Artie Burns is not happy with new NFL National Anthem policy

[hawaiiansteeler]

Artie Burns is not happy with new NFL National Anthem policy

By SAM QUINN

Artie Burns, like the rest of the Pittsburgh Steelers, made a very controversial decision before their Week 3 game against the Chicago Bears. The Steelers decided to sit out the National Anthem as a way to protest comments made by President Donald Trump. He remembers what followed: months of criticism, fans saying that they would give up the team, a whole lot of distractions that hindered the team's football performance. The decision that the Steelers made shined a light on them. It put a target on their back that made the center of the National Anthem debate whether they liked it or not.

And now, Burns believes the NFL is doing that to all of its players.

to read rest of article:

https://www.scout.com/Article/Artie-Burns-is-not-happy-with-new-NFL-National-Anthem-policy-118495166

[steelreserve]

He became the center of attention when he didn't want to be. That is what would happen to every player who protests under these rules. And Burns, like many other players who haven't been as vocally, finds that very unfair.

When you protest publicly, by definition you are trying to make yourself the center of attention. But I suppose that doesn't occur to some people - like everything, it's just "unfair."

As usual, Villanueva handled the situation in the most spot-on way.

[DesertSteel]

Burns just needs to focus on not being a bust and losing his job to Sutton.

[salamander]

The NFL is a private enterprise and can implement whatever policy they want. If the players don't like it, there are plenty of other guys who would be more than happy to take their place.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Steve Kerr: NFL rule on protests during anthem 'idiotic,' 'pandering,' 'fake patriotism'

Dan Devine Yahoo Sports
May 24, 2018

https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-nfl-rule-protests-anthem-idiotic-pandering-fake-patriotism-194648818.html

[st33lersguy]

So they don't want to be singled out if they don't stand for the anthem? As if they would receive any less scorn than they already have? Also Artie should probably be more concerned with doing something other than celebrate a tackle after giving up a first down on the field and less about this

[steelreserve]

Steve Kerr: NFL rule on protests during anthem 'idiotic,' 'pandering,' 'fake patriotism'

Dan Devine Yahoo Sports
May 24, 2018

https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-nfl-rule-protests-anthem-idiotic-pandering-fake-patriotism-194648818.html

Dan Devine (D-CA), Yahoo Sports


... really though, the only political position that's good for business is no political position. Too bad for the NFL they let it go on long enough that taking that stance becomes a political position itself.

Should've handled it like the NBA and gotten it over with before it got to that point. But what do you expect from a commissioner like Goodell who just does everything in reaction to the media. And the media loves making everything into political activism, so it was beyond easy to lead him down that path until ownership finally had to put its foot down.

[Mojouw]

While the NFL is a private business and can largely do whatever they want, they seem to continually forget that their employees are union. Any decisions the owners reached would've been far easier to implement with the NFLPA on their side. I believe this is how the NBA and MLB have mostly overcome this issue. League directives with at least the hint of taking the players unions opinion into account.

[steelreserve]

While the NFL is a private business and can largely do whatever they want, they seem to continually forget that their employees are union. Any decisions the owners reached would've been far easier to implement with the NFLPA on their side. I believe this is how the NBA and MLB have mostly overcome this issue. League directives with at least the hint of taking the players unions opinion into account.

In a practical sense, what are the union's options on this, though - threaten a strike? I don't think this is the kind of thing they'd think it's worth going to the mat over.

What I expect will actually happen is some player to kneel anyway and get fined in order to prove a point, then the union to file a lawsuit over it in federal court, then the lawsuit to be thrown out months later on technical grounds like a "lack of standing" (oh, the irony) - with the net effect being just a lot of noise created.

Then the player doesn't get re-signed by anyone the following offseason, and columnists from Yahoo Sports are outraged, making more noise.

[hawaiiansteeler]

In a practical sense, what are the union's options on this, though - threaten a strike? I don't think this is the kind of thing they'd think it's worth going to the mat over.

What I expect will actually happen is some player to kneel anyway and get fined in order to prove a point, then the union to file a lawsuit over it in federal court, then the lawsuit to be thrown out months later on technical grounds like a "lack of standing" (oh, the irony) - with the net effect being just a lot of noise created.

Then the player doesn't get re-signed by anyone the following offseason, and columnists from Yahoo Sports are outraged, making more noise.

if I'm not mistaken the NFL will not fine the player, only the team.

[steelreserve]

if I'm not mistaken the NFL will not fine the player, only the team.

Right, and then it's up to the team whether they want to fine the player or not. Which I imagine they will, because if they don't, then it'll be setting a bad precedent of the team being ok with paying the price for the individual player's actions, and then there will be an uproar from a certain segment of fans saying they might as well be condoning the protests, they're effectively paying the player to kneel, ans so on. Not to mention if they do change their mind and start fining the player, there'll be an uproar over THAT, too, only from the opposite side of the fan base. So they'll have pissed off two groups of people for the price of one.

Or maybe they let it slide the first time with a warning that if you do it again, it's coming out of your own pocket. I don't expect the teams to eat the fine on an ongoing basis, though. Maybe Seattle and San Francisco will.

One thing that's for certain - they sure left the door open for more controversy by taking a wishy-washy approach with 10 rules and contingencies where one sentence would do. But that's the NFL for you.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Right, and then it's up to the team whether they want to fine the player or not. Which I imagine they will, because if they don't, then it'll be setting a bad precedent of the team being ok with paying the price for the individual player's actions, and then there will be an uproar from a certain segment of fans saying they might as well be condoning the protests, they're effectively paying the player to kneel, ans so on. Not to mention if they do change their mind and start fining the player, there'll be an uproar over THAT, too, only from the opposite side of the fan base. So they'll have pissed off two groups of people for the price of one.

Or maybe they let it slide the first time with a warning that if you do it again, it's coming out of your own pocket. I don't expect the teams to eat the fine on an ongoing basis, though. Maybe Seattle and San Francisco will.

One thing that's for certain - they sure left the door open for more controversy by taking a wishy-washy approach with 10 rules and contingencies where one sentence would do. But that's the NFL for you.

Jets acting owner: I'll pay fines if my players don't stand for national anthem

By CHRISTOPHER BRITO CBS NEWS
May 23, 2018

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-jets-nfl-christopher-johnson-national-anthem-kneeling-woody-johnson-president-trump/

[AtlantaDan]

In a characteristic profile in courage Goodell and the owners avoided accountability by not formally voting to approve or reject the latest way to further screw the matter up

The NFL did not take a formal roll-call vote when it passed its new national anthem resolution that will take effect this season, league spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed Thursday....

Sources told ESPN's Seth Wickersham that league officials wanted to make sure that the resolution would not fail, and so after hours of debate they called for the show of hands. The informal nature of it surprised some in the room. Not taking an official tally is atypical for a major resolution.

No surprise Roger lied about how the vote ended up

Later Thursday, Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis confirmed what [ESPN] reported earlier -- that he abstained from the vote....

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday the vote was "unanimous" among owners, although San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York said he abstained.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23593960/nfl-hold-formal-anthem-policy-vote

This from AJR II

“I don't expect it to be an issue with this team with the leadership we have on this team and the communication we have in this building,” he said. “We didn't have an issue last year. For some reason, people don't seem to remember that, but we didn't have a player kneel last year."

http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/13686440-74/steelers-art-rooney-says-anthem-policy-wont-satisfy-everyone

No worries - if any issues flare up Ben will make a radio appearance on 93.7 and calm everything down

[Dwinsgames]

Burns just needs to focus on not being a bust and losing his job to Sutton.

this

- - - Updated - - -


Jets acting owner: I'll pay fines if my players don't stand for national anthem

By CHRISTOPHER BRITO CBS NEWS
May 23, 2018

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-jets-nfl-christopher-johnson-national-anthem-kneeling-woody-johnson-president-trump/

his tune may change if the fine increases week by week and starts high to begin with .. sure 20k no big deal 200k well might be a bit different

- - - Updated - - -

point is if protest were not hurting the league in the bottom line they wouldnt make rule changes ....

it might not affected a lot of games in the stands but I bet it damn sure hurt merchandise sales a huge part of the NFL revenue machine

[Psycho Ward 86]

The NFL is a private enterprise and can implement whatever policy they want. If the players don't like it, there are plenty of other guys who would be more than happy to take their place.


Aaaand this is why unions exist. To prevent unchecked authoritarianism. Players union was given zero say in this matter. Why does it even exist if thats the case?

[AtlantaDan]

this

- - - Updated - - -



his tune may change if the fine increases week by week and starts high to begin with .. sure 20k no big deal 200k well might be a bit different

- - - Updated - - -

point is if protest were not hurting the league in the bottom line they wouldnt make rule changes ....

it might not affected a lot of games in the stands but I bet it damn sure hurt merchandise sales a huge part of the NFL revenue machine

It is a no win situation - no matter what the NFL did now was going to antagonize a significant portion of the fan base - these poll results were published today

Overall, 42 percent of U.S. adults said it is sometimes appropriate to protest by kneeling during the national anthem while 53 percent said it is “never appropriate” in the Post-Kaiser survey conducted in January and February....

Opinions are deeply divided along partisan, racial and ethnic lines. Fully 86 percent of Republicans said it’s never appropriate to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest. That drops down to just about half of independents (51 percent) and less than 3 in 10 Democrats (29 percent) who said the same; 66 percent of Democrats said protesting the anthem is sometimes appropriate.

By a 69 percent to 22 percent margin, more African Americans said protests of the national anthem were acceptable than not. Yet over half of white (58 percent) and Hispanic adults (54 percent) said anthem protests are never appropriate. Whites are internally divided along partisan lines: 87 percent of white Republicans said it is never appropriate to kneel during the national anthem, compared with 24 percent of white Democrats....

The poll finds older and younger Americans also differ significantly on the issue. Among adults ages 50 and older, 63 percent say kneeling during the national anthem is never appropriate, compared with 50 percent among those ages 30-49 and 38 percent of people ages 18-29. Among this youngest group, a 57 percent majority say anthem protests are appropriate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/23/poll-53-percent-of-americans-say-its-never-appropriate-to-kneel-during-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.10238b6ded9a
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/23/poll-53-percent-of-americans-say-its-never-appropriate-to-kneel-during-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.10238b6ded9a)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2018/05/23/National-Politics/Polling/release_523.xml?tid=a_mcntx

As posted above, MLB and the NBA avoided this mess and never got to the point of fans choosing sides on anthem protests. As other posters have stated, that may have something to do with players in those leagues having more clout in employee-management matters compared to the long NFL tradition of treating players as interchangeable inventory that you discard as soon as it wears out

[GBMelBlount]

It is a no win situation - no matter what the NFL did now was going to antagonize a significant portion of the fan base - these poll results were published today

Overall, 42 percent of U.S. adults said it is sometimes appropriate to protest by kneeling during the national anthem while 53 percent said it is “never appropriate” in the Post-Kaiser survey conducted in January and February....

Opinions are deeply divided along partisan, racial and ethnic lines. Fully 86 percent of Republicans said it’s never appropriate to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest. That drops down to just about half of independents (51 percent) and less than 3 in 10 Democrats (29 percent) who said the same; 66 percent of Democrats said protesting the anthem is sometimes appropriate.

By a 69 percent to 22 percent margin, more African Americans said protests of the national anthem were acceptable than not. Yet over half of white (58 percent) and Hispanic adults (54 percent) said anthem protests are never appropriate. Whites are internally divided along partisan lines: 87 percent of white Republicans said it is never appropriate to kneel during the national anthem, compared with 24 percent of white Democrats....

The poll finds older and younger Americans also differ significantly on the issue. Among adults ages 50 and older, 63 percent say kneeling during the national anthem is never appropriate, compared with 50 percent among those ages 30-49 and 38 percent of people ages 18-29. Among this youngest group, a 57 percent majority say anthem protests are appropriate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/23/poll-53-percent-of-americans-say-its-never-appropriate-to-kneel-during-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.10238b6ded9a

As posted above, MLB and the NBA avoided this mess and never got to the point of fans choosing sides on anthem protests. As other posters have stated, that may have something to do with players in those leagues having more clout in employee-management matters

compared to the long NFL tradition of treating players as interchangeable inventory that you discard as soon as it wears out


It sounds to me Dan, like the NFL is simply running their business....like a business? :noidea:

Do you keep a player when you have better options to help your team win? :drink:

[st33lersguy]

No matter what they did, a large portion of people were going to be pissed off. It's just a sad product of today's bitterly partisan environment with seemingly a majority of people holding attitudes such as "I'm right, your wrong" and "If you are not 100% for my side, you are against me" with fans flamed by inflammatory rhetoric from politicians and forms of media (from both extremes). Frankly, the worst thing to come out of this is it fans the flames, the story had lost steam throughout the year and this reignites it

[salamander]

Aaaand this is why unions exist. To prevent unchecked authoritarianism. Players union was given zero say in this matter. Why does it even exist if thats the case?

If the union has an issue with it, can they not challenge the league regarding the policy? If they can and choose not to, then that's on the union.

[AtlantaDan]

It sounds to me Dan, like the NFL is simply running their business....like a business? :noidea:

So are the NBA and MLB - it is a matter of how you run it

Some businesses are run like Amazon and some successes of the past are run into the ground like Sears

Roger Goodell as a commissioner was born on third base as a consequence of the owners and commissioners who built the league but thinks it means he hit a triple

[Dwinsgames]

It is a no win situation - no matter what the NFL did now was going to antagonize a significant portion of the fan base - these poll results were published today

Overall, 42 percent of U.S. adults said it is sometimes appropriate to protest by kneeling during the national anthem while 53 percent said it is “never appropriate” in the Post-Kaiser survey conducted in January and February....

Opinions are deeply divided along partisan, racial and ethnic lines. Fully 86 percent of Republicans said it’s never appropriate to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest. That drops down to just about half of independents (51 percent) and less than 3 in 10 Democrats (29 percent) who said the same; 66 percent of Democrats said protesting the anthem is sometimes appropriate.

By a 69 percent to 22 percent margin, more African Americans said protests of the national anthem were acceptable than not. Yet over half of white (58 percent) and Hispanic adults (54 percent) said anthem protests are never appropriate. Whites are internally divided along partisan lines: 87 percent of white Republicans said it is never appropriate to kneel during the national anthem, compared with 24 percent of white Democrats....

The poll finds older and younger Americans also differ significantly on the issue. Among adults ages 50 and older, 63 percent say kneeling during the national anthem is never appropriate, compared with 50 percent among those ages 30-49 and 38 percent of people ages 18-29. Among this youngest group, a 57 percent majority say anthem protests are appropriate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/23/poll-53-percent-of-americans-say-its-never-appropriate-to-kneel-during-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.10238b6ded9a
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/23/poll-53-percent-of-americans-say-its-never-appropriate-to-kneel-during-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.10238b6ded9a)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2018/05/23/National-Politics/Polling/release_523.xml?tid=a_mcntx

As posted above, MLB and the NBA avoided this mess and never got to the point of fans choosing sides on anthem protests. As other posters have stated, that may have something to do with players in those leagues having more clout in employee-management matters compared to the long NFL tradition of treating players as interchangeable inventory that you discard as soon as it wears out


goes to show you the lack of respect from a large segment of our younger generation ...

but why should this surprise us in terms of the Anthem , they do not even respect their parents for the most part ...

if there is 1 symbol in this nation that should be respected at all times it is the flag and its waiving during that anthem ...

you could not show that disrespect in probably any other nation in the world without consequence and that alone should be reason to give it respect ...

if you will not do it for country do it for this nations fallen that provided you the right and ability to do so ...

thats just my take I am sure someone will disagree because if nobody does that speaks volumes about the accuracy of the poll at least in terms of a small sample size we have here that is in fact a diverse group

[teegre]

Remember “flag burning”?

Same discussion... 30 years later.

[Psycho Ward 86]

If the union has an issue with it, can they not challenge the league regarding the policy? If they can and choose not to, then that's on the union.

For whatever reason, they can't. They literally were not even invited to be in a position to challenge, concede, and/or compromise on the subject at hand.

Your CEO allows the creation of a workers union in your company. Said union has no actual power so your power stands untested.

This is not directed towards you salamander but to anybody reading: Football fans, especially Steelers fans hate the disproportionate and unchecked power that Roger Goodell has but they'll be totally cool with a lack of due process if they like a decision. But that's none of my business. Im looking forward to hearing contradicting validations below.

Personally I just watch the game, not the pregame. Who cares what shenanigans goes on before or after as long as no one's hurt. Want the issue to go away? Stop eating up the artificially manufactured "news" story that is kneeling. When the consumers pay a ton of attention, the media makes their pretty penny. The only reason this should be in the news at all is to show the power dynamics within the NFL between Goodell, owners, the players, consumers, and the media.

[Mojouw]

For me the flag symbolizes a great many things. Not the least of which is each individual citizens ability to pick and choose how and when they express their opinions and politics. No one has to like or agree with the expression of those political opinions but the entire point of the uniquely American experiment in democracy is to be able to enact that expression relatively free of consequences.

Anything else is not the Constitutional freedoms we are all granted. If individual employees wish to risk the items of their employees to express political speech, that's their deal.

Had a potential employer reade the riot act for a candidate bumper sticker on my car during an interview. Told him that if I used the car for work purposes, Id remove the sticker. Outside of that, it wasn't his business. We talked it out, and I got the job. Details are different, but this is the same shit.

[hawaiiansteeler]

National Anthem boss Maurkice Pouncey says Steelers will stand

By JIM WEXELL

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/Article/National-Anthem-boss-Maurkice-Pouncey-says-Steelers-will-stand-118496473

[Edman]

Go to your workplace and refuse to do your job because of your political beliefs, drive away customers and hurt business.

Do that and see if you're employed for very long.

[BlackAndGold]

https://i1.wp.com/gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif?ssl=1

[teegre]

For me the flag symbolizes a great many things. Not the least of which is each individual citizens ability to pick and choose how and when they express their opinions and politics. No one has to like or agree with the expression of those political opinions but the entire point of the uniquely American experiment in democracy is to be able to enact that expression relatively free of consequences.

Anything else is not the Constitutional freedoms we are all granted. If individual employees wish to risk the items of their employees to express political speech, that's their deal.

