I understand the frustration. And look, I appreciate your straight-forward commentary. I just want to keep away from discussions becoming peppered with vulgarities that otherwise offer little contribution.
As for some of your reasoning behind the "loser" label, I understand how you're defining it, but think it's rather subjective. I also think when most hear the term they think of it as pejorative. I do, at least, so I admit my knee-jerk reaction is to push back on it.
With respect to your definition, the Phillies, for as poorly as they've played lately, are going to end the season with a winning record. So are they losers because they didn't make the playoffs? If so, there's only one playoff team that will end their season with a win. Are the rest losers? Let's say the Phillies back into the playoffs by way of the Brewers losing all six of their remaining games. Are the Phils now winners? I just think it a bit irresponsible to throw around the loser term when it really lacks a clear definition and is largely used in a general, derogatory fashion.
I also think it's hyperbole to say that no one on the team has a "winner mentality". I don't necessarily agree (despite the ambiguity of what exactly you consider a winner's mentality to be), but either way I don't think any of us can know that no one on the team has it. Similarly, I don't think there's any way we know that no one holds anyone else accountable in the clubhouse - though in fairness I'd grant that some of the team's more veteran players seem to be more the silent leader type. But on that note I would disagree that no one leads by example. I think Harper, Realmuto, and Wheeler all seem to be the silent, lead-by-example type.
I don't, however, disagree that there are organizational issues tied to the losing atmosphere. One need only look at the club's history to have a strong suspicion of that. 
