Multiple things can be true at once

[Hennessy_King]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Wanting the team to improve in an area of weakness is not being a hater. Its just constructive criticism

 

[G2]

Wanting the team to improve in an area of weakness is not being a hater. Its just constructive criticism

True. And people will read what they want to.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Good post Bobby! Honestly, many posters take their opinion way too seriously while some take their opinion of someone else opinion too personal ........get it? lol

I make it a point to try and openly understand another poster's point of view about a player or issue where we disagree but at the end of the day I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree and move on.

too many posters only care about their opinion and their own opinion only, even if proven wrong, they will argue to prove they were right.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Excellent post. I've found people like to be able to easily and conveniently label everything. However, reality is far to complex and nuanced to be able to do that.

 

[jazzcat22]

Just Win Baby....and all is good for most fans....

Still there will criticism just as all teams when winning, say there are areas they need to improve. As a team and as a player or coach.
So fans will do the same thing. But also will see everything on the bright side as well.

I am just waiting for the NE game, and hope the weather is decent.

 

[CouchCoach]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Can a doubter still be a fan?

That's the same point you are making so well. Fans have been called out for how they feel about the team's chances and not just been called not a fan but haters. That doesn't even make any sense.

The balance for me has always been a Cowboys heart and a football mind. If I do not see what I want to see, I do not hallucinate. The fact that I call out what I see does not reflect on my fanhood.

For the first time in quite some time, the two are aligned. My team is a good team, might even be a very good team and I did not see this coming this early.

I want to share something and this is coming strictly from the poster. The Cowboys are 4-1 and few predicted that and they look better than most of us expected. The overuse of the word "hater" here should stop. That should only be applied to those fans of other teams that come here and it is their right to hate.

 

[Crown Royal]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

You are right. Posted worded in the ways you've done above don't usually spark as much debate, though. Threads that begin with "McCarthy will cost this team games" or "This Defense can't run with real teams" are the ones that create debate, because they are worded in such a way to drive toward a specific result.

 

[glimmerman]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

This team came out playing pretty good and has improved most every week. Our Defense had a ways to go and is getting better each week these youngsters get to gel with the others and the game experience. And let’s not forget about confidence. It’s about getting better as a team along the season. MM had a few hiccups but straightening out. Out kicker screwed up the first game and I was not a fan but has improved.

Nothing wrong with holding players accountable but some just flat out hates certain players or coaches and can’t change the minds.

Brown showed out with that pick 6 last week. I thought it was great for him. As teams game plan for Diggs then Brown will get thrown at more. So it figures he may give up more plays. All has to be taken into consideration.

 

[Diehardblues]

It’s the nature of Social Media in all aspects in that promoting one side or aspect is in effect not supporting or attacking the other. Especially when an entity or individual has history of opinion on a subject.

The only way to avoid is to grease the hole before you place an object in it. Intent , perception and perspective is crucial .

Like for example ; Elliott is having a good year and our running game is strengthened with Pollards production as well. A great compliment to each other.

You basically can’t compliment one without the other or an agenda or intent can be questioned. Thats just the nature of a polarized media world we live in now. A great indication that in the wrong hands or eyes more information is not always better.

 

[glimmerman]

It’s the nature of Social Media in all aspects in that promoting one side or aspect is in effect not supporting or attacking the other. Especially when an entity or individual has history of opinion on a subject.

The only way to avoid is to grease the hole before you place an object in it. Intent , perception and perspective is crucial .

Like for example ; Elliott is having a good year and our running game is strengthened with Pollards production as well. A great compliment to each other.

You basically can’t compliment one without the other or an agenda or intent can be questioned. Thats just the nature of a polarized media world we live in now. A great indication that in the wrong hands or eyes more information is not always better.

The media and social media is ruining everything pushing agendas and bias in all areas.

 

[Diehardblues]

I actually think in prior eras when fans had less access to information the ones who did take the time to read, listen and watch the limited media outlets and publications were more informed and had less agendas and polarized views.

There’s so much disinformation out there on social media driven by self interest and agendas merely for the entertainment dollars or power that any fool can click onto without much effort . And then the internet allows them a stage or podium to blurt it out from individuals and entities we’d normally never hear from .

It’s very dangerous. And looks like it’s destroying the fabric of our country and perhaps even world when this info falls into the wrong hands because everyone isn’t intelligent or educated enough to decipher facts from propaganda pending who presents them.

 

[CouchCoach]

What could possibly go wrong with a technology designed to allow the user to move about under the cloak of anonymity?

There do not have to be self serving agendas or motives, just screwing with something is all some people need to feel self-important.

Then there are those with the Matrix Syndrome, they do not see the internet as real life affecting real human beings, we are all lines of code. They've actually had hackers messing with the power grids of hospitals, what kind of mind can even approach something like that?

My bud, retired hospital administrator, told me they have to have backups all free from online or remote access because of the hacker attacks hospitals had received but was kept low profile so not to scare the public.

The crazy people, dangerous crazy, have always been amongst us but we've never empowered them like we did with the internet. And presented them with their very own chat rooms.

 

[Bobhaze]

Can a doubter still be a fan?

That's the same point you are making so well. Fans have been called out for how they feel about the team's chances and not just been called not a fan but haters. That doesn't even make any sense.

The balance for me has always been a Cowboys heart and a football mind. If I do not see what I want to see, I do not hallucinate. The fact that I call out what I see does not reflect on my fanhood.

For the first time in quite some time, the two are aligned. My team is a good team, might even be a very good team and I did not see this coming this early.

I want to share something and this is coming strictly from the poster. The Cowboys are 4-1 and few predicted that and they look better than most of us expected. The overuse of the word "hater" here should stop. That should only be applied to those fans of other teams that come here and it is their right to hate.

One of the laziest, most often misused words on this entire forum is the term “hater”.

 

[ghst187]

No way everything has to be one or the other in this kindergarten world

 

[Established1971]

sooooooooooo very true

 

[Motorola]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

NFL teams (and all sports teams for that matter) are dynamic: changing incrementally and constantly -positively or negatively - every season...as the season progresses.
The Chiefs are 2-3 with their defense being last in total points allowed + PPG...and their QB is mortal (is the "umbrella coverage" the kryptonite to KC?). Are they done?
Recall last year the Steelers were undefeated in early December. Stumbled down the stretch and bounced out of the playoffs in a wildcard home loss to a division rival.
And the 2020 Cardinals: 5-2 entering November after a bye week- then crashed and burned - 3 Ws, 6 Ls and missed the postseason as a result.
Last season's Champions- 7-5 entering December - 3 games behind the division leader.
But went 4-0 to finish the regular season, then 3-0 on the road in the playoffs before their suffocating performance v. the previous - defending SB Winners.

 

[john van brocklin]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

True Bob
Thanks for keeping it real

 

[Cebrin]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

"Nothing is an absolute reality; all is permitted". - Vladimir Bartol 1938. This is possibly my favorite post in 8 years of being part of the zone. Cheers Bob!

 

[Verdict]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Well said. But some people are complete tools who can’t be objective, reasonable or just enjoy the taste of urine in their cereal in the morning.

 

[lockster]

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Most subjects are presented as false dicotomies, that's the issue you are addressing. . That's one reason truth is so elusive. .