Had a potential employer reade the riot act for a candidate bumper sticker on my car during an interview. Told him that if I used the car for work purposes, Id remove the sticker. Outside of that, it wasn't his business. We talked it out, and I got the job. Details are different, but this is the same shit.

It’s a Catch-22.

If a person is is not allowed to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is not actually free.

But, if that person is free enough to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is indeed free.


So... the person who is free enough to protest about their freedom is actually proving how free they truly are.


Stopping the protestor from displaying their freedom, actually proves their point (they are in fact “not free”).

Whereas, allowing the protestor to display their freedom, actually disproves their point (they are in fact very free).

SUMMATION:
It’s a circular logic problem, akin to saying “This statement is false”

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

It’s a Catch-22.

If a person is is not allowed to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is not actually free.

But, if that person is free enough to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is indeed free.



Funny huh? For some the flag is a symbol of freedom, but they are being penalized for freedom of expression. Sounds like hypocrisy.

...and what are they actually expressing? Is it that the racial inequality that is part of the history books of America, is still present today to a lesser, but still unjust extent? Is it that police are more apt to react with violence to a black man in a hoodie, than a white man in a hoodie?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fswb_VY493w

[Fire Goodell]

I think it's stupid honestly. Since when is kneeling a sign of disrespect? People kneel in prayer or bow to the king the same way. It's not like the guy is standing there and taking a leak or throwing middle fingers up as the anthem is playing lol.

I've served in the military and quite honestly, as a veteran, I could give a crap about who stands for the flag. It's their choice, and we fought for people's freedom to choose. If anything, forcing people to stand is taking away a choice which doesn't seem very American to me.

But hey the NFL is a private business and by law they can do this. And instead of kneeling, players will still protest (some raise their fist up, which is still allowed)

https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/003/743/402/hi-res-0e3a446d3b185b1c9ebd55165ac45d46_crop_north.jpg?h= 533&w=800&q=70&crop_x=center&crop_y=top

[steelreserve]

It’s a Catch-22.

If a person is is not allowed to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is not actually free.

But, if that person is free enough to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is indeed free.


So... the person who is free enough to protest about their freedom is actually proving how free they truly are.


Stopping the protestor from displaying their freedom, actually proves their point (they are in fact “not free”).

Whereas, allowing the protestor to display their freedom, actually disproves their point (they are in fact very free).

SUMMATION:
It’s a circular logic problem, akin to saying “This statement is false”


No offense, but that's a pretty bullshit argument.

For one thing, the NFL players aren't protesting about a lack of freedom, they're ostensibly protesting the behavior of the police (although some seem to have taken that a step further into race issues in general). Ironically, they're making their point by protesting a symbol of the freedom that allows them to protest. Not a real strong start by Kap & crew in the logic department, but that's not really the point either.

Freedom of expression means that you are free to express your opinion without the government stopping you or coming after you. That's all. It does not mean others are compelled to lend you their own forum to express your beliefs, which is really what this is about.

If someone else put a Trump bumper sticker on my car, I'd be free to take it off. If I call up the newspaper and tell them they need to do a story on ... let's say, chemtrail conspiracy theories ... they can decide whether it's in their best interest to run the story or not. They don't have to. Hell, if I come to this forum constantly extolling my opinion that the Patriots are the best team in the history of pro sports, the site owners are free to tell me to shut up or GTFO. It's not infringing on my freedom; the government isn't suppressing me. Someone else just decided their audience doesn't want to hear it and I need to go find my own way to spread my message.

Same idea here. Players want to use the NFL's TV platform for their own personal views, and it's pretty well-established they're not guaranteed the right to do that. You put a decal on your helmet, or wear a headband with your message on it, they can tell you to take it off for violating the uniform policy. You go on America's Got Talent and launch into an anti-abortion tirade instead of singing or dancing, and they'll kick you off the stage.

Hell, if I decided to put a Black Lives Matter banner at the top of all the pages on our company website, and the owner said "I don't want that on the site, focus on promoting the products," and I argued with him about free speech and how important the issue is to me personally, guess who wins that argument? Now, the one thing I agree with 100% is that the NFL completely bungled the handling of that; I mean they have 30+ years of precedent in their own league of controlling very tightly what is an acceptable way of conveying your personal beliefs on the field (mostly: don't do it). But button-mashing Roger just sort of follows every media trend like a guy chasing a bus, so that's how we got here.

One final note - I find it really ironic that a lot of the people complaining about the players' right to express themselves on the job are the same liberals who have a well-deserved reputation for trying to get people fired from their jobs, kicked out of school, blacklisted from any prominent position, etc., for things they do on their own time. I mean, these are the same people who go around doxxing people over Twitter comments, calling people's employers demanding they be fired - real petty, below-the-belt shit like that. There is a fundamental lesson in that from which they would benefit, although they probably don't even see it.

[Mojouw]

Say I sold widgets. In this alternate MOJOUW Widget seller universe, I also have data that the majority of widget purchasers are really really hardcore Marxist-Leninist style Communists. Like the more Lenin the better kinda folks. They aren't violent or fomenting rebellion inside the United States, just really dedicated to the Communist Party as a political movement and only purchase widgets (a billion dollar a year industry in the US) from overtly Communist companies. So I require that each of my employees stand and observe a moment of silence for Lenin each day then listen as a selection from the Communist manifesto is read aloud. Most of my employees are fine with this and couldn't care less, they use they time to get centered and focused for a hard day of widget manufacturing and largely ignore the content of the ritual. A few employees totally disagree with what I am doing and are against the content of the morning pre-work exercise. They ask me to sit silently and read while the morning pre-work routine is taking place as it conflicts with their personal beliefs. They promise that they will be the best widget workers during the work period, just want to opt out before that happens. I fire them all. Am I right?

[tube517]

Since when did the NFL players even have to come out to the anthem for regular season games?

I mean this whole episode could have been avoided if they didn't come out until after the anthem like it had been forever in the past.

I get the Super Bowl and the Conference Championship games but I don't even recall when this all started. Usually when watching, we get the 2 bozo announcers onscreen with their pregame "analysis" and the anthem is nowhere to be seen or heard.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I've served in the military and quite honestly, as a veteran, I could give a crap about who stands for the flag. It's their choice, and we fought for people's freedom to choose. If anything, forcing people to stand is taking away a choice which doesn't seem very American to me.



This is such a great perspective from a former member of the Military !! It sounds very much like what Nate Boyer said as well. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Thank you for your service.

I wonder why all the fuss about suppressing somebody's freedom with regards to the anthem, yet their freedom from police brutality is mostly an afterthought?

Here is NBA player Sterling Brown. He stands for the National Anthem, he had 5 cops wrestle him to the ground, taser him and leave marks on his face. I bet more people would react to his taking a knee during the anthem at an NBA game than have reacted to the video of him being tased outside a Walgreens in Milwaukee.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDjG2JUdRo

[Mojouw]

Since when did the NFL players even have to come out to the anthem for regular season games?

I mean this whole episode could have been avoided if they didn't come out until after the anthem like it had been forever in the past.

I get the Super Bowl and the Conference Championship games but I don't even recall when this all started. Usually when watching, we get the 2 bozo announcers onscreen with their pregame "analysis" and the anthem is nowhere to be seen or heard.

It started when the NFL got hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government for anthem displays pre-game.

- - - Updated - - -


This is such a great perspective from a former member of the Military !! It sounds very much like what Nate Boyer said as well. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Thank you for your service.

I wonder why all the fuss about suppressing somebody's freedom with regards to the anthem, yet their freedom from police brutality is mostly an afterthought?

Here is NBA player Sterling Brown. He stands for the National Anthem, he had 5 cops wrestle him to the ground, taser him and leave marks on his face. I bet more people would react to his taking a knee during the anthem at an NBA game than have reacted to the video of him being tased outside a Walgreens in Milwaukee.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDjG2JUdRo

Exactly.

It is not only the violence and potential deadly consequences, but the general suspicion that people of color face in some parts of the country. Like the woman who got the cops called on her for BBQ'ing in a public park. Or the black guy who got the cops called on him for walking his baby in a public park. Or the Hispanic worker who had a white woman pull a gun on him and call the cops for turning around on her street. These are all in the last month.

As to the anthem stuff, bread and circuses man.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Say I sold widgets. In this alternate MOJOUW Widget seller universe, I also have data that the majority of widget purchasers are really really hardcore Marxist-Leninist style Communists. Like the more Lenin the better kinda folks. They aren't violent or fomenting rebellion inside the United States, just really dedicated to the Communist Party as a political movement and only purchase widgets (a billion dollar a year industry in the US) from overtly Communist companies. So I require that each of my employees stand and observe a moment of silence for Lenin each day then listen as a selection from the Communist manifesto is read aloud. Most of my employees are fine with this and couldn't care less, they use they time to get centered and focused for a hard day of widget manufacturing and largely ignore the content of the ritual. A few employees totally disagree with what I am doing and are against the content of the morning pre-work exercise. They ask me to sit silently and read while the morning pre-work routine is taking place as it conflicts with their personal beliefs. They promise that they will be the best widget workers during the work period, just want to opt out before that happens. I fire them all. Am I right?

Are certain NFL players taking a knee or rasing a fist over widgets or Marxist ideals?

I thought that it was that certain players in the NFL were taking a knee to use their status to bring attention to how minorities in America have been abused or even killed by police, when they were in situations where they didn't pose a threat? Some would call it racial inequality of how police treat minorities.

Here is dash cam footage of the Police killing of Philando Castille in Minneapolis. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/22/philando-castile-facebook-and-dashcam-full-mashup-video-ctn.cnn His girlfriend streamed the incident on Facebook live a the time and he was shot while getting his drivers license for the officer. The officer that shot him point blank on the side of the road was acquitted.

[Mojouw]

Are certain NFL players taking a knee or rasing a fist over widgets or Marxist ideals?

I thought that it was that certain players in the NFL were taking a knee to use their status to bring attention to how minorities in America have been abused or even killed by police, when they were in situations where they didn't pose a threat? Some would call it racial inequality of how police treat minorities.

Here is dash cam footage of the Police killing of Philando Castille in Minneapolis. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/22/philando-castile-facebook-and-dashcam-full-mashup-video-ctn.cnn His girlfriend streamed the incident on Facebook live a the time and he was shot while getting his drivers license for the officer. The officer that shot him point blank on the side of the road was acquitted.

I realize that and totally agree with the point I believe you are making. I was simply trying to construct a poor analogy to take the variables out of the context of race and the American flag - two issues that a lot of people for very understandable reasons have a hard time being dispassionate about.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

It started whe
It is not only the violence and potential deadly consequences, but the general suspicion that people of color face in some parts of the country. Like the woman who got the cops called on her for BBQ'ing in a public park. Or the black guy who got the cops called on him for walking his baby in a public park. Or the Hispanic worker who had a white woman pull a gun on him and call the cops for turning around on her street. These are all in the last month.

As to the anthem stuff, bread and circuses man.

Very true and the examples you reference validate your point and are very real.

The NFL is approx. comprised of 70% black players. It is a multi billion dollar industry in which they are the actual workers. If they want to use their fame and status to bring attention to the issue that people of color are of suspicion of being criminals and being physically abused, killed and their rights violated, I don't see what is wrong with that.

As posters here have said, they have served in the military and preserved the freedom of NFL players and others to do what they want. If Chris Long, Malcom Jenkins, Eric Reid want to take a knee to bring attention and bring about positive change, it is their right to free speech and free thought. IMO, it should not be censored like it is in countries such as North Korea.

[steelreserve]

Say I sold widgets. In this alternate MOJOUW Widget seller universe, I also have data that the majority of widget purchasers are really really hardcore Marxist-Leninist style Communists. Like the more Lenin the better kinda folks. They aren't violent or fomenting rebellion inside the United States, just really dedicated to the Communist Party as a political movement and only purchase widgets (a billion dollar a year industry in the US) from overtly Communist companies. So I require that each of my employees stand and observe a moment of silence for Lenin each day then listen as a selection from the Communist manifesto is read aloud. Most of my employees are fine with this and couldn't care less, they use they time to get centered and focused for a hard day of widget manufacturing and largely ignore the content of the ritual. A few employees totally disagree with what I am doing and are against the content of the morning pre-work exercise. They ask me to sit silently and read while the morning pre-work routine is taking place as it conflicts with their personal beliefs. They promise that they will be the best widget workers during the work period, just want to opt out before that happens. I fire them all. Am I right?

Yeah, you own a private company, you can have whatever policy you want as long as you're not making them do something illegal. No one's forcing them to work there. Hell, you could have a policy that your employees all salute Osama bin Laden at the start of the day and answer the phone, "This is Mojouw's Widgets - HAIL SATAN!" I don't think many people would want to work there (or shop there), but it's up to you. If you told people they couldn't sit out the bin Laden salute or they'd be fired, that might make you a bit of a dick, but still within your right.

I mean, on a less extreme note, I've been to a catholic school that required you to take a certain number of classes on religion (I'm not religious); I rented a room from a house full of vegetarians who put in the ad that they did not want anyone eating meat in the house; and there are plenty of examples of that kind of thing in business and elsewhere. Plenty of religious-oriented businesses, for one, where you're expected to follow their rules. There are companies that ban iPhones, for that matter.

If it's a voluntary association by your own choice, freedom of expression doesn't apply, because you chose to be there and you are also free to choose not to be there (and express yourself however you want). That's your freedom of expression.

Now, you couldn't do that if you were in charge of, say, the city's Public Works department, which is the only part of that where freedom of expression comes into it.

Funny thing about all this - until the Kaepernick nonsense, there was no real reason to have any opinion about the national anthem. Nobody called it "forced patriotism" or "paid military advertising" or whatever; and I doubt any of the players were incensed that they were expected to come out and stand there. It's just some benign tradition that people did at the start of sporting events for decades, I mean even at like, the high school level, where there's no money changing hands, and no causes, and no ulterior motives, and no greater meaning except for having a basketball game or something. Yet somehow they found a way to ruin even THAT with politics. That may be the most distasteful thing about it. Kind of like the idiot who sued over "In God We Trust" being on the money. WHO CARES!!! That's the way the whole thing comes off, just saying. (edit: I mean the sudden outrage over the national anthem as a "propaganda tool" or whatever comes off that way, not the underlying cause that the players are protesting, which is a separate matter.)

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I realize that and totally agree with the point I believe you are making. I was simply trying to construct a poor analogy to take the variables out of the context of race and the American flag - two issues that a lot of people for very understandable reasons have a hard time being dispassionate about.

Thanks, but I just found it to be confusing and deflecting of the real reasons the kneeling started.

Yes, people have a hard time being dispassionate about race and the American flag, but lets just face the reality. There has been a history of racism in America for generations, it started with the bringing of slaves to the country and the owning of slaves for multiple generations. Those attitudes don't just go away or get shut off, as in some cases they have been passed along for generations. Where there is push, there is also pushback....so the attitudes of people from those generations of racial differences and some police policies seem to profile minorities and some minorities push back against those actions.

I personally applaud the efforts of guys like Chris Long, Eric Reid and Malcom Jenkins for their taking a stance and moving to bring issues to the forefront. Have to admit there is a problem before you can solve it. If their best platform to bring the issue to the light is taking a knee before the Anthem and it is truly a free society, then I think it has been a good strategy.

I think its unfortunate that the NFL is trying to bring censorship to the topic. They should get out in front of it and have a month like they do for breast cancer awareness. Make the color blue and call it something like Community And Police Partnership for Society (CAPS). Be part of the solution to the concerns. Everybody will stand for the anthem again and hopefully it will foster positive change.

[steelreserve]

I think its unfortunate that the NFL is trying to bring censorship to the topic. They should get out in front of it and have a month like they do for breast cancer awareness. Make the color blue and call it something like Community And Police Partnership for Society (CAPS). Be part of the solution to the concerns. Everybody will stand for the anthem again and hopefully it will foster positive change.

That would probably be a better idea, but tbh by now so many people have their minds made up and their heels dug in, that I don't think there's anything the league can do without it bringing on an avalanche of more negativity.

They tell the players to knock it off, and the fans on one side (correctly or incorrectly) scream censorship.

They do what you said, and fans on the other side scream that they caved in to the kneelers and they won't support a league that does that. Then fans who supported the protest are still angry, say "they're just paying lip service" and want the kneeling back.

Politics generates nothing but negativity, that's the real problem. People don't want that in sports and entertainment. The only thing you can do is shove it out at the first sign it's trying to worm its way in, but the NFL is trying to shut the barn door after the cows got out ages ago. A consequence of having a buffoon for a commissioner. Pete Rozelle, for instance, probably would not have let things progress to this point.

[Mojouw]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/can-private-employers-fire-employees-for-going-to-a-white-supremacist-rally/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.71722b24dd89

Interesting take-aways:

Speech is protected for public-sector employees by federal statute but not for private-sector employees.
Speech is protected in the private-sector if negative consequences are enacted by the employer on the employee in response to government pressure.
Private-sector employers are bound by state statutes. This would be a nightmare for the NFL. Potentially means multiple different legal outcomes if they started fining or firing players.
Most of this is "off-the-job" type scenarios. Wonder how the players and teams would define "on the job" for the NFL? What about a court?

I dunno man, for a league run by a bunch of lawyers, they seem to keep opening up new problems for themselves!

[Dwinsgames]

I am pretty steadfast here ....

You live and work in a land that empowers you to play a childs game for millions of dollars per year , is it to much to ask that you stand for 3 mins and respect that nation while at your work place and the people who have died or lost limbs protecting your freedoms and ability to play a game for a job and live like a king because of such employment ...

you are being PAID to be there the stadium is your work place ....

want to protest fine by all means do it , but do it on your time ...

how many of these guys that Take a knee on Sunday are seen on Tuesday forming a march or picketing with a sign for this ever changing cause that now has several different line of reasoning for ...

[Mach1]

If someone wants to protest great fine dandy, do it on your own time and not my dime. Your there to "work" that's what you getting paid for. I could give a rats ass if you stand, kneel or play dead do it on your time.

[DesertSteel]

Remember “flag burning”?

Same discussion... 30 years later.
How about we just go back to burning disco records before the game?!

