Dameris and Followill on the Presser

[mavsluvr]

I don't think we do (that's my guess)....but I am struggling to understand your perception of what I am saying (I feel like my position is being repeatedly mischaracterized). I don't know what I am doing or saying that is causing so much miscommunication.

Kamm, I have been hesitant about responding to this, because  (1) I suspect you may not really want to know, and (2) I fear that you will interpret the answer as some sort of personal attack, which I DO NOT intend. 

However, since you asked the question, I will give it a shot. 

The basic answer is NOT that you disagree with other ideas presented. It is more that you, and every one of us, can come across as being dismissive of concerns raised by others, when our points are not supported by evidence/logical reasoning. Specifically, for example, in this case, dismissing points made about Cuban's possible mistakes by simply announcing that such points are not problems. Here are a few issues which can lead to such misunderstandings. 

Pretending we are having a meaningful discussion, when our mind is actually already made up. You have said yourself that you have made up your mind on some of  these issues (absent evidence yet to come), and that you are almost never affected by arguments made on the internet. That frame of reference can come across as not listening and trying to understand, but essentially presenting an argument advocating a certain result. 

If you in fact WERE a lawyer presenting a case, the opposing lawyer would surely point out some reasons why people may not be convinced. I will use the proposition that Cuban has or hasn't made major mistakes as an example, but it is only that -- an example. 

Binary framing of complex issues. (If things improve, that means that I am right and you are wrong.) This type of issue/forum doesn't seem to lend itself to this type of binary analysis, and it is possible to disagree without this type of antagonistic framing. 

Non sequiturs. (If [A] things improve, that means  Cuban was not a problem, Carlisle was the problem, whatever). B does not necessarily follow from A. The situation is more complex than that. 

Magical thinking. (If I declare that Cuban's behavior is not a problem, the result will be that it isn't.) Self-explanatory.

Begging the question. (Cuban does not blindside people and overrule them. He listens to all points of view and makes decisions in a rational fashion.) That statement, presented as if it were a fact, is an opinion, as we cannot possibly know that. Other credible reports from people in a better position to know than we are have been presented, and in fact this is the very question being discussed. The statement is just restating the question in answer form, without supporting evidence/reasoning. 

Emotion-based reasoning. (I want to believe that Cuban was not a problem, so that means he isn't.) This type of "reasoning" is not based on external reality, but on strongly felt emotions within the individual. But wanting a certain thing to be true doesn't make it so.

Catastrophizing. (If it turns out the Cuban was the main problem, that means the Mavs will not be a good organization going forward, and I may not be able to be a fan any more.) The fact that mistakes have been made does not mean the consequences are necessarily disastrous. 

And so forth. I don't want to pile on. 


To be clear --

I am NOT attacking you as a person, just making a few remarks regarding my impressions of some of your comments, since you asked. Specifically, why you may feel misunderstood, and other people may feel that you are summarily dismissing their concerns without really addressing them. 

My response to your question is not really only addressed to you. I am sure that some, if not most, of us (undoubtedly including myself), introduce these kinds of logical fallacies somewhat routinely. After all, this is a basketball forum, not a court of law, and as fans, we all remark on our team and its issues with passion and emotion, not as some type of legal brief.  My attempt at an answer is really just pointing out why some types of arguments by any of us can occasionally be mistaken as arrogance/dismissiveness, when that is not what we really intend. 

If you feel like you want to argue that I am oversimplifying your responses, I acknowledge doing so for purposes of illustration. With respect to the Cuban question, you have honestly acknowledged at times that the situation is not crystal clear, and your thoughts have seemingly evolved as you have continued to process information, which is a great sign of deepening your and all of our understanding. 

You frequently give convincing arguments about various issues, and support them with evidence. I deeply value your work running the forum, and respect you as an individual and a poster. If you are hurt or angered by my answer to your question, then I have failed in my presentation of it. I am not even sure if this exploration of potential misunderstandings among friends is helpful, as a general matter, but it is a good faith attempt to address your question, and I hope you will take it as such, even if you do not agree with all (or any) of it.

Peace, my brother.