thing to say to a Heather-in-training.

"Stop trying to make fetch happen. It's never happening."

Oh....ok

Mean Girls....got it

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Oh....ok

Mean Girls....got it

Eh...well...it was sort of a popular pop culture reference? I can understand where you might have missed it. Perhaps my semantic puritanism (due credit to wikkid) will suffice in keeping the charges of bleaching at bay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rockaction said:

Eh...well...it was sort of a popular pop culture reference? I can understand where you might have missed it. Perhaps my semantic puritanism (due credit to wikkid) will suffice in keeping the charges of bleaching at bay.

There's no reason not to call it what it is :shrug: 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I think whataboutism is more than fair. You should be holding both sides to the same standards and I’ve found that sometimes whatboutisim can give you a reality check that you might be being too lenient to the side you agree with. 
 

I think the Rush Limbaugh situation is the perfect example. You have people on the left celebrating his death when they claim to be the moral side and then you have Trump supporters trying to take the moral side now after proudly supporting and being dead silent for 4 straight years of Trump attacking anyone who disagrees with him, including multiple dead people. 
 

If you’re holding the sides to two completely different standards, you should be called out for it or not expect to be taken seriously IMO.

Edited by Bucsfan5493
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Meh, I think whataboutism is more than fair. You should be holding both sides to the same standards and I’ve found that sometimes whatboutisim can give you a reality check that you might be being too lenient to the side you agree with. 
 

I think the Rush Limbaugh situation is the perfect example. You have people on the left celebrating his death when they claim to be the moral side and then you have Trump supporters trying to take the moral side now after proudly supporting and being dead silent for 4 straight years of Trump attacking anyone who disagrees with him, including multiple dead people. 
 

If you’re holding the sides to two completely different standards, you should be called out for it or not expect to be taken seriously IMO.

Minor point but while I agree that there’s a time to discuss Rush’s legacy and now may not be it but I haven’t seen many maybe 1-2) that were celebrating his death.

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

Minor point but while I agree that there’s a time to discuss Rush’s legacy and now may not be it but I haven’t seen many maybe 1-2) that were celebrating his death.

I saw a lot. "Rest in Piss," "Good Riddance," and "Rot in Hell." were trending on Twitter. Folks like Bette Midler aren't what I'd call fringe. 

It is what it is. We obviously can't control twitter. We can have some small bit of control on the forums and we tried our best to do that. Same as we do for any famous person who dies completely regardless of their political views. 

Hopefully we can move on from this one. But it was pretty discouraging. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Meh, I think whataboutism is more than fair. You should be holding both sides to the same standards and I’ve found that sometimes whatboutisim can give you a reality check that you might be being too lenient to the side you agree with. 
 

I think the Rush Limbaugh situation is the perfect example. You have people on the left celebrating his death when they claim to be the moral side and then you have Trump supporters trying to take the moral side now after proudly supporting and being dead silent for 4 straight years of Trump attacking anyone who disagrees with him, including multiple dead people. 
 

If you’re holding the sides to two completely different standards, you should be called out for it or not expect to be taken seriously IMO.

Correct, both pools of people you're referring to should not matter. They are the problem. Our mistake is not enough of us that share that belief coalesce with each other to kill the viruses the exist on the sides. Instead we collectively lean towards our comfortable direction and allow their vile voice to strengthen. 

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

Correct, both pools of people you're referring to should not matter. They are the problem. Our mistake is not enough of us that share that belief coalesce with each other to kill the viruses the exist on the sides. Instead we collectively lean towards our comfortable direction and allow their vile voice to strengthen. 

Couldn’t have said it any better. This country won’t truly reach its potential until the two party system is abolished. 

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

I saw a lot. "Rest in Piss," "Good Riddance," and "Rot in Hell." were trending on Twitter. Folks like Bette Midler aren't what I'd call fringe. 

It is what it is. We obviously can't control twitter. We can have some small bit of control on the forums and we tried our best to do that. Same as we do for any famous person who dies completely regardless of their political views. 

Hopefully we can move on from this one. But it was pretty discouraging. 

It's Twitter.  You can say "I saw a lot" but how many is that really?  50?  500?  Heck, even 5000 people would be a tiny, tiny, miniscule percentage of Twitter users.  You really need to ignore raw numbers and instead think of it as a percentage.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

It's Twitter.  You can say "I saw a lot" but how many is that really?  50?  500?  Heck, even 5000 people would be a tiny, tiny, miniscule percentage of Twitter users.  You really need to ignore raw numbers and instead think of it as a percentage.