[teegre]

Funny huh? For some the flag is a symbol of freedom, but they are being penalized for freedom of expression. Sounds like hypocrisy.

...and what are they actually expressing? Is it that the racial inequality that is part of the history books of America, is still present today to a lesser, but still unjust extent? Is it that police are more apt to react with violence to a black man in a hoodie, than a white man in a hoodie?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fswb_VY493w


Exactly,

And what is being lost in all of this is the real topic: violence towards minorities. Somehow the discussion is solely about “kneel or stand”.

[teegre]

I've served in the military and quite honestly, as a veteran, I could give a crap about who stands for the flag. It's their choice, and we fought for people's freedom to choose. If anything, forcing people to stand is taking away a choice which doesn't seem very American to me.


This!!!!!

I was on Camp Pendleton for 18 years, and the sentiment that I heard most often (about flag burning... which relates to this topic) was that “We risk our lives so that people may have the freedom to make their own choices.”

[Craic]

Aaaand this is why unions exist. To prevent unchecked authoritarianism. Players union was given zero say in this matter. Why does it even exist if thats the case?
LMAO. If someone wants control in a business, go start one. Otherwise, shut up and do the work. This isn't the 1800s anymore.

[teegre]

For one thing, the NFL players aren't protesting about a lack of freedom, they're ostensibly protesting the behavior of the police (although some seem to have taken that a step further into race issues in general). Ironically, they're making their point by protesting a symbol of the freedom that allows them to protest.

That’s exactly my point. That symbol allows them to protest. If they aren’t allowed to protest, then that “violation” is actually worse than the protest itself (because, it is in direct disagreement with the very definition of freedom).

Lastly, you are right: the real issue is about cops/race. Alas, the protest itself (kneel vs. stand) is what has become the focal point.

[teegre]

how many of these guys that Take a knee on Sunday are seen on Tuesday forming a march or picketing with a sign for this ever changing cause that now has several different line of reasoning for ...

Two things.

1) Since the NFL players have access to a spotlight, they are certainly going to use it to point out a problem that they see. If they knelt on a Tuesday, no one would notice... and the issue would not be discussed. If Joe Scmoe kneels on Sunday’s, no one would notice. By these superstars using that spotlight, they are bringing awareness to a topic that would/has gone unnoticed for a long time. (Make sense?)

2) I don’t think many of them cared much... until they were told (before Game 3) that they HAD to stand. Then, the sh!t hit the fan. Their attitude became “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!” And, just when the “kneeling issue” was about to die... just when we had all sort of forgotten about it... Goodell goes and throws gasoline on the embers.

[Mojouw]

So protest is only okay if you agree with it and it takes place in setting and context that doesn't offend anyone? Or at the very least people can easily ignore?

I mean that defeats the whole purpose.

I encounter behaviors, actions, opinions, messages, signs, advertisements, and what have you every day that I either disagree with or find offensive - sometimes both. But that is the cost of doing business in a free and open society. If I want to be able to do what I want, when I want, and how I want -- I have to accept that others doing the exact same thing are going to do a ton of stuff that pisses me off.

[Mach1]

So protest is only okay if you agree with it and it takes place in setting and context that doesn't offend anyone? Or at the very least people can easily ignore?

I mean that defeats the whole purpose.

I encounter behaviors, actions, opinions, messages, signs, advertisements, and what have you every day that I either disagree with or find offensive - sometimes both. But that is the cost of doing business in a free and open society. If I want to be able to do what I want, when I want, and how I want -- I have to accept that others doing the exact same thing are going to do a ton of stuff that pisses me off.

Putting on my business owner cap on for a sec.

https://media.tenor.com/images/4e9f068147132b97f66e7e23ae8e7230/tenor.gif

[steelreserve]

That’s exactly my point. That symbol allows them to protest. If they aren’t allowed to protest, then that “violation” is actually worse than the protest itself (because, it is in direct disagreement with the very definition of freedom).

Lastly, you are right: the real issue is about cops/race. Alas, the protest itself (kneel vs. stand) is what has become the focal point.


Well, the reason the kneeling issue has become the focal point is because there are two parts to it, one of which relates to the NFL and one of which does not.

Is excessive force by police a legitimate topic to protest? Sure, and I don't think many people would disagree that you have the right to do it, whether or not they agree with the protest itself.

Is an NFL game an appropriate place to carry out that protest? Very many people disagree with that.

I don't think anyone is saying "don't express your opinions at all," rather, "if you bring your opinions HERE, I am not going to support that."

All that happened is the free market had its say. If this had been going on and revenue and TV viewership kept hitting new records, I don't think the owners would've done a thing. Why would they? If you're making a billion dollars with no end in sight, you leave well enough alone.

The outcome is the result of one group exercising its freedom of speech, and another group exercising its own freedom in response to it. And a third group (the league) exercising its freedom to operate in what it perceives as its own best interest.

Three groups exercising their own personal freedoms. The government not involved at all, except for some weird partisan cheerleading as if people are still campaigning. You could not possibly have more freedom involved in the process. Yet some will still insist it's a jackbooted authoritarian stomping of people's rights. Unbelievable, when you actually think about it.

[Mojouw]

Putting on my business owner cap on for a sec.

https://media.tenor.com/images/4e9f068147132b97f66e7e23ae8e7230/tenor.gif

Well, that wasn't what I was talking about at all. But, sure, we can go with that.

[Dwinsgames]

Two things.

1) Since the NFL players have access to a spotlight, they are certainly going to use it to point out a problem that they see. If they knelt on a Tuesday, no one would notice... and the issue would not be discussed. If Joe Scmoe kneels on Sunday’s, no one would notice. By these superstars using that spotlight, they are bringing awareness to a topic that would/has gone unnoticed for a long time. (Make sense?)

2) I don’t think many of them cared much... until they were told (before Game 3) that they HAD to stand. Then, the sh!t hit the fan. Their attitude became “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!” And, just when the “kneeling issue” was about to die... just when we had all sort of forgotten about it... Goodell goes and throws gasoline on the embers.


but they are in the work place so ... #dowork

that spotlight they have is to do their jobs and play football , trying to make it into something other than football is not doing their job and is taking the focus off of why they supposedly are there to begin with ...

all I can say is they are damned lucky I do not own a team , I would tell them do your damned job while on my dime and part of that Job is to represent this football team to the highest level and you will do that standing during the anthem ... if you don't like it don't come to work and consequently you will not be paid .... sit/kneel and you will sit during the game and the very next week you will be suspended for conduct detrimental to the football team ( and not paid )

football is a game you are being paid very well for to play ...

it would take me 247 years to make what Lev Bell wants to play 1 season ...spend some of that moldy money to support this cause you feel so greatly about that you will disrespect those who fought and died for by taking a knee ...

oh this just gets my damned goat I could punch every one of them that take a knee

[Dwinsgames]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WA10dETkF8

[AtlantaDan]

Well, the reason the kneeling issue has become the focal point is because there are two parts to it, one of which relates to the NFL and one of which does not.

Is excessive force by police a legitimate topic to protest? Sure, and I don't think many people would disagree that you have the right to do it, whether or not they agree with the protest itself.

Is an NFL game an appropriate place to carry out that protest? Very many people disagree with that.

I don't think anyone is saying "don't express your opinions at all," rather, "if you bring your opinions HERE, I am not going to support that."

All that happened is the free market had its say. If this had been going on and revenue and TV viewership kept hitting new records, I don't think the owners would've done a thing. Why would they? If you're making a billion dollars with no end in sight, you leave well enough alone.

The outcome is the result of one group exercising its freedom of speech, and another group exercising its own freedom in response to it. And a third group (the league) exercising its freedom to operate in what it perceives as its own best interest.

Three groups exercising their own personal freedoms. The government not involved at all, except for some weird partisan cheerleading as if people are still campaigning. You could not possibly have more freedom involved in the process. Yet some will still insist it's a jackbooted authoritarian stomping of people's rights. Unbelievable, when you actually think about it.

The government is not involved at all except for the fact this was dying down at the start of last season until a certain member of the government decided to throw red meat to the crowd at a campaign rally in Alabama and has continued to stir the pot through such observations as one this week that any player who is a U.S. citizen but does not stand for the anthem maybe shouldn't be in the country. If that person was not a fairly important member of the government IMO the owners would be ignoring him and perhaps suggesting he STFU. So the power of a government official is a big part of this.

I am grimly amused that a crew of bullies like the NFL owners and Goodell are cowering because they have run into a bigger bully over this.

[Dwinsgames]

The government is not involved at all except for the fact this was dying down at the start of last season until a certain member of the government decided to throw red meat to the crowd at a campaign rally in Alabama and has continued to stir the pot through such observations as one this week that any player who is a U.S. citizen but does not stand for the anthem maybe shouldn't be in the country. If that person was not a fairly important member of the government IMO the owners would be ignoring him and perhaps suggesting he STFU. So the power of a government official is a big part of this.

I am grimly amused that a crew of bullies like the NFL owners and Goodell are cowering because they have run into a bigger bully over this.

maybe he is right ?

[steelreserve]

The government is not involved at all except for the fact this was dying down at the start of last season until a certain member of the government decided to throw red meat to the crowd at a campaign rally in Alabama and has continued to stir the pot through such observations as one this week that any player who is a U.S. citizen but does not stand for the anthem maybe shouldn't be in the country. If that person was not a fairly important member of the government IMO the owners would be ignoring him and perhaps suggesting he STFU. So the power of a government official is a big part of this.

I am grimly amused that a crew of bullies like the NFL owners and Goodell are cowering because they have run into a bigger bully over this.


I don't know what to tell you, except that if you think the NFL owners are taking orders from Donald Trump, you're almost certainly mistaken. Those guys all have egos just as big as his, and know full well he can't make them do anything.

If anything, Trump gets all the activists fired up every time he opens his big mouth, then the media gets fired up (same people, really), then the issue gets turned over again, then more people join the protest basically just to spite Trump. So in a way, maybe he forces the issue by ensuring it keeps being brought up over and over. I don't know if that's randomly or on purpose; the latter would take a kind of savvy that I don't know if he has.

Yeah, it really would help if the guy would keep his mouth shut. What power does the government really have over it, though? None at all.

[pczach]

It’s a Catch-22.

If a person is is not allowed to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is not actually free.

But, if that person is free enough to protest (kneel for the Anthem, burn a flag) without repercussion, then that person lives in a country that is indeed free.


So... the person who is free enough to protest about their freedom is actually proving how free they truly are.


Stopping the protestor from displaying their freedom, actually proves their point (they are in fact “not free”).

Whereas, allowing the protestor to display their freedom, actually disproves their point (they are in fact very free).

SUMMATION:
It’s a circular logic problem, akin to saying “This statement is false”



The problem is teeg that if those same people are free to make that statement, it is their owner that ultimately pays the penalty of that action in the form of income loss. Once that happens, the owner has the right to demand that those actions don't take place. You can't do whatever you want to do on the work floor. Sorry, but that is a fact.

If the players were a privately owned entity, they could do whatever they want. As long as they work for someone else, they must conduct themselves in a way that is acceptable to the owner.

We live in a free country but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.

People that don't own the company cannot do or say whatever they feel like saying at the expense of the very company they are representing and are getting paid by.

In their own time, any of these players can go on radio, go on TV, make Facebook and Twitter statements, or any form of media they desire. If that is what they desire to do. However, every other free individual in this country can tell them they're full of shit, they disagree, they're offended, etc... They can even decide to not buy their jersey, or decide to not support the team they play for anymore. That's real freedom at work.

The players want to be able to say whatever they want with no ramifications. Life and freedom do not work that way.

[Dwinsgames]

The problem is teeg that if those same people are free to make that statement, it is their owner that ultimately pays the penalty of that action in the form of income loss. Once that happens, the owner has the right to demand that those actions don't take place. You can't do whatever you want to do on the work floor. Sorry, but that is a fact.

If the players were a privately owned entity, they could do whatever they want. As long as they work for someone else, they must conduct themselves in a way that is acceptable to the owner.

We live in a free country but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.

People that don't own the company cannot do or say whatever they feel like saying at the expense of the very company they are representing and are getting paid by.

In their own time, any of these players can go on radio, go on TV, make Facebook and Twitter statements, or any form of media they desire. If that is what they desire to do. However, every other free individual in this country can tell them they're full of shit, they disagree, they're offended, etc... They can even decide to not buy their jersey, or decide to not support the team they play for anymore. That's real freedom at work.

The players want to be able to say whatever they want with no ramifications. Life and freedom do not work that way.

if it did Martavis Bryant wouldn't have got a team susp last year of 1 game for a twitter tirade .... he was FREE to do it , but it was not FREE of consequences

[AtlantaDan]

I don't know what to tell you, except that if you think the NFL owners are taking orders from Donald Trump, you're almost certainly mistaken. Those guys all have egos just as big as his, and know full well he can't make them do anything.

If anything, Trump gets all the activists fired up every time he opens his big mouth, then the media gets fired up (same people, really), then the issue gets turned over again, then more people join the protest basically just to spite Trump. So in a way, maybe he forces the issue by ensuring it keeps being brought up over and over. I don't know if that's randomly or on purpose; the latter would take a kind of savvy that I don't know if he has.

Yeah, it really would help if the guy would keep his mouth shut. What power does the government really have over it, though? None at all.

They most certainly are responding to the President using his power as a political official to stir up his base by taking shots at the NFL players

This issue was dead in the water until the President stirred it up - that is a fact regardless of a person's opinion on whether stirring it up was appropriate or inappropriate - and the owners are scared to death

This from the NFL owners meeting last fall that leaked regarding what problem they were addressing

“The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don’t feel is in the best interests of America,” said Kraft, who is a longtime supporter of Mr. Trump’s. “It’s divisive and it’s horrible.”

The owners were intent on finding a way to avoid Trump’s continued criticism....

“We’ve got to be careful not to be baited by Trump or whomever else,” Lurie said. “We have to find a way to not be divided and not get baited.”

The Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula sounded anguished over the uncertainty of when Trump would take another shot at the league. “All Donald needs to do is to start to do this again,” Pegula said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/sports/nfl-owners-kaepernick.html

- - - Updated - - -


maybe he is right ?

That any player who does not stand for the anthem should either leave the country voluntarily or be deported?

Seriously?

[Dwinsgames]

They most certainly are responding to the President using his power as a political official to stir up his base by taking shots at the NFL players

This issue was dead in the water until the President stirred it up - that is a fact regardless of a person's opinion on whether stirring it up was appropriate or inappropriate - and the owners are scared to death

This from the NFL owners meeting last fall that leaked regarding what problem they were addressing

“The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don’t feel is in the best interests of America,” said Kraft, who is a longtime supporter of Mr. Trump’s. “It’s divisive and it’s horrible.”

The owners were intent on finding a way to avoid Trump’s continued criticism....

“We’ve got to be careful not to be baited by Trump or whomever else,” Lurie said. “We have to find a way to not be divided and not get baited.”

The Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula sounded anguished over the uncertainty of when Trump would take another shot at the league. “All Donald needs to do is to start to do this again,” Pegula said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/sports/nfl-owners-kaepernick.html

- - - Updated - - -



That any player who does not stand for the anthem should either leave the country voluntarily or be deported?

Seriously?

they are not very American in spirit , maybe there is someplace else they would be more happy ... I say give it a shot leave .... maybe then you will realize just how good you had it


grass isnt always greener on the other side of that fence

[DesertSteel]

That any player who does not stand for the anthem should either leave the country voluntarily or be deported?

Seriously?
If the reason they are not standing is that they don't like it here?? Yes, there's the door.

[43Hitman]

If workplace policy dictates that you stand for the anthem, then you stand. If you don't like it the CFL is that way -------->

[DesertSteel]

If workplace policy dictates that you stand for the anthem, then you stand. If you don't like it the CFL is that way -------->

or this way...

/\
I
I
I
I

[43Hitman]

or this way...

/\
I
I
I
I

:lol:

[AtlantaDan]

If the reason they are not standing is that they don't like it here?? Yes, there's the door.

I will take the players at their word when they stated they were protesting conditions in this country they saw as unjust and, with regard to the cluster of week 3 last season, being called out by an elected official so someone could put some political points on the board

You can like living here and be a patriot without loving every aspect of life in the U.S. in these times

As far as the President mixing it up on this with his latest comments, that is a different issue from NFL owners dealing with blowback from some of the fanbase

The nation has been down this road before with elected officials seeking to compel compliance with patriotic rituals

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard....

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds....

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html

[steelreserve]

I will take the players at their word when they stated they were protesting conditions in this country they saw as unjust and, with regard to the cluster of week 3 last season, being called out by an elected official so someone could put some political points on the board

You can like living here and be a patriot without loving every aspect of life in the U.S. in these times

As far as the President mixing it up on this with his latest comments, that is a different issue from NFL owners dealing with blowback from some of the fanbase

The nation has been down this road before with elected officials seeking to compel compliance with patriotic rituals

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard....

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds....

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html

Dude. No ones seeking to "compel compliance with patriotic rituals." If they don't want to take part in it, they're free to skip it and stay in the locker room.

Those who DO want to take part will probably appreciate not having other people drawing attention to themselves and their polarizing political cause.

I think it's a HUGE stretch to call the playing of the national anthem before a sporting event a piece of patriotic propaganda, since they had been doing it for decades and decades, and no one ever looked at it that way until a group of people with an agenda came along and (rather rudely) insisted it was a political stunt.

No, dude. It's a moment to chill and reflect on the fact that "you know, all things considered, it's pretty cool that I can sit here and watch this basketball game with all these people, and despite all our differences we have some fundamental stuff in common and things are not so bad." Actually a positive thing that has little if anything to do with the government or the military, if you allow yourself to just ... be.

So when someone cones along and wants to change the message to "Fuck you! Half the players hate your guts! OMG political OUTRAGE!!!" ... yeah, some people are not gonna appreciate that. Not because they're paranoid nationalist die-hard Trump supporters, but because they see a rude person interrupting a sporting event with poorly timed political commentary.

