YOU'RE HURTING MY FEELINGS

I’ve recently gotten to know someone who played Division I (the highest level of) college basketball from 1978-82 and now coaches a high school team. I asked him, “What’s the biggest difference between the way you were coached and how you coach your players?”

I could see by his facial expression and the promptness of his response that he had frequently thought about this topic and that it strongly affected his daily life. He said, firmly, “Back in the day, it was much more raw. Coaches didn’t hold back what they thought about how you were playing. They didn’t care about your feelings. Now, if you say anything critical, the kids get upset and tell their parents, who complain to the administration.”

I knew, from playing high school sports at roughly the same time as my new friend had played in college, that he had accurately characterized coach-player interaction during that period. Players’ feelings didn’t matter back in the day. Coaches’ criticisms or observations were usually fair. But fair or not, you had to reckon with these messages, no matter how loudly, angrily, sarcastically or frequently they were delivered. The substance of the criticism or the observation was what mattered.

There was no crying in baseball. Or basketball. Definitely not in football.

Overall, my new friend endorsed the old ways. He opined that sometimes criticism was warranted and that only by examining one’s conduct could one improve one’s play and be a better teammate. He said his players took shortcuts in their off-season-training and in-season practice that caused them to underperform in games.

American culture has changed dramatically over the past forty-plus years. Among other changes, many exalt feelings over facts. Relatedly, most people can’t tolerate criticism or disagreement, no matter how it’s delivered. Oddly, those who can’t tolerate criticism or disagreement often criticize or disagree with others.

—

Latter-day unwillingness to accept criticism or disagreement, and the simultaneous eagerness to disparage and disagree with, others has been painfully clear during the Covid Era of lockdowns, closures, masks, tests (collectively, “the NPIs”) and shots. Most people stridently supported these worthless, damaging measures. They labeled lockdown skeptics and vaxx critics “selfish, ignorant MAGA Trumpers,” even though many NPI skeptics and jab critics are highly educated—formally and informally—have done much family support and community work and criticized Trump’s Scamdemic overreaction.

Despite the clear failure of the “mitigation” measures that progressives supported, these NPI/shot backers show no contrition for the harm caused by these measures. They’re unwilling to hear even ex post facto criticism. It hurts their feelings.

In September, 2023, I met someone—a Harvard grad—who said it took him most of 2020 to figure out that the NPIs were poor ideas. I calmly expressed my view that the Covid threat, the NPIs and shots made no sense from the outset. I pointed out, as I repeatedly have during the past four years, that super-lethal viruses don’t just spontaneously materialize, that no one but a fraction of old, sick people were ostensibly dying from a virus in early 2020 Italy and Spain and that it was clear that locking down wouldn’t work and would hurt countless people. I didn’t add—though I could have—that by late 2020, most of the overreaction’s damage was a fait accompli.

Piqued, he responded, “It makes people feel stupid when you say they should have seen this earlier than they did.”

I said that I knew people would react unfavorably to my message; I had read Dale Carnegie and had life experience. Nonetheless, I said, anticipating an unfavorable reaction didn’t mean that I should or would withhold my perspective, which I had supported with facts and logic. Nor did his reaction make me regret upsetting him, or others before or after him.

Though I did ask him how I could better package my message. He had no answer. His core, insurmountable objection was that the expression of my perspective hurt his feelings and, by extension, the feelings of others who supported the NPIs and shots. In addition to manifesting a lack of acumen, NPI and jab supporters didn’t want to be implicitly held accountable for the predictable damage they caused including, but not limited to, the theft, from the young, of irreplaceable life experiences and the redistribution of more wealth to those who were already super-wealthy; much of the CARES Act’s trillions ended up in the stock market. And the poor, domestically and abroad, became markedly poorer.

NPI and vaxx backers should react to such observations and criticism as mine in the same constructive manner as athletes, musicians, employees, friends, spouses and others react to comments and criticisms of coaches, teachers, employers, peers and mates. They should dispassionately meet reason with reason. If they’re unable to so, NPI and shot supporters should accept responsibility for the damage they’ve caused, as open-minded adults should. At least in theory.

Sometimes, while playing sports, I’ve done stupid stuff. Though I knew—the moment after I’d done it—that it was stupid, coaches reminded me that it was. I owned what I did and moved on. Same as in life, generally.

Worse, sometimes I had to admit to myself that I knew that an action I had taken—or failed to take—was foolish but, because of momentary misfocus, I did it anyway. The best advice a coach ever gave me—and the whole team at the same time—was “If you make the same mistakes repeatedly, you’re not applying yourself.” This lesson also extends to daily life.

I’ve also given credit to those who have outperformed me or who perceived things in sports or in life that I didn’t see until after the fact. Did it make me feel like a slow learner? Yes, but, as they say, it was what it was. Sometimes you need to admit that you figured out something later than did others and/or too late for it to matter. People should be willing to admit that they should have known better. At the time.

It’s so hard for people to say “I was wrong. And I shouldn’t have been. I ignored clear signs that were right in front of me. And/or I was too focused on what others thought of me and went along with misguided peers so they’d like me.”

Many people are too insecure to accept criticism or to self-criticize. Or to apologize to those whom they’ve hurt.

While unwillingness to admit error is widely exhibited, it seems especially characteristic of “progressives.” Aside from an abiding insecurity and proclivity to complain, liberals can’t admit that conservatives are/were right about anything. Progressives can’t face the reality that they and their beloved New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, PBS and NPR aggressively supported the worst exercise of public policy in history.

Hence, Team NPI/Jab now invokes the “we couldn’t have known” alibi to justify their Coronamania. This is so weak. The overreaction was obvious from Day 1. Take the L.

Admitting their poor Covid analysis would undermine progressives’ overarching, paternalistic belief that they’re entitled to rule the world. This unwillingness to admit error is especially stubborn if they attended a big-name college or have some advanced degree that, in their minds, confers or denotes intellectual superiority. Progressives think they’re smarter than people with less impressive pedigrees, even though, during the past four years, progressives’ deficits of science knowledge, analytical skills and blinding tribalism have been plainly exposed.

The NPI and shot supporters should express unconditional contrition and withhold their opinions and refrain from voting for a few decades. But this group lacks self-awareness or the strength of character to admit they swung and missed on a slowball set of Corona issues. Instead, they focus on the hurt they feel when people like me point out facts, apply science and logic and saw, 47 months ago, the bigger Scamdemic picture that the groupthinkers didn’t see until long after vast, irreversible damage had been done.