When something is trending on twitter, it's trending because there are a ton of people talking about it. I've no interest in continuing the discussion as it's been discouraging enough already. But the the downplay / minimize on this is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because people on the left don't want to be beholden to the people sheltered from the rain in their coalition tent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

When something is trending on twitter, it's trending because there are a ton of people talking about it. I've no interest in continuing the discussion as it's been discouraging enough already. But the the downplay / minimize on this is interesting.

This is your usual pattern, Joe.  You talk about how liberals are so disappointing and so many of them behave inappropriately.  Yet, when called out, you have no idea how many or what percentage and suddenly lose interest in the discussion.

The reality is you have no idea how many people were making those posts.  For all you know, 10 liberals posted something inappropriate, and 50,000 conservatives retweeted it complaining about it.

You're a good guy.  I think you're sincere about your beliefs.  But you have a very noticeable anti-"anti-Trump/Republican" bias.  I'm sure you don't notice it, but more than a few people on this board have noticed.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I saw a lot. "Rest in Piss," "Good Riddance," and "Rot in Hell." were trending on Twitter. Folks like Bette Midler aren't what I'd call fringe. 

It is what it is. We obviously can't control twitter. We can have some small bit of control on the forums and we tried our best to do that. Same as we do for any famous person who dies completely regardless of their political views. 

Hopefully we can move on from this one. But it was pretty discouraging. 

I thought he was talking about the Rush thread here.  I’m not sure why anyone would use Twitter trends for anything - Lots of crazy people, jerks and bots.  I have no doubt plenty of people celebrated it on Twitter.

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

This is your usual pattern, Joe.  You talk about how liberals are so disappointing and so many of them behave inappropriately.  Yet, when called out, you have no idea how many or what percentage and suddenly lose interest in the discussion.

The reality is you have no idea how many people were making those posts.  For all you know, 10 liberals posted something inappropriate, and 50,000 conservatives retweeted it complaining about it.

You're a good guy.  I think you're sincere about your beliefs.  But you have a very noticeable anti-"anti-Trump/Republican" bias.  I'm sure you don't notice it, but more than a few people on this board have noticed.

He just said it was trending. What more do you need? Forsenic studies of it?

Christ, every left-wing publication was tripping over themselves to either heap dirt on a grave or proclaim they weren't heaping dirt on it while heaping dirt on it all the same. Get a life.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

And FTR, I went back and read Bucs post and could tell he probably didn’t mean the thread here - I read that wrong.

ETA - now that I think about the context of the thread I’m not sure what he meant :)  

Edited by AAABatteries
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

He just said it was trending. What more do you need? Forsenic studies of it?

Christ, every left-wing publication was tripping over themselves to either heap dirt on a grave or proclaim they weren't heaping dirt on it while heaping dirt on it all the same. Get a life.

How many retweets does it take to get something to trend?  How many were original tweets versus retweets complaining about it being inappropriate (it is)?  What percentage of total Twitter users is that?  Seriously, is it 1% of Twitter users?  2%?  5%?  50%?  Give me some context besides "trending".

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2021 at 11:17 AM, jm192 said:

....Why do we need a test of "Did you complain about xyz that your political side did?  Then shut up"

I'm probably guilty of it sometimes myself in the past.  I'm going to work to do better, so I can actually have a conversation beyond "You didn't complain back in October..."I hope you'll join me.

 

Human beings behave in line with instinctive survival mechanisms. This is our biological imperative - To survive and to reproduce.

This is one of the reasons men react so strongly to disloyalty and things that become anti-community/anti-tribe in nature. Loyalty is a survival mechanism. You need a group for your children to survive and you can only function in a group based on trust.

How do men talk? Men talk tactics and problem solving. This is the basis of all male conversation. The hunting grounds are good here. This is where the most threats are when traveling. This is how to fix this problem. This is the best way to use your Waiver Wire in fantasy football. Tactics must be based on facts and Mark I eyeball reality. This is part of the old Ranger rules, which was say what you like among others, but always tell the truth to your brothers in arms because all decisions, life and death, are based off that information.

How do women talk? Women talk about others in the group. This is the basis of all female conversation. Since their survival and hierarchy is built though usually non violent and social dynamics. This is why women gossip and talk so much. The biggest threat to women in primitive times were other women who might impede on their resources, their male mates and the survival of their children. Tactics here must be based on feelings. This is no longer about the best place to hunt, this is about interpersonal dynamics and verbal/social warfare. Here, cognitive dissonance can exist. Facts mean little in this arena since the battleground is sifting through what people mean indirectly, not what they are showing openly.

So when you say you don't like how something feels when it's presented in terms of hypocrisy, you are not bringing up the issue ON WHETHER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS TRUE OR NOT.

The truth is the only litmus test that matters for actual day to day problem solving. It is the only litmus under which our social interactions will function in a group dynamic for our mutual survival. The truth is why we didn't go extinct.  We do this one way, we all die. We do it this instead, we all live. Feelings don't mean jack ####.