[Dwinsgames]

I will take the players at their word when they stated they were protesting conditions in this country they saw as unjust and, with regard to the cluster of week 3 last season, being called out by an elected official so someone could put some political points on the board

You can like living here and be a patriot without loving every aspect of life in the U.S. in these times

As far as the President mixing it up on this with his latest comments, that is a different issue from NFL owners dealing with blowback from some of the fanbase

The nation has been down this road before with elected officials seeking to compel compliance with patriotic rituals

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard....

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds....

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html


screw them ..if they want to change the world join the military ... find out what its like to REALLY put your life on the line and for one hell of a lot less money ...

they act as if they are some martyr's or some shit ....

heads so swelled like they are the cats meow ....

newsflash you play a childs game better than most

you are not MLK , you are not Claudette Colvin or even Rosa Parks

be thankful for the opportunities you have been granted in THIS Nation and respect THIS nations flag and anthem

or you could always move if this place sucks so badly

sorry I am not sorry ...

[teegre]

Wow!!! ...there’s a lot of posts to reply to.

I better go get some coffee. (BRB)

[steelreserve]

Wow!!! ...there’s a lot of posts to reply to.

I better go get some coffee. (BRB)

Just get a fifth of bourbon, it'll be more entertaining.

[teegre]

Just get a fifth of bourbon, it'll be more entertaining.

If that is the case...

I wiLl aLSo whERe mY owL Dog sWEater aNd EEt sUm maYnaZE. :lol:

[AtlantaDan]

Dude. No ones seeking to "compel compliance with patriotic rituals." If they don't want to take part in it, they're free to skip it and stay in the locker room.

Those who DO want to take part will probably appreciate not having other people drawing attention to themselves and their polarizing political cause.

I think it's a HUGE stretch to call the playing of the national anthem before a sporting event a piece of patriotic propaganda, since they had been doing it for decades and decades, and no one ever looked at it that way until a group of people with an agenda came along and (rather rudely) insisted it was a political stunt.

No, dude. It's a moment to chill and reflect on the fact that "you know, all things considered, it's pretty cool that I can sit here and watch this basketball game with all these people, and despite all our differences we have some fundamental stuff in common and things are not so bad." Actually a positive thing that has little if anything to do with the government or the military, if you allow yourself to just ... be.

So when someone cones along and wants to change the message to "Fuck you! Half the players hate your guts! OMG political OUTRAGE!!!" ... yeah, some people are not gonna appreciate that. Not because they're paranoid nationalist die-hard Trump supporters, but because they see a rude person interrupting a sporting event with poorly timed political commentary.

Dude - FWIW I sing the anthem and am not off at the concession stand when I am attending a game, although the NFL certainly keeps the registers ringing while the anthem is played. So I suppose there are varying degrees of what level of respect is regarded to be appropriate if you are at the game.

The players, coaches, owners and fans can each do what they want about this as far as I am concerned. - in their own ways they are all part of the game and have a role in how it operates - politicians making cheap political points are not. This was petering out as an issue last September until the President interjected himself into it

And I am not saying the owners latest policy is seeking to compel a player to stand during the anthem - they can hang in the locker room

I was referring to a politician doubling down on previous comments by saying someone who does not stand for the anthem perhaps should not remain in the country, with the implication it might not be up to the individual whether to stay if engaging in that conduct

The president appeared to suggest deporting players who protest during the national anthem

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/trump-on-players-who-dont-stand-for-anthem-maybe-they-shouldnt-be-in-the-country/

If a player continues to kneel rather than hang in the locker room the owners can discipline him (although some pretty clearly are not going to do so).

But any suggestion that any kneeling or other protest might merit someone being compelled to leave the country is nonsense and would be laughed out of court as patently unconstitutional if the government sought to compel such an outcome through deportation.

And the bottom line is Adam Schefter accurately states where we are at now

999722700137488386

[Shoes]

Artie wants 17 millon a year.

[teegre]

Okay... where to begin.

-I must iterate that the amount of focus that goes towards the protest itself (kneel vs. stand) far outweighs the amount of focus on the actual problem (bad cops).

-I think that there are two discussions going on here.

1) Kneeling anywhere, any time.
2) Kneeling before a game (at work).

1) I am 100% for people having the freedom to protest as they deem fit. 2) I get that the NFL is a work place, and just like when I worked at SeaWorld, there were rules that I had to follow in order to work there (no facial hair). That said, I also feel that if a person has the spotlight and is able to focus that spotlight on a problem, they have an obligation to do so. Lastly, I also feel that this issue had died away, but got resurrected by Goodell/Trump.

-Good post, pczach. That said, I do not quite agree with the “shouting ‘Fire’ in a movie theater” analogy. Shouting “Fire” causes a stampede, and people get hurt. Kneeling doesn’t have any adverse effects.

-As far as “deporting” players... here is an analogy. I love my wife, but I do not agree with 100% of what she says/does; at best, we are in 90% agreement. Yet, I’ve never told her to get out of the house over a disagreement.

-Dwins, I admire your passion. And, here’s what I always tell people when we discuss the First Amendment: people have the right to say/do things, but other people have the right to feel anger towards those people for the things that they say/do. So, while I back the protestors’ rights to protest, I also completely back you in your disdain (for lack of a better word) for their actions. In a way... your reaction is what they are hoping for, because that visceral reaction brings a LOT of attention (positive and negative) to their cause. (Make sense?)

I know now that I missed something... need some more coffee (and bourbon).

[st33lersguy]

The biggest problem is Trump comments on the issue which further fan the flames to try and distract people from the fact that he and his party are spending money like drunken sailors. Seriously, I hope this issue dies by the end of the year as I couldn't care less who stands and who doesn't. I just want bitter partisanship out of the NFL

[Lady Steel]

If someone wants to protest great fine dandy, do it on your own time and not my dime. Your there to "work" that's what you getting paid for. I could give a rats ass if you stand, kneel or play dead do it on your time.

This is my stance, as well. Or, they could always move to another country.

- - - Updated - - -


If that is the case...

I wiLl aLSo whERe mY owL Dog sWEater aNd EEt sUm maYnaZE. :lol:


Here's a cheese plate to help tide you over...


http://d2814mmsvlryp1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/WGC-Cheese-Board-2-copy-2.jpg



:lol:

I miss Buddha. :(

[teegre]

I miss Buddha. :(


I text him & Jon daily. It goes something like this...

BUDDHA: What are you guys doing this weekend?
ME: Glamping
BUDDHA: Nice. Bringing the satellite dish?
ME: LOL no, but we are having root beer floats
BUDDHA: you should pour a stout instead
ME: I don’t think my kids could handle that LOL
BUDDHA: I’m off to the Mt. Hope beer fest
ME: enjoy
JON: I’m going to shower with my dogs...

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Wow!!! ...there’s a lot of posts to reply to.

I better go get some coffee. (BRB)

Is it really worth replying to??

This board is somewhat representative of the general population, so its not surprising to see some that again, either don't hear or don't want to discuss the real reason that players took a knee in the first place. Instead its about the flag, the military, patriotism. There are viewpoints that people have, which have been passed along for generations and those aren't likely to change on a message board.


▶ 0:20 https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10154648379806303/

[Dwinsgames]

Is it really worth replying to??

This board is somewhat representative of the general population, so its not surprising to see some that again, either don't hear or don't want to discuss the real reason that players took a knee in the first place. Instead its about the flag, the military, patriotism. There are viewpoints that people have, which have been passed along for generations and those aren't likely to change on a message board.


▶ 0:20 https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10154648379806303/

perhaps because THAT is what the flag and anthem have ALWAYS been about ....

until they came along and tried to change it " because they claimed that is different for them "

well excuse me then Thanksgiving is NOW about everyone giving me their paychecks for 6 months ....

if you do not do that then you are offending my cause

[DesertSteel]

Is it really worth replying to??

This board is somewhat representative of the general population, so its not surprising to see some that again, either don't hear or don't want to discuss the real reason that players took a knee in the first place. Instead its about the flag, the military, patriotism. There are viewpoints that people have, which have been passed along for generations and those aren't likely to change on a message board.


▶ 0:20 https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10154648379806303/
Why don't they take a knee when they score a touchdown or make a sack instead? Oh that's right, those moments are about celebrating themselves.

[43Hitman]

So if both teams kneel it will offsetting penalties right? :chuckle: The NFL will look stupid when that happens. Honestly I'm a corporate guy so I fully agree with a workplace policy dictating that you can or cannot stand. I just think the NFL could have saved themselves a ton of trouble by just keeping both teams in the locker room while the anthem is being played. Like it was pre 2001

[Shoes]

I think there should be a mandatory draft, minimum one year for all healthy male & females (18 year olds). Military, peace corps, charity organizations, etc outside the US. No better way to serve someone else and put some real experience behind this chicken shit here in the US.

[Mojouw]

Or we could work on the fact that a white kid can execute school children, engage in a shootout with police and live while a black or brown dude can be shot or assualted by the police while driving, walking home, helping a mentally ill person in a public street, or working at a construction site (all things that have happened since the start of the anthem protests).

But heaven forbid any gentle soul is made to feel mildly uncomfortable for 5 minutes 17 weeks out of the year.

If people had the same attitudes as being expressed here we would have all celebrated the royal wedding as loyal Commonwealth subjects, women wouldn't vote, nor would non-whites, their wouldn't be unions, some of us would be barred from owning property, maybe put in debtor's prison, etc. All of those social changes and more were brought about by protest movement s that were WILDLY unpopular at their start.

[43Hitman]

A brown kid shot up that high-school in Florida and he wasn't shot or beaten. That's a pretty broad brush stroke you're trying to sell there Mojouw

[Mojouw]

A brown kid shot up that high-school in Florida and he wasn't shot or beaten. That's a pretty broad brush stroke you're trying to sell there Mojouw

Dunno. The stats speak for themselves. Spend some time looking into it and the picture emerges of two very different realities. And if some members of a group that feels marginalized wants to non-destructively start a conversation about it, who are we to say no?

[43Hitman]

I never said that they couldn't bring awareness to injustices being committed in this country, but we are talking about WORK PLACE policies, NO ONE is saying these guys can't protest on their free time. ESPN would do a segment on this everyday if players wanted that forum, and honestly they would probably reach a broader audience. This isn't about stomping on someone's rights, when you sign a work contract or an NFL contract you are bound to their rules and regulations. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Can you go to work just wearing a swimsuit and flip-flops? I highly doubt it.

[st33lersguy]

The majority of liberal protesters have no idea what they are even protesters or facts to back up their emotions , they just want attention and to feel better about themselves. Organizers are often Democratic contributors just trying to drum up support for their party. Kaepernick himself started this just because he wanted attention. He was silent while others were protesting trayvon Martin and Michael Brown because he was receiving enough attention as the starting qb on a recent super bowl and as a guy some billed as the next great 9ers qb who had gotten paid like it. He didn't start protesting until he was in danger of losing his starting job to Blaine gabbert and of becoming completely irrelevant.

[Mojouw]

I never said that they couldn't bring awareness to injustices being committed in this country, but we are talking about WORK PLACE policies, NO ONE is saying these guys can't protest on their free time. ESPN would do a segment on this everyday if players wanted that forum, and honestly they would probably reach a broader audience. This isn't about stomping on someone's rights, when you sign a work contract or an NFL contract you are bound to their rules and regulations. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Can you go to work just wearing a swimsuit and flip-flops? I highly doubt it.

I get that. I'm just trying to understand why people are advocating for deportation because someone made them fell icky for a hot minute.

My personal belief is that the league is to blame by trying to thread a needle for several years now on this issue. Should've just said from the beginning that anyone who cashes an NFL paycheck had to stand when on the field. Anyone not on the field, do whatever. Which is basically where they landed after the horse had already left the barn and the barn was on fire.

[Shoes]

Getting out of your comfort zone and put in someone else hell outside of this country would do wonders for all young people. Besides getting a young person out of his/her comfort zone it will build confidence, build a sensitivity to other cultures, help others who live in a hell we know nothing about here and actually learn someone else's language. It would actually spark a vision in many young people, I've seen this first hand from young people in European countries.

[Mojouw]

The majority of liberal protesters have no idea what they are even protesters or facts to back up their emotions , they just want attention and to feel better about themselves. Organizers are often Democratic contributors just trying to drum up support for their party. Kaepernick himself started this just because he wanted attention. He was silent while others were protesting trayvon Martin and Michael Brown because he was receiving enough attention as the starting qb on a recent super bowl and as a guy some billed as the next great 9ers qb who had gotten paid like it. He didn't start protesting until he was in danger of losing his starting job to Blaine gabbert and of becoming completely irrelevant.

Infowars is a pretty cool site.

Have you listened to some of these protesters you so lightly dismiss? Many are deeply knowledgeable on their chosen issue. Some are out to lunch. But to just write off a whole group of people because you don't agree with them is some pretty closed minded thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mojouw]

Getting out of your comfort zone and put in someone else hell outside of this country would do wonders for all young people. Besides getting a young person out of his/her comfort zone it will build confidence, build a sensitivity to other cultures, help others who live in a hell we know nothing about here and actually learn someone else's language. It would actually spark a vision in many young people, I've seen this first hand from young people in European countries.

I can get behind that.

But we can't just dismiss social problems at home as solely due to a bunch of entitled whiny young people. There is some seriously screwed up stuff taking place in every community in our country right now. A variety of issues are negativily affecting everyone, and we spend most of our time worrying about nonsense.

People need jobs, education, opportunity, medicine, food all across the nation but the only stuff we can seem to muster up the energy for is cause like 12 dudes took a knee during a song.

[43Hitman]

I get that. I'm just trying to understand why people are advocating for deportation because someone made them fell icky for a hot minute.

My personal belief is that the league is to blame by trying to thread a needle for several years now on this issue. Should've just said from the beginning that anyone who cashes an NFL paycheck had to stand when on the field. Anyone not on the field, do whatever. Which is basically where they landed after the horse had already left the barn and the barn was on fire.

I agree completely. For the record I do not think for a second that anyone should be deported for not standing for the anthem. That is plain silly talk and completely goes against what that flag stands for. When people start talking like that I start tuning them out. I am only referring to work place policies. :drink:

[Dwinsgames]

in a nutshell ... if you are looking to change the world on the sidelines of a football game ...

YOU PICKED THE WRONG VENUE !

nobody is hearing you !!

you are doing nothing but making a spectacle of yourself , yes you are polarizing but for the most part for all the wrong reasons .....

want to make a difference call up your local radio station and offer to be a guest on a talk show and use that as your venue where people can hear your plight ...

want to make a difference go to inner cities and show kids the right path does exist and you can get out of the generational cycle of gloom

want to make a difference be the benefactor to some programs that get kids out of the gang life and help transform them into productive members of society

want to make a difference tell these kids not to pack heat , to listen to police when they are told to STOP and to put their hands up ... do not resist the process

want to make a difference be a good parent and help those who do not know how to be one become one ...

there are a LOT of ways to help a lot of ways to instill change , but making a mockery of the National anthem and the flag and those who gave their lives and limbs to protect that right to protest is NEVER the right way to go about making a good change ... you can not take what has been known for generations as a respect of country and its fallen and turn it into a MY PLIGHT moment just because YOU say its about this or that .... because it is not it is and always will be about THEM , those who died to give you any and all the rights you have

[st33lersguy]

Infowars is a pretty cool site.

Have you listened to some of these protesters you so lightly dismiss? Many are deeply knowledgeable on their chosen issue. Some are out to lunch. But to just write off a whole group of people because you don't agree with them is some pretty closed minded thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The same people that protesters that like to ignore the fact that the majority of African American murder victims are killed by African American perpetrators? Or how about people who blame the system for poverty and crime ridden cities ignoring the fact that the most crime ridden impoverished cities have been run by the same liberal politicians enacting the same liberal policies these protesters support and want to enact. Should we talking about these protesters wanting leniency for drug dealers contributing to the violence in the African American communities? Also lets ignore fatherless homes and the lack of positive male role models for children growing up in those communities.

Let me guess I'm an infowars but for pointing all that out (even though I don't follow infowars)

[steelreserve]

-I must iterate that the amount of focus that goes towards the protest itself (kneel vs. stand) far outweighs the amount of focus on the actual problem (bad cops).

So here's the deal with that - which also happens to be the reason why there's such a "disproportionate" backlash against what would normally be deemed a trivial issue (people not standing at the start of a football game).

The issues of cops and race are brought up constantly in every public venue. It's not a stretch to say we are bombarded with it from multiple directions on a daily basis. Very few people are unaware of it. Most people have long since collected enough information to form an opinion about the underlying issue, and continue to hear more about it simply in the course of going about their daily tasks. So the audience you are reaching with the protests breaks down roughly as follows:

1. Yay! I already agree with your cause and like to see more of this wherever I can! You go, girl!

2. Boo! I already disagree with your cause and you're not changing my mind. Also, shut the fuck up and stop ruining my football game.

3. I am already aware of your cause and have no strong opinion on it, and this is not going to make me have one. But I sure see it everywhere already, why do I need to see it in a football game of all places.

So you are not "raising awareness" or "starting a conversation." Everyone is aware, and the conversation was underway without you. All you have done is push it into people's faces while they are seeking the polar opposite of it, namely entertainment. And except for the ones already strongly on your side, people hate that. So that's why the focus is on the act of protest itself.

To a couple of the other people who have brought it up: There is a huge difference between "feeling uncomfortable" and "tired to death of." The issue doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all, for instance, but god damn, some people act like it ought to be all I want to think about. Furthermore, not everyone who disagrees with the protesters (in general, not just at football games) does so because the issue "makes them uncomfortable." A lot of them just disagree with the protests because they think they're wrong. As in, based on incorrect information. But, trying to cast those who disagree with you as somehow lacking or morally deficient is a long-standing tactic of the left. That's another whole story in itself, though, and this post has gone on long enough.

[Mojouw]

The same people that protesters that like to ignore the fact that the majority of African American murder victims are killed by African American perpetrators? Or how about people who blame the system for poverty and crime ridden cities ignoring the fact that the most crime ridden impoverished cities have been run by the same liberal politicians enacting the same liberal policies these protesters support and want to enact. Should we talking about these protesters wanting leniency for drug dealers contributing to the violence in the African American communities? Also lets ignore fatherless homes and the lack of positive male role models for children growing up in those communities.

