M Jenkins and Michael Thomas killed the Saints

burningmetal · 09-29-2020, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by gosaints1

I thought we were talking about a conversation between M.Thomas, M.Jenkins, and D.Brees and whether D.Brees lost the locker-room bc of that issue, or if he lost the locker-room bc of his play? Culture War Smultcher-War, who cares, it won’t change how I feel about things. Like I said before, you would be surprised to find out that I probably agree with you on many of the things you are stating. Only difference is I think there are valid arguments to be made against them also..., bc we are all different. The things that make up my beliefs are defined by everything that has happened to me in the past and what’s going on currently. I guarantee you that each person’s histories are different, and may very well be vastly different. Drew Brees, and the others involved, did what he/they felt needed to be done or said, based on their current team and peers, the current culture in that very specific locker room, among many other items. I can’t understand that dynamics bc I wasn’t there, I wasn’t a player in that locker-room, I am not a member of that culture in that organization. So, it’s not fair for me to say: “he shoulda done this”.

Virtue signaling has two faces, I’m a fan of neither.

We've already addressed the three original players in question, and the conversation moved onward to issues related to the subject matter involving said players. I assumed you were keeping up. It seemed you were. Now you're trying to push my points aside as being "not part of the conversation", I guess?

All that stuff you said about there being valid arguments to be made against my position, because "people are different", and your beliefs being made up of your experiences is really just a long way of not making a valid argument against my points. You keep saying you probably agree with me on most things, but you keep arguing with me, and yet not really addressing the problems I've raised with the players' stance; instead punting the conversation to "there are valid arguments to be made against it, and everyone is different".

You say you don't like virtue signaling. Neither do I. But your refusal to meet the issues I'm raising head on, and trying to show me that you are open minded, by not actually taking a position, is what I'd call virtue signaling. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Not everyone's opinion is right, however. There is no such thing as "my truth" and "your truth" and "their truth". There is only THE truth. The only way for any conversation to be productive is for all parties involved to actively search for that truth. It's not good enough just to say "well, I may disagree with them, but I'm sure they have a valid reason for what they believe", anymore than it is good enough to shout people down without hearing what they have to say.

I don't believe Drew thinks he did the "right" thing. I think he just wanted to save his butt from criticism rather than face the fire. But even if, for the sake of argument, he DID change is mind, that doesn't make him right, and I do not have to respect his opinion, and I have the right to say he was wrong. Reality does not back the narrative the players are pushing. Period. This is what I mean about everyone having a responsibility to know what they believe and why. Because, if you want your opinion to be respected, you better have the facts to back up what you say. The players don't. This thing you're doing about refusing to say that someone's opinion is wrong, simply because you don't know them, makes no sense to me. I don't have to know these people to know the narrative is false. We're not discussing their relationship choices, we're talking about this supposed "cause".

09-29-2020, 11:55 AM	#11
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: M Jenkins and Michael Thomas killed the Saints Originally Posted by gosaints1 I thought we were talking about a conversation between M.Thomas, M.Jenkins, and D.Brees and whether D.Brees lost the locker-room bc of that issue, or if he lost the locker-room bc of his play? Culture War Smultcher-War, who cares, it won’t change how I feel about things. Like I said before, you would be surprised to find out that I probably agree with you on many of the things you are stating. Only difference is I think there are valid arguments to be made against them also..., bc we are all different. The things that make up my beliefs are defined by everything that has happened to me in the past and what’s going on currently. I guarantee you that each person’s histories are different, and may very well be vastly different. Drew Brees, and the others involved, did what he/they felt needed to be done or said, based on their current team and peers, the current culture in that very specific locker room, among many other items. I can’t understand that dynamics bc I wasn’t there, I wasn’t a player in that locker-room, I am not a member of that culture in that organization. So, it’s not fair for me to say: “he shoulda done this”. Virtue signaling has two faces, I’m a fan of neither. We've already addressed the three original players in question, and the conversation moved onward to issues related to the subject matter involving said players. I assumed you were keeping up. It seemed you were. Now you're trying to push my points aside as being "not part of the conversation", I guess? All that stuff you said about there being valid arguments to be made against my position, because "people are different", and your beliefs being made up of your experiences is really just a long way of not making a valid argument against my points. You keep saying you probably agree with me on most things, but you keep arguing with me, and yet not really addressing the problems I've raised with the players' stance; instead punting the conversation to "there are valid arguments to be made against it, and everyone is different". You say you don't like virtue signaling. Neither do I. But your refusal to meet the issues I'm raising head on, and trying to show me that you are open minded, by not actually taking a position, is what I'd call virtue signaling. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Not everyone's opinion is right, however. There is no such thing as "my truth" and "your truth" and "their truth". There is only THE truth. The only way for any conversation to be productive is for all parties involved to actively search for that truth. It's not good enough just to say "well, I may disagree with them, but I'm sure they have a valid reason for what they believe", anymore than it is good enough to shout people down without hearing what they have to say. I don't believe Drew thinks he did the "right" thing. I think he just wanted to save his butt from criticism rather than face the fire. But even if, for the sake of argument, he DID change is mind, that doesn't make him right, and I do not have to respect his opinion, and I have the right to say he was wrong. Reality does not back the narrative the players are pushing. Period. This is what I mean about everyone having a responsibility to know what they believe and why. Because, if you want your opinion to be respected, you better have the facts to back up what you say. The players don't. This thing you're doing about refusing to say that someone's opinion is wrong, simply because you don't know them, makes no sense to me. I don't have to know these people to know the narrative is false. We're not discussing their relationship choices, we're talking about this supposed "cause". Flipx99 likes this.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.