What you are saying is it doesn't matter to you if it's true or not, it matters how it makes you feel.

I'm saying I don't care about how anyone feels, it matters more if it's true.

The denial of truth and facts is a bed rock of identity politics. It's also a denial of masculinity. It's a denial of fact based tactical decision making.

You can trust a man who is honest. You can't trust a man who behaves in line with the biological imperative of women and bases decision making on feelings. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how long the human race would have survived if it rested strategically on feelings over day to day hardened reality of what did and did not work tactically. And modern society and culture has shifted to show my point in big bold neon signs - Women are urged to act more like men and men are told in entertainment, Big Education and the MSM that their base nature is toxic and bigoted and evil and misogynistic and must be punished. Is anyone going to really deny this has been happening in the Western world for a very long time now?

Identity politics is packed deeply in feelings and then the big bow on the outside of the box is virtue signaling. It's how rationalization becomes digestible through progressive forms of said cognitive dissonance.

You know why I'm right? BECAUSE WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN THE VALUE OF THE TRUTH. Don't lie to others, it only makes things worse as all lies are revealed eventually and don't lie to your family and don't lie to yourself. We teach our children to dig in and push past their feelings and look towards their future, their safety, their duty to their family and their obligation to their own integrity.

You are entitled to your free speech. But "No", I won't join you. I will not surrender my masculinity in denial of the truth, if what is presented is the truth. If hypocrisy is an extension of that first and most important question - "Is it true?", then so be it.

All of you have free will. Ask yourself if you'd rather stick to what has kept men alive all throughout human history. Or if you'd rather choose to fit seamlessly with what women naturally do best and deny the fundamental reality of how we actually want to raise our children.

"Doing better" in my eyes is keeping my Man Card where it belongs. I care about standing up for my Conservative brothers here. I care about diversity of thought and opinion on FBG. I care about the integrity of this community, of which I am a part. I don't have any more caring in me left to worry about anyone's feelings.

Old Man Gekko was not built to give quarter. Natural dominance means he can only drop dimes.

Spend these ten cents well, it cost you more than you realize.

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

 

Human beings behave in line with instinctive survival mechanisms. This is our biological imperative - To survive and to reproduce.

This is one of the reasons men react so strongly to disloyalty and things that become anti-community/anti-tribe in nature. Loyalty is a survival mechanism. You need a group for your children to survive and you can only function in a group based on trust.

How do men talk? Men talk tactics and problem solving. This is the basis of all male conversation. The hunting grounds are good here. This is where the most threats are when traveling. This is how to fix this problem. This is the best way to use your Waiver Wire in fantasy football. Tactics must be based on facts and Mark I eyeball reality. This is part of the old Ranger rules, which was say what you like among others, but always tell the truth to your brothers in arms because all decisions, life and death, are based off that information.

How do women talk? Women talk about others in the group. This is the basis of all female conversation. Since their survival and hierarchy is built though usually non violent and social dynamics. This is why women gossip and talk so much. The biggest threat to women in primitive times were other women who might impede on their resources, their male mates and the survival of their children. Tactics here must be based on feelings. This is no longer about the best place to hunt, this is about interpersonal dynamics and verbal/social warfare. Here, cognitive dissonance can exist. Facts mean little in this arena since the battleground is sifting through what people mean indirectly, not what they are showing openly.

So when you say you don't like how something feels when it's presented in terms of hypocrisy, you are not bringing up the issue ON WHETHER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS TRUE OR NOT.

The truth is the only litmus test that matters for actual day to day problem solving. It is the only litmus under which our social interactions will function in a group dynamic for our mutual survival. The truth is why we didn't go extinct.  We do this one way, we all die. We do it this instead, we all live. Feelings don't mean jack ####.

What you are saying is it doesn't matter to you if it's true or not, it matters how it makes you feel.

I'm saying I don't care about how anyone feels, it matters more if it's true.

The denial of truth and facts is a bed rock of identity politics. It's also a denial of masculinity. It's a denial of fact based tactical decision making.

You can trust a man who is honest. You can't trust a man who behaves in line with the biological imperative of women and bases decision making on feelings. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how long the human race would have survived if it rested strategically on feelings over day to day hardened reality of what did and did not work tactically. And modern society and culture has shifted to show my point in big bold neon signs - Women are urged to act more like men and men are told in entertainment, Big Education and the MSM that their base nature is toxic and bigoted and evil and misogynistic and must be punished. Is anyone going to really deny this has been happening in the Western world for a very long time now?

Identity politics is packed deeply in feelings and then the big bow on the outside of the box is virtue signaling. It's how rationalization becomes digestible through progressive forms of said cognitive dissonance.