Let me guess I'm an infowars but for pointing all that out (even though I don't follow infowars)

That's some solid what aboutism. Cool.

Unfortunately none of that changes the fact that there is a toxic and deadly relationship between police and minorities.

But I guess we should only discuss the issues that conservatives deem important and relevant?

[Steeldude]

I think it's stupid honestly. Since when is kneeling a sign of disrespect? People kneel in prayer or bow to the king the same way. It's not like the guy is standing there and taking a leak or throwing middle fingers up as the anthem is playing lol.

I've served in the military and quite honestly, as a veteran, I could give a crap about who stands for the flag. It's their choice, and we fought for people's freedom to choose. If anything, forcing people to stand is taking away a choice which doesn't seem very American to me.

But hey the NFL is a private business and by law they can do this. And instead of kneeling, players will still protest (some raise their fist up, which is still allowed)

https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/003/743/402/hi-res-0e3a446d3b185b1c9ebd55165ac45d46_crop_north.jpg?h= 533&w=800&q=70&crop_x=center&crop_y=top

They aren't forcing them. The anti-Americans can stay in the locker room.

[st33lersguy]

That's some solid what aboutism. Cool.

Unfortunately none of that changes the fact that there is a toxic and deadly relationship between police and minorities.

But I guess we should only discuss the issues that conservatives deem important and relevant?

And liberals aren't doing that themselves by blaming all of the problems in the minority communities on "whiteness", "racism" "cops" " the system". Do they want a full discussion of what is wrong with these communities or do they just want to blame everyone who is not like them and everyone who disagrees with them. If they want a full discussion about violence against African Americans they probably should focus on more than just white cops

[Mojouw]

And liberals aren't doing that themselves by blaming all of the problems in the minority communities on "whiteness", "racism" "cops" " the system". Do they want a full discussion of what is wrong with these communities or do they just want to blame everyone who is not like them and everyone who disagrees with them.

I have no idea. Can't speak for anyone but myself. But all the issues are connected.

Many communities are lacking father's, uncles, and brothers to serve as roll models. This has a corrosive effect on the community. It needs talked about. It also needs acknowledged that some of those missing role models have been removed from the community due to mandatory sentencing laws that were implemented during the Clinton administration and have now been discredited by law enforcement and a variety of other research. But they remain on the books. Hence the calls from within the community for sentencing lieniency. In some communities more people are killed or assualted by members of their own community more than by any other group, such as police. Logic would seem to dictate they should call on the police for assistance. But decades of both actual and percieved discrimination have poisoned the relationship between law enforcement and some communities.

There is massive amount of information that documents how all of these things are connected. One factor influences another and connects to another in a complex network of connections and shifting variables.

Lack of access to educational resources leads to difficulty grabbing economic opportunity which can lead to people seeking illegal alternatives. The prevalence of crime in the community then muddies the relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Drives jobs and education away and reinforces a cycle. This happens in urban, rural, white, black, brown, and purple communities.

Of course isolation of one factor is largely useless, but change and improvement has to start somewhere.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

perhaps because THAT is what the flag and anthem have ALWAYS been about ....

until they came along and tried to change it " because they claimed that is different for them "

well excuse me then Thanksgiving is NOW about everyone giving me their paychecks for 6 months ....

if you do not do that then you are offending my cause

Thank you, you made my point exactly.

To some, the flag represents a Nation that stood for independence and freedom from the threat of physical violence, persecution of them based upon their race, religion, political views, etc. So they made their way from places like Italy, Poland, Ukraine, etc to America several generations ago and their grandchildren today hold similar opinions based upon their upbringing.

To others, the flag represents a Nation where they were born and are in jeopardy of physical violence, persecution of them based upon their race or religion, etc. by the very authority figures that have sworn to serve and protect them as American Citizens. Their opinions are based upon the present state of their experience as Americans and those which their grandparents experienced.

When those with opposing viewpoints can find the interest in the opposing view and try and understand it, then you have a society that is inclusive, tolerant, free and progressive. When those with opposing viewpoints seek to impose their point of view on all others that disagree, then you get a society that lacks freedom of thought, freedom of expression, promotes conflict and eventually civil discord.

[Dwinsgames]

Thank you, you made my point exactly.

To some, the flag represents a Nation that stood for independence and freedom from the threat of physical violence, persecution of them based upon their race, religion, political views, etc. So they made their way from places like Italy, Poland, Ukraine, etc to America several generations ago and their grandchildren today hold similar opinions based upon their upbringing.

To others, the flag represents a Nation where they were born and are in jeopardy of physical violence, persecution of them based upon their race or religion, etc. by the very authority figures that have sworn to serve and protect them as American Citizens. Their opinions are based upon the present state of their experience as Americans and those which their grandparents experienced.

When those with opposing viewpoints can find the interest in the opposing view and try and understand it, then you have a society that is inclusive, tolerant, free and progressive. When those with opposing viewpoints seek to impose their point of view on all others that disagree, then you get a society that lacks freedom of thought, freedom of expression, promotes conflict and eventually civil discord.

everyone is subject to violence against them its the sad state of affairs these days where few respect the next person ...

Police brutality , well sadly everyone is at risk there as well because quite frankly SOME police are not of the proper mind set to wear a badge or have authority ...

MOST Police officers are good decent people who just want to get home safely to their families every night just like you and me , sadly a small percentage of them look to be billy badass with a badge while on the clock ...

I say this from experience personal and otherwise ... I had a cop punch me in the chest one time several year ago for no good reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time ... Had I been smart I would have sued the department like so many do today but that aside ...

last month there was a video making its rounds locally on facebook New castle Pa where a white kid in his 20s was in cuffs face down on the floor getting his head bashed in by a cop while the cops partner watched and did nothing to stop it ... the kid was unarmed , already cuffed like I said and was getting the shit beat out of him .... it didnt make the evening news locally let alone nationally ..

I guess the point is it can happen to anyone not just blacks as that kid is proof , its 1 case but I am sure there are plenty others just like it ...


best way to avoid that sort of thing is RESPECT .. LISTEN....COOPERATE...Don't run !!! don't reach down your pants /behind your back ..... don't be stupid and 99.99% of the time the outcome is ordinary

[Lady Steel]

JON: I’m going to shower with my dogs...

I forgot all about that hairy beast. I'm talking about Jon, not his dogs. :chuckle:

[Shoes]

I can get behind that.

But we can't just dismiss social problems at home as solely due to a bunch of entitled whiny young people. There is some seriously screwed up stuff taking place in every community in our country right now. A variety of issues are negativily affecting everyone, and we spend most of our time worrying about nonsense.

People need jobs, education, opportunity, medicine, food all across the nation but the only stuff we can seem to muster up the energy for is cause like 12 dudes took a knee during a song.

There is a better way, how about those 12 dudes after taking a knee, arrange, finance and take a group of young black inner city kids to Chad or East Africa. Let them see how Corrupt black leaders and rival rebels sandwich and destroy their own people. These people have no way out, no hope and only temporary relief from aid workers, church groups and other agencies. The mindset of people sometimes need a good dose of reality and while there are problems here, there are options out, in many places of the world there aren't. One thing that always troubled me when I was in Africa was how few black US aid workers there were. The ones who were there came from Europe or some other African country.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

There is a better way, how about those 12 dudes after taking a knee, arrange, finance and take a group of young black inner city kids to Chad or East Africa. Let them see how Corrupt black leaders and rival rebels sandwich and destroy their own people. These people have no way out, no hope and only temporary relief from aid workers, church groups and other agencies. The mindset of people sometimes need a good dose of reality and while there are problems here, there are options out, in many places of the world there aren't. One thing that always troubled me when I was in Africa was how few black US aid workers there were. The ones who were there came from Europe or some other African country.

Why should American citizens need to goto Africa because they took a knee during the national anthem? Should that teach them some kind of lesson that they should not take a knee? Why should it matter what is the skin color of foreign aid workers?

I think I get what you are saying, but instead of Chris Long spending time and money in east Africa with a foundation to supply fresh drinking water www.waterboys.org , maybe he should be taking black inner city kids to white neighborhoods in America so that they can see what its like in their own country. Show them a place where they can aspire to wear cargo shorts and a polo shirt and not be tasered or shot by police??

[Shoes]

Why should American citizens need to goto Africa because they took a knee during the national anthem? Should that teach them some kind of lesson that they should not take a knee? Why should it matter what is the skin color of foreign aid workers?

I think I get what you are saying, but instead of Chris Long spending time and money in east Africa with a foundation to supply fresh drinking water www.waterboys.org (http://www.waterboys.org) , maybe he should be taking black inner city kids to white neighborhoods in America so that they can see what its like in their own country. Show them a place where they can aspire to wear cargo shorts and a polo shirt and not be tasered or shot by police??


No you do not.

[Mojouw]

Why should American citizens need to goto Africa because they took a knee during the national anthem? Should that teach them some kind of lesson that they should not take a knee? Why should it matter what is the skin color of foreign aid workers?

I think I get what you are saying, but instead of Chris Long spending time and money in east Africa with a foundation to supply fresh drinking water www.waterboys.org , maybe he should be taking black inner city kids to white neighborhoods in America so that they can see what its like in their own country. Show them a place where they can aspire to wear cargo shorts and a polo shirt and not be tasered or shot by police??

They can meet Chad and Becky!

[Dwinsgames]

No you do not.

I think I did ...

summation : the grass isnt always greener on the other side .....

do not be pissed at a few things not completed when as a people you have come so far in a relative short period of time ( not that it should have taken this long ) but huge steps have happened in the last 150 years , just because you where not here to witness them does not mean they didnt happen and progress isnt being made ....

it could be hella worse ... it is hella worse in many many many places ... this may be the best place on earth and you are still complaining


does that sum it up @shoes ?

[Shoes]

Why should American citizens need to goto Africa because they took a knee during the national anthem? Should that teach them some kind of lesson that they should not take a knee? Why should it matter what is the skin color of foreign aid workers?

I think I get what you are saying, but instead of Chris Long spending time and money in east Africa with a foundation to supply fresh drinking water www.waterboys.org (http://www.waterboys.org) , maybe he should be taking black inner city kids to white neighborhoods in America so that they can see what its like in their own country. Show them a place where they can aspire to wear cargo shorts and a polo shirt and not be tasered or shot by police??


It has nothing to do with taking a knee. I haven't said anything in this thread on that subject. I only added the "12 dudes" because Mojouw added that to his post and I think the experience I spoke of in my earlier posts would benefit them also. As for skin color, the shape of the eye, or any other features may not matter to us, but it makes a world of difference to the people in need. If your a Black America doctor going to a remote village in southern Chad you have an added advantage in reaching the people there because of your skin color first and a doctor second. And Chris Long should have brought a group of inner city black kids with him because they would have returned far richer and vision filled then most whites in their baggy shorts.

[Steeldude]

Why don't they take a knee when they score a touchdown or make a sack instead? Oh that's right, those moments are about celebrating themselves.

Exactly. The "protest" doesn't even enter their minds during or after games.

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

Like I posted earlier this season, Artie Burns Suxs! Who cares what he thinks and wouldn't surprise me if he is not a starter this upcoming season. Feel free to go back to the Anthem talk and just a reminder Artie Burns Sux as a player as well.

[Steeldude]

Is it really worth replying to??

This board is somewhat representative of the general population, so its not surprising to see some that again, either don't hear or don't want to discuss the real reason that players took a knee in the first place. Instead its about the flag, the military, patriotism. There are viewpoints that people have, which have been passed along for generations and those aren't likely to change on a message board.


▶ 0:20 https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10154648379806303/

They took a knee to protest something that does not exist. Black people aren't mistreated by police any more or any less than any other race. As for oppression of Black people, that doesn't exist today in the US. The protest is as laughable as BLM.

If this really mattered to them they would protest after the game and on their own time too, but yet they don't. Why don't they protest domestic violence in the NFL?

[Born2Steel]

For one thing, one very BIG thing, taking people to a place for the purpose of helping others has a real affect on the people on both sides of the giving and receiving of help. The people being helped don't give any thought to the ethnic demographic of the person/people helping them. Has nothing to do with social/economic upbringing. The people doing the helping take away a sense of purpose and accomplishment in doing something for someone in need. AND that is a very real feeling that often becomes addictive as well as contagious and encouraging to others to also want to help.

MOST of the players kneeling during the anthem are not saying, "look at me". Perhaps some are, there's always that element amongst the true protesters. MOST are actually trying to be a voice of change to help someone. We cannot know when a protest like this does help someone. For instance, this is an attempt to make people in position of power THINK before they ACT in a violent way. None of us will ever know the true impact players kneeling has had on this issue. No police officer is going to come out and say, "you know I would have just shot the kid before and not risked using my actual training to truly assess the situation". ( And I'm asking you guys to take the meaning BEHIND these words over the ACTUAL words I'm using perhaps to understand the point of this. Rather than cherry pick sentences to poke holes in)

When the youth of any community, ANY COMMUNITY, help people of another community, again ANY COMMUNITY, the result is always positive. ALWAYS.

[Born2Steel]

Like I posted earlier this season, Artie Burns Suxs! Who cares what he thinks and wouldn't surprise me if he is not a starter this upcoming season. Feel free to go back to the Anthem talk and just a reminder Artie Burns Sux as a player as well.

Artie has some weakness to his game, true. IMO, he was drafted to play man coverage against the other team's #1WR, and in that he has been adequate. Where Burns lacks is in experience(getting burned at times), and in tackling/run support. I think that the more he is able to play CB vs WR the better he will become at that aspect of his game duties. He may never become actually 'good' at run support and tackling. Many CBs have had that same skillset and drawback and gone on to have Probowl seasons. I don't think this defense is set up personnel-wise to play 'traditional' style in the secondary. I feel that Haden is a HUGE asset right now in that he has the experience for this group. Sutton and Burns are the future. Haden has said himself that he expects to be making the move to FS eventually. Haden can be the mentor these young CBs need and if they can become what Haden has been, well....that's a pretty damn good thing.

[Shoes]

For one thing, one very BIG thing, taking people to a place for the purpose of helping others has a real affect on the people on both sides of the giving and receiving of help. The people being helped don't give any thought to the ethnic demographic of the person/people helping them. Has nothing to do with social/economic upbringing. The people doing the helping take away a sense of purpose and accomplishment in doing something for someone in need. AND that is a very real feeling that often becomes addictive as well as contagious and encouraging to others to also want to help.

MOST of the players kneeling during the anthem are not saying, "look at me". Perhaps some are, there's always that element amongst the true protesters. MOST are actually trying to be a voice of change to help someone. We cannot know when a protest like this does help someone. For instance, this is an attempt to make people in position of power THINK before they ACT in a violent way. None of us will ever know the true impact players kneeling has had on this issue. No police officer is going to come out and say, "you know I would have just shot the kid before and not risked using my actual training to truly assess the situation". ( And I'm asking you guys to take the meaning BEHIND these words over the ACTUAL words I'm using perhaps to understand the point of this. Rather than cherry pick sentences to poke holes in)

When the youth of any community, ANY COMMUNITY, help people of another community, again ANY COMMUNITY, the result is always positive. ALWAYS.


Of course that would be the case in a famine stricken area, but longer term there is an advantage. There is a reason why western missionaries took on the language, dress and look of the Chinese's people (for example) they went to help in the 1800's. But I've already caused this thread to steer off course, so I digress.

[pczach]

It's a shame that something like this has to turn into a black/white thing when it should be a right/wrong thing we are talking about.


There are so many things that all of us don't know on both sides of the debate. We have all had life experiences that the people we are talking to can't possibly know or maybe even understand.

I just wish that everyone would just grow up and be accountable for their own actions and taking care of their own families. If everyone lived a good, honorable life, and they raised their children to be good people that should strive to love everyone in their lives, men should always treat women with respect, and that the color of someone's skin does not matter.....the country would take care of itself. Love your family and teach them the right things. Try to always treat others like you would want to be treated. Be accountable for your own situation.

I refuse to tolerate people that blame other people when they don't take care of their own issues.

Everyone knows right from wrong...…..everyone. It doesn't matter how much money you have, or if you have been raised in Hollywood or Harlem. We all have an inner compass that guides us and helps us make decisions. We also have our outside influences that help shape how we see the world, and teach us how to handle ourselves by example, like our parents.

I have been fortunate in this world to have wonderful parents that brought me up the right way. They took care of me, loved me, and kicked my ass when I needed it.

Some people have not been so fortunate in who they have had to raise them, guide them, and lead by example. That is not their fault. However, it is also not my fault or the fault of anyone not in their immediate family.

I think so many of us focus on the stuff we see happening now, and don't really see the underlying cause of the issues. So many people have a hard time overcoming their environment. There are so many that do, and that is a credit to them.

I see all this civil unrest, and while I do see a tough road for so many, I wish that more people were willing to be more introspective of what has led them individually, or as a people to where they currently are.

Are there white, racist assholes in this world? Without question.

Are there black, racist assholes in this world? Without question.

White people have had much more time as free men and women to forge their path.

Blacks were oppressed, and although free, have taken a long time to find their way and to overcome many obstacles along the way as they walked the path. I think we all understand that, or at least I hope we do.

I believe we have come to a place in time where there are no limits to what someone could do if they work hard enough and understand how the world works. It's time to stop blaming others and for people to fix their own problems from within.

I truly believe the problems of the black community are the result of too many kids without fathers or not being raised the right way. The problem is the underlying cause of much self-induced oppression. I know there is still hate out there, but that hate goes in both directions. I experience it every day in everyday life watching able bodied young men and women not working, collecting a check, selling drugs, having babies they don't care about, and sometimes committing violent acts. This applies to Whites, Blacks, and Hispanic people, but we all know the percentages are different for each demographic.

Fixing all of these problems starts at home. Men need to take responsibility for the children they produce and become a force of good in their lives. Not all relationships between men and women are good, but you can't ever stop fighting for your kids and preparing them for life and their futures.

Holding people accountable for how they live and not blaming outside forces is paramount to making life better for everyone. Some men and women need to become better people....period.....and we all need to put the blame of why there are so many troubled people where it belongs.

[Mojouw]

I think we should alert the media that we ended racism and systemic injustice. We can also tell anyone who is upset with their lot in life that if they don’t like it; they need to realize that at least they are not a forced child soldier in an African civil-war.

[43Hitman]

I think we should alert the media that we ended racism and systemic injustice. We can also tell anyone who is upset with their lot in life that if they don’t like it; they need to realize that at least they are not a forced child soldier in an African civil-war.

Is this comment really helping? Seems like you've become combative over this issue.

[AtlantaDan]

Interesting column by Ross Douthat (FWIW he is regarded to be a "conservative") in the NY Times today that includes this observation on debating the anthem issue, with which I find more and more reasons to agree

Everything about the intersection of sports and race relations and the Trump presidency is simply toxic, and expecting free speech to flourish where those rivers meet is like suggesting that a Superfund site cleanup begin by planting daffodils in the most polluted stretch.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/opinion/sunday/free-speech-nfl-protests-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fo pinion-columnists

[Dwinsgames]

It's a shame that something like this has to turn into a black/white thing when it should be a right/wrong thing we are talking about.


There are so many things that all of us don't know on both sides of the debate. We have all had life experiences that the people we are talking to can't possibly know or maybe even understand.

I just wish that everyone would just grow up and be accountable for their own actions and taking care of their own families. If everyone lived a good, honorable life, and they raised their children to be good people that should strive to love everyone in their lives, men should always treat women with respect, and that the color of someone's skin does not matter.....the country would take care of itself. Love your family and teach them the right things. Try to always treat others like you would want to be treated. Be accountable for your own situation.

I refuse to tolerate people that blame other people when they don't take care of their own issues.

Everyone knows right from wrong...…..everyone. It doesn't matter how much money you have, or if you have been raised in Hollywood or Harlem. We all have an inner compass that guides us and helps us make decisions. We also have our outside influences that help shape how we see the world, and teach us how to handle ourselves by example, like our parents.

I have been fortunate in this world to have wonderful parents that brought me up the right way. They took care of me, loved me, and kicked my ass when I needed it.

Some people have not been so fortunate in who they have had to raise them, guide them, and lead by example. That is not their fault. However, it is also not my fault or the fault of anyone not in their immediate family.

I think so many of us focus on the stuff we see happening now, and don't really see the underlying cause of the issues. So many people have a hard time overcoming their environment. There are so many that do, and that is a credit to them.

I see all this civil unrest, and while I do see a tough road for so many, I wish that more people were willing to be more introspective of what has led them individually, or as a people to where they currently are.

Are there white, racist assholes in this world? Without question.

Are there black, racist assholes in this world? Without question.

White people have had much more time as free men and women to forge their path.

Blacks were oppressed, and although free, have taken a long time to find their way and to overcome many obstacles along the way as they walked the path. I think we all understand that, or at least I hope we do.

I believe we have come to a place in time where there are no limits to what someone could do if they work hard enough and understand how the world works. It's time to stop blaming others and for people to fix their own problems from within.

I truly believe the problems of the black community are the result of too many kids without fathers or not being raised the right way. The problem is the underlying cause of much self-induced oppression. I know there is still hate out there, but that hate goes in both directions. I experience it every day in everyday life watching able bodied young men and women not working, collecting a check, selling drugs, having babies they don't care about, and sometimes committing violent acts. This applies to Whites, Blacks, and Hispanic people, but we all know the percentages are different for each demographic.

Fixing all of these problems starts at home. Men need to take responsibility for the children they produce and become a force of good in their lives. Not all relationships between men and women are good, but you can't ever stop fighting for your kids and preparing them for life and their futures.

Holding people accountable for how they live and not blaming outside forces is paramount to making life better for everyone. Some men and women need to become better people....period.....and we all need to put the blame of why there are so many troubled people where it belongs.










fantastic post :drink:

[Born2Steel]

Of course that would be the case in a famine stricken area, but longer term there is an advantage. There is a reason why western missionaries took on the language, dress and look of the Chinese's people (for example) they went to help in the 1800's. But I've already caused this thread to steer off course, so I digress.

But that's not what we're discussing here is it. Read again the last few sentences of my entire paragraph.

[Psycho Ward 86]

holy christ. i havent had time to read each and every post since i last posted in this thread but did someone seriously suggest deporting players for kneeling?

what in the fascism happened in this discussion :lol:

Also, there really is no logic in the "if you don't like it, leave" rhetoric. Real love of country means you would probably rather stick around to try to fix what you perceive to be problematic instead of running away like a coward.

[Psycho Ward 86]

Is this comment really helping? Seems like you've become combative over this issue.

Satire makes all kinds of points when you dont just take it at face value. One of the points Mojouw is consistently making is that its problematic to be dismissive of people who wish to point out issues by telling them "someone has it worse."

we can always point out someone who has it worse in any discussion. You sound uncomfortable

[43Hitman]

Satire makes all kinds of points when you dont just take it at face value. One of the points Mojouw is consistently making is that its problematic to be dismissive of people who wish to point out issues by telling them "someone has it worse."

we can always point out someone who has it worse in any discussion. You sound uncomfortable

Not at all. Have you read my comments?

[Psycho Ward 86]

Not at all. Have you read my comments?

I have now. I made some thoughts earlier in the thread and as expected, no one really wants to seem to address the hypocrisy of hating Goodell's unchecked power, while favoring the "employer's" unchecked power in these specific matters. I would be interested in what you think. Who's the real "employer" here, if Goodell has all the power, and a folly player's union that doesnt actually get to have a say in matters?


Answer: It's still Goodell.

[43Hitman]

I have now. I made some thoughts earlier in the thread and as expected, no one really wants to seem to address the hypocrisy of hating Goodell's unchecked power, while favoring the "employer's" unchecked power in these specific matters. I would be interested in what you think. Who's the real "employer" here, if Goodell has all the power, and a folly player's union that doesnt actually get to have a say in matters?


Answer: It's still Goodell.

My take is that the Union should have been involved in the discussion and it is kind of weird that they weren't involved. However, I still stand on the fact that the employer sets the rules for it's employees to follow. Do I think this policy should have been implemented before it turned into this mess? Yes. I have no problem with anyone protesting, I think its healthy for our country for us to express their displeasure and call out what we think is BS, but not on company time.


P.S. Goodell still sucks and I honestly think he should be removed from his position, unfortunately the owners feel differently.

[AtlantaDan]

holy christ. i havent had time to read each and every post since i last posted in this thread but did someone seriously suggest deporting players for kneeling

That suggestion was not from someone who posts here regularly:coffee:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/trump-on-players-who-dont-stand-for-anthem-maybe-they-shouldnt-be-in-the-country/

[slippy]

Rocky Bleier

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-roots-of-the-nfls-national-anthem-controversy-stretch-to-the-1960s-and-vietnam/2018/05/27/933efcbe-61d1-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.e14b4155c387

Why do we have the national anthem before football games anyway? If you're asking why these players are protesting at their workplace, please ask yourself why the national anthem is being played during working hours. Seems a bit totalitarian, no?

Also, the third stanza of the anthem, not usually sung, is blatantly racist.

[steelreserve]

Wow, this has gotten pretty out of hand. But since we've apparently moved on to the underlying issue behind the kneelers, I'll tell you why I think the protest itself is pretty shaky.

Is there a problem with systemic racism in America, particularly on the part of the police? The statistics say otherwise.

Nonetheless, if people actually ARE scared or feel marginalized, there is little comfort in statistics. There is little doubt that people feel scared or marginalized in spite of what the evidence says, so that's a problem in its own right.

Why do people feel scared and vulnerable, and why are so many others outraged on their behalf at the unfairness of the situation? Is it because they're all idiots who don't know what's going on? Or is someone trying to influence them (manipulate them?) for their own reasons?

Why would someone do that? Who would stand to gain from manipulating people to think that?

If only there was some entity, let's say a political party, whose stated strategy was to capitalize on identity politics, and that in order to do so, it intended to feed a narrative promoting racial and class division to its contacts in the media and activist groups, and thereby manipulate poor people and minorities into supporting them. And if only that exact strategy had all been exposed somewhere in a bunch of leaked documents, maybe by some Swedish guy, then it would start to make sense. I don't know of any political party like that, but if one existed, man, what a coincidence that would be.

I also think it's another case where people just have NO concept of scale, especially of just how huge a number 340 million is. Think about this: If the police have, say, 1 million interactions per day with civilians, then 10,000 of them are going to be between the worst 10% of criminals and the worst 10% of police. Furthermore, 100 interactions EVERY DAY are going to be between the worst 1% of criminals and the worst 1% of police. What kind of outcome do you expect those to have - a good one? What about the worst 1% of interactions between the worst 1% of cops and the worst 1% of criminals? Remember, that happens at least once a day too. Frankly, it's a miracle more people of all races aren't beaten up or killed, but the one cherry-picked case every month or two is enough to convince some that an entire group of people are all racists.

Similarly, with ~35,000 public and private high schools in the United States, the rate of mass shootings is approximately one per school every 10,000 years. That probably means about one out of every few million students is a psychotic killer - which, when compared with the general population, is not actually all that shocking. But, don't bring that up to anyone who has their mind made up on the issue; you're just spouting NRA fascist propaganda and couldn't possibly be capable of thinking for yourself and coming to an intelligent conclusion on such a grave subject.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-racism-is-not-dead-but-it-is-on-life-support-kept-alive-by-politicians-race-hustlers-thomas-sowell-88-4-0482.jpg

[86WARD]

The National Anthem being played at regular season sporting events on a weekly/daily basis is non-sense. There’s no reason for it. If you want to do it for the special occasion games, fine, but really, there’s no need for it everyday.

[DesertSteel]

The National Anthem being played at regular season sporting events on a weekly/daily basis is non-sense. There’s no reason for it. If you want to do it for the special occasion games, fine, but really, there’s no need for it everyday.
Maybe it means something to people who put their lives on the line for our freedom and to the families of those who lost their lives. Even though it may interfere with our cheeto eating schedule on Sunday.

[st33lersguy]

Wow, this has gotten pretty out of hand. But since we've apparently moved on to the underlying issue behind the kneelers, I'll tell you why I think the protest itself is pretty shaky.

Is there a problem with systemic racism in America, particularly on the part of the police? The statistics say otherwise.

Nonetheless, if people actually ARE scared or feel marginalized, there is little comfort in statistics. There is little doubt that people feel scared or marginalized in spite of what the evidence says, so that's a problem in its own right.

Why do people feel scared and vulnerable, and why are so many others outraged on their behalf at the unfairness of the situation? Is it because they're all idiots who don't know what's going on? Or is someone trying to influence them (manipulate them?) for their own reasons?

Why would someone do that? Who would stand to gain from manipulating people to think that?

If only there was some entity, let's say a political party, whose stated strategy was to capitalize on identity politics, and that in order to do so, it intended to feed a narrative promoting racial and class division to its contacts in the media and activist groups, and thereby manipulate poor people and minorities into supporting them. And if only that exact strategy had all been exposed somewhere in a bunch of leaked documents, maybe by some Swedish guy, then it would start to make sense. I don't know of any political party like that, but if one existed, man, what a coincidence that would be.

I also think it's another case where people just have NO concept of scale, especially of just how huge a number 340 million is. Think about this: If the police have, say, 1 million interactions per day with civilians, then 10,000 of them are going to be between the worst 10% of criminals and the worst 10% of police. Furthermore, 100 interactions EVERY DAY are going to be between the worst 1% of criminals and the worst 1% of police. What kind of outcome do you expect those to have - a good one? What about the worst 1% of interactions between the worst 1% of cops and the worst 1% of criminals? Remember, that happens at least once a day too. Frankly, it's a miracle more people of all races aren't beaten up or killed, but the one cherry-picked case every month or two is enough to convince some that an entire group of people are all racists.

Similarly, with ~35,000 public and private high schools in the United States, the rate of mass shootings is approximately one per school every 10,000 years. That probably means about one out of every few million students is a psychotic killer - which, when compared with the general population, is not actually all that shocking. But, don't bring that up to anyone who has their mind made up on the issue; you're just spouting NRA fascist propaganda and couldn't possibly be capable of thinking for yourself and coming to an intelligent conclusion on such a grave subject.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-racism-is-not-dead-but-it-is-on-life-support-kept-alive-by-politicians-race-hustlers-thomas-sowell-88-4-0482.jpg

"UR UH RASIST!"

Seriously though, spot on

[86WARD]

Maybe it means something to people who put their lives on the line for our freedom and to the families of those who lost their lives. Even though it may interfere with our cheeto eating schedule on Sunday.

It means a lot to most people. Means very much to me...I just don’t see the need to play it during every single regular season sporting event...other than to give some small town wannabe a chance to sing the National Anthem in front of 10,000 people at a Braves/Padres game during a cold and rainy April.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

They took a knee to protest something that does not exist. Black people aren't mistreated by police any more or any less than any other race. As for oppression of Black people, that doesn't exist today in the US. The protest is as laughable as BLM.


So, are you saying that America has progressed to a "post racial" society? Its great to know that there is no longer racial inequality in America. Thanks for sharing!! :alcohol:

[steelreserve]

So, are you saying that America has progressed to a "post racial" society? Its great to know that there is no longer racial inequality in America. Thanks for sharing!! :alcohol:

Are there isolated instances of racism? Yes, the same as there are isolated instances of people being an asshole about any number of things.

Is there systemic racism in this country? lol, I'm sorry you fell for it.

[Steeldude]

So, are you saying that America has progressed to a "post racial" society? Its great to know that there is no longer racial inequality in America. Thanks for sharing!! :alcohol:

They are claiming systematic oppression of Black people. Any proof of it? None. I am not saying there aren't racist people in the US, but to say it's on such a scale that it is oppressing all Black people is absurd.

[Mojouw]

Just so I know, when did systemic racism end?

The 3/5 comprise?
The Emancipation Proclamation?
Jim Crow?
School desegregation?
The Civil Rights movement?
The Fair Housing Act?
When voters "took their country back?"

Seriously, it would be good to know. Entire fields of law, research, education, and government could stop working. Think of the savings!

[IowaSteeler927]

My opinion? Keep the politics out of sports. I don't get to go to my work and use it as a means of political protest. I don't get to kneel down in roll call because I don't like what's going on in the outside world. I don't get to say things that disparage my place of work, or the people I work with. It's against policy. Honestly, even if I could use my work as a means of protest, the only circumstance I would even consider doing something like that would be if there was a union strike or something along those lines.

I watch football to escape from my job, to escape from the harsh realities I deal with every day. It's a hobby, it's a sport, it's entertainment. I love football, and I love my Steelers. I don't pay for merchandise, pay for Directv Sunday Ticket, and drive 13 hours to games over the past three years to see players kneeling and pushing a leftist political agenda. I pay to watch football. These guys get paid to entertain, to play the game of football, not to protest. So if the NFL puts the hammer down and says we don't want players doing this in the company's image anymore, that's not an abuse of power. That's the same policies that 99% of other employers in the US put on their own employees. Whether it's the fry cook at McDonalds, the cashier at Wal-Mart, the Detention Officer at a jail, the Fireman at the firehouse, the garbage truck guys, etc...

They have a platform being an NFL player, feel free to use it on your own time, not on mine. Just my honest .02 cents on the matter.

[Steeldude]

If it exists today I have yet to see anyone prove it.

[steelreserve]

Just so I know, when did systemic racism end?

The 3/5 comprise?
The Emancipation Proclamation?
Jim Crow?
School desegregation?
The Civil Rights movement?
The Fair Housing Act?
When voters "took their country back?"

Seriously, it would be good to know. Entire fields of law, research, education, and government could stop working. Think of the savings!


The 1980s and 1990s. Thank you for asking a question with such a straightforward answer.

Since I can practically hear you seething and grinding your teeth as you formulate your harsh dismissal, I will save us all some time and a lot of acrimony by filling out the standard boilerplate response instead, and conceding that it is right. Your dentist will thank me:

"I don't know who in the hell you think you are to tell everyone racism is over. Hey, everyone, this guy said there's no more racism - guess we should all just take his word for it and be quiet and know our place! We wouldn't want to upset this guy (better yet: make him "uncomfortable") by being 'uppity' and challenging his world view!"

"You've probably never even experienced racism. Therefore, I will dismiss whatever you say based primarily on your race." (don't forget to leave that part out, it has been required by federal law for any conversation about racism since 2015.)

At any rate, rather than go down that road, why don't we try a simpler exercise, one that doesn't require believing that I or anyone else might have a clue what the hell they are talking about.

Think back to the much more recent past - say, 2010 or 2012. How much of an issue was racism then? For some reason, you never heard about it, except for the occasional dingbat who was rightfully denounced as a dingbat who was grossly out of step with modern society, and therefore largely irrelevant. People weren't giving each other dirty looks for no reason or screaming at each other over nothing. It was almost as if there was an acknowledgement that there had been slow but steady progress over the past 40 or 50 years, to the point where things might not be perfect, but there were certainly about 100 other issues that had far more bearing on people's day-to-day lives than race. The PC Thought Police was a bit much, but overall this was not an issue which was at the front of most people's minds.

Then a couple years later, in like 2014-15, everything has a racial tone. Any time anything is done by someone or to someone, it's assumed race must be a prime motivator (why, suddenly?). Every news article includes "who is white" or "who is black" in the opening description of the main subject, whether it is relevant to the story or not.

What was going on? Why would people suddenly start thinking and acting with race as a motivation, for no real reason? Well, ordinarily, they wouldn't.

But what was going on around 2015? It was almost like someone had an election to win. In the period leading up to that, The Narrative was: "Obama! The great hero who solved racism!" From 2015-16, The Narrative was: "Watch out! An avalanche of racism is about to burst through and engulf us all, and the only thing holding it back is Obama and his friends in the Democratic Party!" From 2017 on, The Narrative has been: "We told you so! Look at racism creeping in all around us, we're all doomed!" It has been a carefully curated message for several years, and I truly feel sorry for the people who cannot see that, because it is clear as day. Here on planet Earth, your average citizen in 2018 does not think or act a hell of a lot differently from your average citizen in 2010 or 2011, when race was not being pushed as the all-encompassing answer to every problem and every grievance.