You know why I'm right? BECAUSE WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN THE VALUE OF THE TRUTH. Don't lie to others, it only makes things worse as all lies are revealed eventually and don't lie to your family and don't lie to yourself. We teach our children to dig in and push past their feelings and look towards their future, their safety, their duty to their family and their obligation to their own integrity.

You are entitled to your free speech. But "No", I won't join you. I will not surrender my masculinity in denial of the truth, if what is presented is the truth. If hypocrisy is an extension of that first and most important question - "Is it true?", then so be it.

All of you have free will. Ask yourself if you'd rather stick to what has kept men alive all throughout human history. Or if you'd rather choose to fit seamlessly with what women naturally do best and deny the fundamental reality of how we actually want to raise our children.

"Doing better" in my eyes is keeping my Man Card where it belongs. I care about standing up for my Conservative brothers here. I care about diversity of thought and opinion on FBG. I care about the integrity of this community, of which I am a part. I don't have any more caring in me left to worry about anyone's feelings.

Old Man Gekko was not built to give quarter. Natural dominance means he can only drop dimes.

Spend these ten cents well, it cost you more than you realize.

I would ask what I just read, but I’d be lying if I said I read it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 9:24 PM, Rich Conway said:

This is your usual pattern, Joe.  You talk about how liberals are so disappointing and so many of them behave inappropriately.  Yet, when called out, you have no idea how many or what percentage and suddenly lose interest in the discussion.

The reality is you have no idea how many people were making those posts.  For all you know, 10 liberals posted something inappropriate, and 50,000 conservatives retweeted it complaining about it.

You're a good guy.  I think you're sincere about your beliefs.  But you have a very noticeable anti-"anti-Trump/Republican" bias.  I'm sure you don't notice it, but more than a few people on this board have noticed.

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree. I said it was disappointing I saw a lot of something. People asked why I felt that. (Is that what we call being "called out" now?)

I replied it was trending on Twitter. :shrug:

I'm sure I'm biased in lots of ways. Based on messages I've received, lots of people on the board agree. It's almost always in the opposite direction of how they see things. Which may be their bias. I expect that's natural and part of life. I doubt I'm going to change that. All good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 8:42 AM, timschochet said:

Well, again we disagree. But I didn’t really want to get into yet another argument over this comparison; we’ve been there already. 

What I want you to realize is that if I honestly disagree with you then I’m not being a hypocrite. 

What about calling someone  a liar when they believe something  is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 9:31 PM, Rich Conway said:

How many retweets does it take to get something to trend?  How many were original tweets versus retweets complaining about it being inappropriate (it is)?  What percentage of total Twitter users is that?  Seriously, is it 1% of Twitter users?  2%?  5%?  50%?  Give me some context besides "trending".

This is a serious post.  Wow.  

So now we have to not only post a link but post how many agrees shares likes something gets too?   Holy moly when does it end?  

You guys crack me up.

 

  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 8:24 PM, Rich Conway said:

This is your usual pattern, Joe.  You talk about how liberals are so disappointing and so many of them behave inappropriately.  Yet, when called out, you have no idea how many or what percentage and suddenly lose interest in the discussion.

The reality is you have no idea how many people were making those posts.  For all you know, 10 liberals posted something inappropriate, and 50,000 conservatives retweeted it complaining about it.

You're a good guy.  I think you're sincere about your beliefs.  But you have a very noticeable anti-"anti-Trump/Republican" bias.  I'm sure you don't notice it, but more than a few people on this board have noticed.

This is becoming the even more annoying defense these days.

No, no, no thats just a small fringe. 

 

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

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree. I said it was disappointing I saw a lot of something. People asked why I felt that. (Is that what we call being "called out" now?)

I replied it was trending on Twitter. :shrug:

I'm sure I'm biased in lots of ways. Based on messages I've received, lots of people on the board agree. It's almost always in the opposite direction of how they see things. Which may be their bias. I expect that's natural and part of life. I doubt I'm going to change that. All good. 

I suggest stop looking at twitter if you don't want to be disappointed by humanity. 

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

This is becoming the even more annoying defense these days.

No, no, no thats just a small fringe. 

 

About as annoying as thinking the 5% of loons on each side represent the party as a whole or represents where we are heading in general as a society? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

About as annoying as thinking the 5% of loons on each side represent the party as a whole or represents where we are heading in general as a society? 

Cept not so long ago, it was 1%...That % keeps growing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is becoming the even more annoying defense these days.

No, no, no thats just a small fringe. 

 

Becoming?  Really?  It's been laid at the feet of multiple arguments around this place for the better part of 10ish years with exponential growth the last 5-6 :shrug: 

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...