My other question is: What is the end game that we are supposed to be aiming for? To be hyper-aware of race? Are we supposed to be like California, which is just beaming with self-congratulatory pride about being ultra-enlightened on the issue of race ... but actually, the black people and the Mexicans hate the white people, the white people hate themselves, and the white people who don't hate themselves are universally despised by all races. Actually a fairly decent summary of the progressive mindset overall, but not really the future I am looking for.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Torrey Smith: New anthem policy could “stir things up”

Posted by Mike Florio on May 29, 2018

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/29/torrey-smith-new-anthem-policy-could-stir-things-up/

[Mojouw]

The 1980s and 1990s. Thank you for asking a question with such a straightforward answer.

Since I can practically hear you seething and grinding your teeth as you formulate your harsh dismissal, I will save us all some time and a lot of acrimony by filling out the standard boilerplate response instead, and conceding that it is right. Your dentist will thank me:

"I don't know who in the hell you think you are to tell everyone racism is over. Hey, everyone, this guy said there's no more racism - guess we should all just take his word for it and be quiet and know our place! We wouldn't want to upset this guy (better yet: make him "uncomfortable") by being 'uppity' and challenging his world view!"

"You've probably never even experienced racism. Therefore, I will dismiss whatever you say based primarily on your race." (don't forget to leave that part out, it has been required by federal law for any conversation about racism since 2015.)

At any rate, rather than go down that road, why don't we try a simpler exercise, one that doesn't require believing that I or anyone else might have a clue what the hell they are talking about.

Think back to the much more recent past - say, 2010 or 2012. How much of an issue was racism then? For some reason, you never heard about it, except for the occasional dingbat who was rightfully denounced as a dingbat who was grossly out of step with modern society, and therefore largely irrelevant. People weren't giving each other dirty looks for no reason or screaming at each other over nothing. It was almost as if there was an acknowledgement that there had been slow but steady progress over the past 40 or 50 years, to the point where things might not be perfect, but there were certainly about 100 other issues that had far more bearing on people's day-to-day lives than race. The PC Thought Police was a bit much, but overall this was not an issue which was at the front of most people's minds.

Then a couple years later, in like 2014-15, everything has a racial tone. Any time anything is done by someone or to someone, it's assumed race must be a prime motivator (why, suddenly?). Every news article includes "who is white" or "who is black" in the opening description of the main subject, whether it is relevant to the story or not.

What was going on? Why would people suddenly start thinking and acting with race as a motivation, for no real reason? Well, ordinarily, they wouldn't.

But what was going on around 2015? It was almost like someone had an election to win. In the period leading up to that, The Narrative was: "Obama! The great hero who solved racism!" From 2015-16, The Narrative was: "Watch out! An avalanche of racism is about to burst through and engulf us all, and the only thing holding it back is Obama and his friends in the Democratic Party!" From 2017 on, The Narrative has been: "We told you so! Look at racism creeping in all around us, we're all doomed!" It has been a carefully curated message for several years, and I truly feel sorry for the people who cannot see that, because it is clear as day. Here on planet Earth, your average citizen in 2018 does not think or act a hell of a lot differently from your average citizen in 2010 or 2011, when race was not being pushed as the all-encompassing answer to every problem and every grievance.

My other question is: What is the end game that we are supposed to be aiming for? To be hyper-aware of race? Are we supposed to be like California, which is just beaming with self-congratulatory pride about being ultra-enlightened on the issue of race ... but actually, the black people and the Mexicans hate the white people, the white people hate themselves, and the white people who don't hate themselves are universally despised by all races. Actually a fairly decent summary of the progressive mindset overall, but not really the future I am looking for.

Wasn't going to go that route at all, but thanks for taking a stab at it. I couldn't agree more that we are talking and hearing about race and class relations and interactions (both positive and negative) more and more. Perhaps it doesn't mean that racism of any type is more or less prevalent, but that as a culture and society we are finally ready to have a realistic and honest conversation about the racial baggage our society has been dragging around for some time.

Sounds like you think about this stuff and with a critical eye - that's great. We all should stop and consider if what we are hearing and experiencing is real or concocted BS. Nothing is ever wrong with that. But I will caution that entire libraries are full of detailed evidence and documentation that there are still, for some - not all, horrendous barriers to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on race and sometimes class as well. If your operating assumption is that progressive white liberal voters, thinkers, or writers are full of self hate and lots of rending of garments over racial/social justice issues, well that is just a pretty solid load of crap that someone fed you. It isn't about assigning blame, or projecting backwards, it is about moving forward into a more equitable situation for everyone. Additionally, it is not about having to take from one group to give to another - despite the ham-fisted conversations politicians and pundits have in that vein.

The whole point is that you, I, and anyone else don't have to agree on any of this. But to simply dismiss a major portion of the voices of our fellow citizens as irrelevant because it doesn't seem that way from the outside, is pretty reductive thinking. Are all the claims and goals of various social justice groups valid and reasonable? Of course not. No protest movement ever has a totally possible agenda or platform.

Finally the goals of political actors on both the left and right can not be taken as a proxy for the real good and ill in a society. All politicians push buttons and pull levers to advance their real goal -- their reelection and solidification of power.

But who knows? I could be wrong - I often am. I'm just an idiot with a keyboard and several years of education regarding some of the specific aspects of this large and complex issue. I will insist, and absolutely no one has to agree with me or do anything, and argue against the position that racism is basically not relevant in the daily lives and decisions of significant portions of our society. Until that is no longer the case, we, as a country, need to strive towards a somewhat nebulous goal of overcoming/eliminating that. Along the way there will be missteps, blind alleys, and wrong-headed policies. But to simply sit back and say that we can rest on our laurels because things are far far better than they were 40 or 50 years ago is to essentially fail to deliver on the central promise of American society for all that live within its borders. That makes me sad and angry and it always will.

[hawaiiansteeler]

unfortunately racism still exists in our society today:

‘Roseanne’ Canceled by ABC After Roseanne Barr’s ‘Repugnant’ Comments, Network President Says

Ashley Boucher
The Wrap
May 29, 2018

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roseanne-canceled-abc-roseanne-barr-repugnant-comments-network-174759145.html

[steelreserve]

Wasn't going to go that route at all, but thanks for taking a stab at it. I couldn't agree more that we are talking and hearing about race and class relations and interactions (both positive and negative) more and more. Perhaps it doesn't mean that racism of any type is more or less prevalent, but that as a culture and society we are finally ready to have a realistic and honest conversation about the racial baggage our society has been dragging around for some time.

Sounds like you think about this stuff and with a critical eye - that's great. We all should stop and consider if what we are hearing and experiencing is real or concocted BS. Nothing is ever wrong with that. But I will caution that entire libraries are full of detailed evidence and documentation that there are still, for some - not all, horrendous barriers to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on race and sometimes class as well. If your operating assumption is that progressive white liberal voters, thinkers, or writers are full of self hate and lots of rending of garments over racial/social justice issues, well that is just a pretty solid load of crap that someone fed you. It isn't about assigning blame, or projecting backwards, it is about moving forward into a more equitable situation for everyone. Additionally, it is not about having to take from one group to give to another - despite the ham-fisted conversations politicians and pundits have in that vein.

The whole point is that you, I, and anyone else don't have to agree on any of this. But to simply dismiss a major portion of the voices of our fellow citizens as irrelevant because it doesn't seem that way from the outside, is pretty reductive thinking. Are all the claims and goals of various social justice groups valid and reasonable? Of course not. No protest movement ever has a totally possible agenda or platform.

Finally the goals of political actors on both the left and right can not be taken as a proxy for the real good and ill in a society. All politicians push buttons and pull levers to advance their real goal -- their reelection and solidification of power.

But who knows? I could be wrong - I often am. I'm just an idiot with a keyboard and several years of education regarding some of the specific aspects of this large and complex issue. I will insist, and absolutely no one has to agree with me or do anything, and argue against the position that racism is basically not relevant in the daily lives and decisions of significant portions of our society. Until that is no longer the case, we, as a country, need to strive towards a somewhat nebulous goal of overcoming/eliminating that. Along the way there will be missteps, blind alleys, and wrong-headed policies. But to simply sit back and say that we can rest on our laurels because things are far far better than they were 40 or 50 years ago is to essentially fail to deliver on the central promise of American society for all that live within its borders. That makes me sad and angry and it always will.


Well, that's admittedly a lot more well thought-out position than the typical dismissive screaming you hear about the issue. I mean, you're right that some amount of racism and social injustice obviously does still exist; exactly how much is something that nobody can seem to agree on, and I think is either amplified by various interested parties into much more than it actually is, or downplayed into less than it is, although nobody really thinks it's zero. A major problem is that the argument from the amplifiers is often made in a way that comes off as accusatory and combative (sometimes condescending too) rather than constructive, which is a huge, HUGE part of the reason why no progress is generated from it this go-around, only tension and resentment. So in a way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One thing I would ask, related to your last point in bold, is what constitutes the "normal" or the "better" that we are going for? What's a rational expectation?

What I mean by that is, let's talk about percentiles and the concept of scale again. Just as there are people in the top or bottom percentiles of height, weight, intelligence, foot speed, reaction time, etc. - there are also people in the top or bottom percentiles in terms of personality. What do you think someone in the bottom percentile of personality is like? I mean, chances are you don't even KNOW someone in the bottom percentile of height, weight or intelligence. So think about how a person in the bottom percentile of personality is going to behave. Chances are it's pretty frightening.

So, how many people out there are actual racists? 5 percent? 3 percent? Either one seems like a lot for this day and age, but let's take that as a starting point for argument's sake. Well, how does that compare to some other attributes of the general population? Around 3 percent of males and 2 percent of females have Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is the new medical term for what used to be called psychopathy. 1.2 percent of Americans have schizophrenia. A little over 1 percent are addicted to heroin. 0.9 percent are in jail. An IQ below 75 is considered intellectually challenged, and THAT is 4-5 percent of all individuals in the general population as well.

The point is, there is a big difference between rampant and ingrained racism in society, and the "floor" that exists simply because ... well, basically because there is a certain small percentage of people who are idiots that are malfunctioning. No, it's not "good" that they are out there, but I don't know what you do about it. There is always going to be a bottom percentile; you can't legislate that away.

I think we're a lot closer to that natural floor than to anything else - and in any case, if that was not true, what is the solution? That is not a problem where you wave a wand or pass a law and it goes away. The reason there's been "progress" over the past 40 or 50 years is not because the government got out in front of the problem and struck down oppression, but because of generational changes in thinking, a side effect of which were the outcomes you mentioned in your previous post. (edit: I mean, the undoing of the backward laws and customs, not the customs themselves, hopefully that was not misunderstood.) Really, all you have to do is rest on your laurels and the progress continues anyway. Yelling at people and accusing them, making it "us against them," actually slows it down.

I don't know how "systemic" is defined for the purposes of this argument, but in plain terms, it seems that we are at a point where racism is the kind of thing you can expect to encounter occasionally, from one guy who is an asshole (this goes both directions, mind you). It is not something you can expect to encounter from, say, AT&T, or the University of Illinois. Yeah, out of the huge numbers of people at any sizeable organization, you will find a few who are off their rocker, but in this day and age I think the only "systemic" we're talking about is that there are a small percentage of people across the board who are genuinely unhinged. Sucks that they're out there, but I don't think it has a lot to do with race as an underlying issue. On the other hand, it's good that those are, by and large, the only people who think it's acceptable to behave that way.

One final point as a P.S. - from several years working in the media business, I would say there absolutely is an agenda promoted by a large contingent within that industry. At least 80 percent if not more of the people I encountered there were hard left and vocal about it. That particular profession lends an outsized voice to an individual, so it tends to attract a LOT of people who have an activist mentality. Until fairly recently, the ideas of professionalism and "journalistic standards" were held sacred and there were lines that even the most fanatic of those people didn't cross. But that all went out the window around the same time as the racial/political shitstorm in this country started, and it is simply appalling. In my estimation, it is a large part of the reason behind the toxic atmosphere that prevails today, and a lot of the racial and class "divisions" are deliberately made to seem a lot worse than they really are.

[Mojouw]

Well, that's admittedly a lot more well thought-out position than the typical dismissive screaming you hear about the issue. I mean, you're right that some amount of racism and social injustice obviously does still exist; exactly how much is something that nobody can seem to agree on, and I think is either amplified by various interested parties into much more than it actually is, or downplayed into less than it is, although nobody really thinks it's zero. A major problem is that the argument from the amplifiers is often made in a way that comes off as accusatory and combative (sometimes condescending too) rather than constructive, which is a huge, HUGE part of the reason why no progress is generated from it this go-around, only tension and resentment. So in a way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One thing I would ask, related to your last point in bold, is what constitutes the "normal" or the "better" that we are going for? What's a rational expectation?

What I mean by that is, let's talk about percentiles and the concept of scale again. Just as there are people in the top or bottom percentiles of height, weight, intelligence, foot speed, reaction time, etc. - there are also people in the top or bottom percentiles in terms of personality. What do you think someone in the bottom percentile of personality is like? I mean, chances are you don't even KNOW someone in the bottom percentile of height, weight or intelligence. So think about what a person in the bottom percentile of personality is going to behave.

So, how many people out there are actual racists? 5 percent? 3 percent? Either one seems like a lot for this day and age, but let's take that as a starting point for argument's sake. Well, how does that compare to some other things in the general population? Around 3 percent of males and 2 percent of females have Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is the new medical term for what used to be called psychopathy. 1.2 percent of Americans have schizophrenia. A little over 1 percent are addicted to heroin. 0.9 percent are in jail. An IQ below 75 is considered intellectually challenged, and THAT is 4-5 percent of all individuals in the general population as well.

The point is, there is a big difference between rampant and ingrained racism in society, and the "floor" that exists simply because ... well, basically because there is a certain small percentage of people who are idiots that are malfunctioning. No, it's not "good" that they are out there, but I don't know what you do about it. There is always going to be a bottom percentile; you can't legislate that away.

I think we're a lot closer to that natural floor than to anything else - and in any case, if that was not true, what is the solution? That is not a problem where you wave a wand or pass a law and it goes away. The reason there's been "progress" over the past 40 or 50 years is not because the government got out in front of the problem and struck down oppression, but because of generational changes in thinking, a side effect of which were the outcomes you mentioned in your previous post. Really, all you have to do is rest on your laurels and the progress continues anyway. Yelling at people and accusing them, making it "us against them," actually slows it down.

I don't know how "systemic" is defined for the purposes of this argument, but in plain terms, it seems that we are at a point where racism is the kind of thing you can expect to encounter occasionally, from one guy who is an asshole (this goes both directions, mind you). It is not something you can expect to encounter from, say, AT&T, or the University of Illinois. Yeah, out of the huge numbers of people at any sizeable organization, you will find a few who are off their rocker, but in this day and age I think the only "systemic" we're talking about is that there are a small percentage of people across the board who are genuinely unhinged. Sucks that they're out there, but I don't think it has a lot to do with race as an underlying issue.

Can't focus on individuals. For me it isn't some sort of "find a racist whack-a-mole". It is a system that is increasingly providing barriers to access to necessary resources and opportunities based on the class and race of some individuals or groups of people.

Some people are still assumed to have gotten their job or educational opportunities based on their race, gender, or orientation rather than their innate abilities.

Some people when they react in accordance with social norms and laws are described as "one of the good ones" and a "credit to their race".

African-American and other minority groups lag far behind in mortgages and home purchases. This can often prevent the accumulation of wealth over generations so that it becomes difficult to raise families out of impoverished situations. Now there are many reasons for this, but if even one is racially based it is one too many.

A more striking (and to me concrete example) is the continued nationwide efforts to disenfranchise African-American, Latino, and lower-income white voters. These efforts include restrictive voter registration laws and the "creative drawing" of voting districts that have been repeatedly ruled against in the courts as modern day gerrymandering. Undoubtedly a practice both sides of the political spectrum engage in - which is why the census is actually one of the most powerful political tools in the land -- but that is big digression for another day!

Another potent example is the numerous school districts that have been for all intents and purposes re-segregated through affluence. Creating totally opposing educational experiences for students within the same school district. These differential education backgrounds have been demonstrated to have life-long impacts on individuals and in turn decades long impacts on communities.

African-American citizens are 12 times more likely to be wrongfully convicted (this only counts the individuals who have been proven through the appeal process to be innocent) of drug related crimes than white citizens. The difference in the political and law enforcement response to the "crack epidemic" and the "opioid epidemic" is startling - I can only hope it is because lessons were learned in the intervening decades...but no one talks about "super predators" when it comes to white drug users/dealers...does it mean anything -- I honestly don't know.

Repeated studies have demonstrated that a name that sounds "black" or "ethnic" is 25-50% less likely to get a call-back than a "white" sounding name. This has lead to large gaps in unemployment rates between black college grads and white college grads. Not that anyone is getting a job right now...

Minority home buyers and renters are typically shown as much as 20% fewer homes than white buyers/renters.

In 2017, AT&T was in troubling for "digital redlining" the practice of providing down-graded or no services to certain areas based on a combination of racial and economic factors. Now some say "market forces" others say "discrimination".

There are numerous other examples of troubling trends in our contemporary society. Untangling the root causes of them is complex and often imprecise work - but it is not work that should be neglected or just set aside to await changing attitudes over time. Of course no one is saying that there is some cabal of racists all gathering together somewhere to plot out an organized plan for oppression and discrimination. Simply that despite all progress that has been made, there is still work to be done and it is of a high degree of value to (attempt) to have a national conversation about what that work should be.

[teegre]

Another potent example is the numerous school districts that have been for all intents and purposes re-segregated through affluence. Creating totally opposing educational experiences for students within the same school district. These differential education backgrounds have been demonstrated to have life-long impacts on individuals and in turn decades long impacts on communities.

:nod:

https://archive.org/stream/SavageInequalities-Eng-JonathanKozol/savage-inequalities-jonathan-kozol_djvu.txt

[Mojouw]

:nod:

https://archive.org/stream/SavageInequalities-Eng-JonathanKozol/savage-inequalities-jonathan-kozol_djvu.txt

That's some pretty rough stuff.

[teegre]

That's some pretty rough stuff.

Yep.

For those who don’t wish to read 300 pages, Chapter 1 (East St. Louis) says it all.

[steelreserve]

Can't focus on individuals. For me it isn't some sort of "find a racist whack-a-mole". It is a system that is increasingly providing barriers to access to necessary resources and opportunities based on the class and race of some individuals or groups of people.

...

There are numerous other examples of troubling trends in our contemporary society. Untangling the root causes of them is complex and often imprecise work - but it is not work that should be neglected or just set aside to await changing attitudes over time. Of course no one is saying that there is some cabal of racists all gathering together somewhere to plot out an organized plan for oppression and discrimination. Simply that despite all progress that has been made, there is still work to be done and it is of a high degree of value to (attempt) to have a national conversation about what that work should be.


I don't want to drag this on indefinitely, so let me just say that you make some good points and there obviously is more to the story than "racism is everywhere" or "people are complaining for no reason." Unfortunately, the furthest the public dialogue gets are soundbites paraphrasing one of those, and shouted through a megaphone, because being loud and rude is what carries the most attention. So I don't have a lot of faith in that process to accomplish much that's meaningful.

The last couple of things I want to say: First, that a very big difference in the appearance of this current state of events, compared to civil rights movements in the past, is that the racial villain is more often than not an ambiguous "they" with unclear motives - whereas in, say, the 1960s, it was unmistakably clear who it was and why they were doing it. I won't pretend to argue the merits of one movement versus the other, but that appearance is why the present one leaves a sour taste in many people's mouths, as if they are being unfairly targeted in the chase for a hypothetical bogeyman.

Second is that many of the current grievances, on a macro level (as opposed to the isolated encounters with bottom-percentile racists-at-large) ... seem like they have much more to do with poverty than anything else, including race. No mistake about it, being poor sucks. On the other hand, you will find the same type of problems in Watts as you will in a favela in Sao Paulo, or for that matter in some dogshit town in the Jersey pine barrens. Just with different drugs and with different twists on it. As one family friend from just such a dogshit town remarked on his first trip through West Oakland (in which numerous examples of dangerous or cracked-out behavior were evident, complete with a dude getting arrested in an apparent domestic violence incident): "This ain't black people's problems, this is poor people's problems."

While tragic and undoubtedly frustrating, chalking that up to race rubs people the wrong way. Unless I'm mistaken, the public conversation about these subjects a decade ago was much more focused on the kinds of practical problems related to poverty, with a lot less of the racial vitriol - and may have actually been leading somewhere if they had let it. Instead it gets taken over by a bunch of shrieking extremists who clearly are in it for their own reasons, and as a result have probably set race relations back a good 20 years. The whole thing is just utterly disappointing.

[Mojouw]

I don't want to drag this on indefinitely, so let me just say that you make some good points and there obviously is more to the story than "racism is everywhere" or "people are complaining for no reason." Unfortunately, the furthest the public dialogue gets are soundbites paraphrasing one of those, and shouted through a megaphone, because being loud and rude is what carries the most attention. So I don't have a lot of faith in that process to accomplish much that's meaningful.

The last couple of things I want to say: First, that a very big difference in the appearance of this current state of events, compared to civil rights movements in the past, is that the racial villain is more often than not an ambiguous "they" with unclear motives - whereas in, say, the 1960s, it was unmistakably clear who it was and why they were doing it. I won't pretend to argue the merits of one movement versus the other, but that appearance is why the present one leaves a sour taste in many people's mouths, as if they are being unfairly targeted in the chase for a hypothetical bogeyman.

Second is that many of the current grievances, on a macro level (as opposed to the isolated encounters with bottom-percentile racists-at-large) ... seem like they have much more to do with poverty than anything else, including race. No mistake about it, being poor sucks. On the other hand, you will find the same type of problems in Watts as you will in a favela in Sao Paulo, or for that matter in some dogshit town in the Jersey pine barrens. Just with different drugs and with different twists on it. As one family friend from just such a dogshit town remarked on his first trip through West Oakland (in which numerous examples of dangerous or cracked-out behavior were evident, complete with a dude getting arrested in an apparent domestic violence incident): "This ain't black people's problems, this is poor people's problems."

While tragic and undoubtedly frustrating, chalking that up to race rubs people the wrong way. Unless I'm mistaken, the public conversation about these subjects a decade ago was much more focused on the kinds of practical problems related to poverty, with a lot less of the racial vitriol - and may have actually been leading somewhere if they had let it. Instead it gets taken over by a bunch of shrieking extremists who clearly are in it for their own reasons, and as a result have probably set race relations back a good 20 years. The whole thing is just utterly disappointing.

I've always blamed much of what you point to on the short or even non-existent attention span of the American electorate. Systemic problems related to race, class, poverty, orva toxic stew of all of that mess carry far reaching decades long consequences. Often the long term fallout from a problem exists far past the commonly understood solution.

Poverty is perhaps the easiest example of this. While barriers to creating and curating generational wealth for any particular group be it white or black may have been removed some time ago, the drag that barrier created is felt for multiple generations.

In the meantime, the national conscious moves on and then years later it is "oh. This crap again."

The entangled nature of crime, poverty, and race is a significant hurdle to any attempt at clarity on these issues.

[steelreserve]

I've always blamed much of what you point to on the short or even non-existent attention span of the American electorate. Systemic problems related to race, class, poverty, orva toxic stew of all of that mess carry far reaching decades long consequences. Often the long term fallout from a problem exists far past the commonly understood solution.

Poverty is perhaps the easiest example of this. While barriers to creating and curating generational wealth for any particular group be it white or black may have been removed some time ago, the drag that barrier created is felt for multiple generations.

In the meantime, the national conscious moves on and then years later it is "oh. This crap again."

The entangled nature of crime, poverty, and race is a significant hurdle to any attempt at clarity on these issues.


So, just to bring this back to the original topic and hopefully bring my own argument to a semi-logical conclusion ... yeah, it's pretty clear that there are problems facing these groups of people and it's no joke.

On the other hand, the message "these problems are all some other person's fault, here's a middle finger" does not go very far - either toward getting people on your side, or toward actually fixing the problems.

And THAT is what I think is the masterful piece of manipulation on the part of the political parties and certain activists. Getting people talking about that instead of anything practical; getting them to be angry and toxic rather than constructive; for that matter, making it mostly about racism rather than mostly about poverty. Not only creating sharp divisions along race and class identity lines - also all but assuring nothing will change. There were constructive ways to approach the problem, and there is what we are left with now, which is The Narrative. The people controlling that message are not trying to be helpful, they're just trying to cement anger in place to raise their own importance, which is despicable. They see some stooge like Kaepernick take their message and run with it on his own, they couldn't be happier. But it sure isn't helping anyone who needs help.

/rant

[Mojouw]

So, just to bring this back to the original topic and hopefully bring my own argument to a semi-logical conclusion ... yeah, it's pretty clear that there are problems facing these groups of people and it's no joke.

On the other hand, the message "these problems are all some other person's fault, here's a middle finger" does not go very far - either toward getting people on your side, or toward actually fixing the problems.

And THAT is what I think is the masterful piece of manipulation on the part of the political parties and certain activists. Getting people talking about that instead of anything practical; getting them to be angry and toxic rather than constructive; for that matter, making it mostly about racism rather than mostly about poverty. Not only creating sharp divisions along race and class identity lines - also all but assuring nothing will change. There were constructive ways to approach the problem, and there is what we are left with now, which is The Narrative. The people controlling that message are not trying to be helpful, they're just trying to cement anger in place to raise their own importance, which is despicable. They see some stooge like Kaepernick take their message and run with it on his own, they couldn't be happier. But it sure isn't helping anyone who needs help.

/rant

That's where we are going to have to part ways. I really think you are misrepresenting the nature of protest, activism, and advocacy in a very narrow view.

The implication that very few protesters, advocates, or activists are practicing free will and are all products of some manipulative meta-narrative being constructed by vaguely alluded to factions within political parties and social justice groups is more than a little hard to swallow.

Additionally, very few of the protesters (specifically NFL anthem protesters) have directed blame onto specific individuals. Much of their protests has been to provide a highly visible and intentionally confrontational symbol to raise awareness on a set of issues - specifically the often toxic relationship between police and African-American communities. Discussion on the appropriateness and the efficacy of this approach is useful and important, but essentially doubting the validity of the protesters actions is problematic.

Essentially, very few conspiracy theories make sense from a macroscopic level of analysis. What you are sketching out requires the coordinated subversion of multiple social justice movements at numerous levels. Hell, the CIA had a hard enough time attempting to pull-off similar escapades during the height of the Cold War and they had far more reach and resources than the DNC. The DNC can't even run a primary without openly tripping over their own two feet -- but the implications appear to be that a long-term coordinated strategy of manipulation, infiltration, and direction of messages and activities by advocacy groups has taken place. Additionally, much of the conversation about this group is blaming that group for thing X is usually coming from some pundit putting their own mangled interpretation on a complex issue. Since most of the people who are employed to talk, speak, and write about political and social events on American media are incredibly stupid and largely ignorant of anything aside from how to cash their paycheck, they spew an almost constant stream of non-sense and half-truths from all directions.

Finally, the identification of problems, assignation of blame, and then a giant middle finger has historically been the shortest path towards big change. No one ever likes it and it hasn't always worked, but from Luther nailing his treatises to a church door, to the Boston Tea Party, to Ghandi's mass protest, to sit-ins at Southern lunch counters -- picking a target and tell them to go screw themselves until something changes is essentially the fundamental operating principle of a protest.

Like I said earlier, no one has to agree on this or any other issue. That's the great thing about where we live. But at least people are talking about it. Far better than pretending it doesn't exist.

[steelreserve]

That's where we are going to have to part ways. I really think you are misrepresenting the nature of protest, activism, and advocacy in a very narrow view.

The implication that very few protesters, advocates, or activists are practicing free will and are all products of some manipulative meta-narrative being constructed by vaguely alluded to factions within political parties and social justice groups is more than a little hard to swallow.

Additionally, very few of the protesters (specifically NFL anthem protesters) have directed blame onto specific individuals. Much of their protests has been to provide a highly visible and intentionally confrontational symbol to raise awareness on a set of issues - specifically the often toxic relationship between police and African-American communities. Discussion on the appropriateness and the efficacy of this approach is useful and important, but essentially doubting the validity of the protesters actions is problematic.

Essentially, very few conspiracy theories make sense from a macroscopic level of analysis. What you are sketching out requires the coordinated subversion of multiple social justice movements at numerous levels. Hell, the CIA had a hard enough time attempting to pull-off similar escapades during the height of the Cold War and they had far more reach and resources than the DNC. The DNC can't even run a primary without openly tripping over their own two feet -- but the implications appear to be that a long-term coordinated strategy of manipulation, infiltration, and direction of messages and activities by advocacy groups has taken place. Additionally, much of the conversation about this group is blaming that group for thing X is usually coming from some pundit putting their own mangled interpretation on a complex issue. Since most of the people who are employed to talk, speak, and write about political and social events on American media are incredibly stupid and largely ignorant of anything aside from how to cash their paycheck, they spew an almost constant stream of non-sense and half-truths from all directions.

Finally, the identification of problems, assignation of blame, and then a giant middle finger has historically been the shortest path towards big change. No one ever likes it and it hasn't always worked, but from Luther nailing his treatises to a church door, to the Boston Tea Party, to Ghandi's mass protest, to sit-ins at Southern lunch counters -- picking a target and tell them to go screw themselves until something changes is essentially the fundamental operating principle of a protest.

Like I said earlier, no one has to agree on this or any other issue. That's the great thing about where we live. But at least people are talking about it. Far better than pretending it doesn't exist.


Yeah, I don't think we're going to ever see eye-to-eye on this, but it's good to actually hear the other side's position in a format that is not a screaming match. You make some good points (people's oversimplification of the issue, especially by the media and others whose job it is to make noise), and some ones I don't agree with at all (I mean, the DNC explicitly stated that this was their strategy; that's why they were so upset about the leaked documents exposing the fact that they were willing to deliberately manipulate their constituents. As is often said, the bigger the conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain secret, and this plus the primary clusterfuck are a great example of one that didn't).

As you said, everyone doesn't have to agree, and that's OK. One very positive thing about this message board is that there are a number of people who, even if they have the completely opposite viewpoint of your own, still have the ability to say something worth listening to, and to hold a more or less civil conversation about it. Whether it's football-related or something like this. That is actually pretty rare for the internet (hell, I look at my own friends idiotically parroting every media soundbite and party talking point when they talk about politics on social media, and just shake my head). So know that is much appreciated.

[Mojouw]

Yeah, I don't think we're going to ever see eye-to-eye on this, but it's good to actually hear the other side's position in a format that is not a screaming match. You make some good points (people's oversimplification of the issue, especially by the media and others whose job it is to make noise), and some ones I don't agree with at all (I mean, the DNC explicitly stated that this was their strategy; that's why they were so upset about the leaked documents exposing the fact that they were willing to deliberately manipulate their constituents. As is often said, the bigger the conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain secret, and this plus the primary clusterfuck are a great example of one that didn't).

As you said, everyone doesn't have to agree, and that's OK. One very positive thing about this message board is that there are a number of people who, even if they have the completely opposite viewpoint of your own, still have the ability to say something worth listening to, and to hold a more or less civil conversation about it. Whether it's football-related or something like this. That is actually pretty rare for the internet (hell, I look at my own friends idiotically parroting every media soundbite and party talking point when they talk about politics on social media, and just shake my head). So know that is much appreciated.

Classy cheers time!

http://www.memegen.com/m/kw2m1r.jpg

[Iron Steeler]

Could care less anymore about the Flag convo. I just want to watch some Championship winning Steeler Football.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Terry Bradshaw supports Eagles in anthem dispute with President

Posted by Mike Florio on June 10, 2018

FOX News may be with the President and against the Eagles when it comes to the anthem dispute, but one of FOX’s primary NFL faces and voices supports the defending Super Bowl champions.

Terry Bradshaw, whose weekly FOX NFL Sunday duties will expand to Thursday Night Football in 2018, told TMZ while eating a meal in New York City (can’t they at least wait until these people are leaving the restaurant, like the old days?) that he supports the Eagles.

“I agree with the Eagles, totally, 100 percent,” Bradshaw said. “Trump just needs to . . . go somewhere and enjoy the money he’s got.”

to read rest of article:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/06/10/terry-bradshaw-supports-eagles-in-anthem-dispute-with-president/

[Cyphon25]

There are so many layers to this conversation and can be almost overwhelming and a lot of it was covered so I will try and be brief with my thoughts (I probably wont be lol).

- The best place to start is probably why these conversations are so hard to have to begin with. It is becoming more and more difficult to find people who can come into a discussion without preconceived notions about who they are talking to. Just things I have experienced first hand would be being called racist multiple times along with being called a Trump supporter (who I didn't vote for mind you). I am not sure if this is the originator of this saying or similar sayings but a man by the name of Stephen R. Covey said "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply". If that doesn't summarize every problem we have in regards to all of this I don't know what does.

- As for the anthem and kneeling there are 2 parts to my opinion on that:

1. For me it is a very black and white issue (no pun intended for those who think it is all about race) and I don't see what all of the fuss is over. Players have the right as free citizens in our country to kneel and speak as they please. On the other hand, teams and the NFL have the right as business owners to implement rules that they feel are beneficial to business. So unless the CBA grants the players any kind of legal power there is really no argument to be had here. Just like with every other citizen of the US we have freedoms but there is also freedom of consequence if you will. NFL players aren't special and aren't granted special rights just because they are famous. Again, I am not against the players kneeling, but I am against this being made such a big issue when this same occurence applies broadly across our country. If you work for someone else, you work under there rules. It is as simple as that. The NBA has a stricter policy in regards to the anthem and nobody really mentions anything about that. Somewhat hypocritical if you ask me. I get the NFL handled it poorly but ultimately that shouldn't matter.

I just want to include that I can't stand arguments from people when they say "the original poem was racist" or "this is forced patriotism". Those are nonsense arguments. 99% of people can't recite the original poem and the racist parts of said poem aren't in the anthem so that isn't relevant to the conversation either. It is an emotional argument meant to stir people up and get knee jerk reactions. "What, we are making black people stand to honor a song that is racist?". No, they are honoring the men and women who died fighting for that flag which includes people of all races. Pretty much the same goes for the forced patriotism thing. Kids say the pledge of allegiance and people stand for the anthem, nobody has ever made that argument until it suddenly became an issue when what multiple players did suddenly became bad for business and they were reprimanded for it. Those arguments take what should be a straight forward issue about freedom of speech vs the power of business, and make it racial and political which is never good for trying to advance a conversation.

So to summarize point one, I am fine with players kneeling, but I am also fine with people voicing their opinions on the issue if they disagree. We can't talk about freedom of speech in regards to the players and then tell people to shut up when they disagree with the players stance. That is 100% hypocrisy.


2. This is a bit of a smaller point but my main issue with Kaepernick was that I feel like he didn't really think through his approach when this all began. What I mean is, I knew from the second this was reported on where the conversation was headed and I knew it wasn't headed towards police brutality and social injustice and sure enough, I was right. I think it takes a lot of courage to be the first to do something and standout like Kaepernick did so respect where it is due but man, what a dumb move in my opinion. The whole idea here is that we need to come together (see: unify) to solve these problems. So Kaepernick decided the best course of action was to separate himself and standout during the most unifying moment on the entire planet. Regardless of his intention he should have known the results would be bad. Anyway, I am not here to bash Kaepernick but I bring this up because the ripple effect is happening now. Players are becoming as focused on themselves and the injustices against their "freedom of speech" as they are with the actual issues they want to protest for to begin with. They fell into the trap.


The next thing I want to talk about is politics/Trump. I am not a big fan of people pointing the finger that way and getting so up in arms about these things. Look, Trump is devisive and added fuel to the fire but what ever happened to "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? He called them sons of bitches and told them to leave.....so what? You are grown ass men and have probably heard worse from your coaches growing up. You can be mad at him and hate his politics, but he has no power over the NFL. He isn't the cause of your problems. The owners losing money and the NFL having lower ratings are the cause of your problems. We can talk about how Trump should stay out of it and act more presedential (and he should) but again, I feel like that detracts from the issue. It is pointing the blame somewhere else. Which leads to my next point and I am pretty adamant about this one. I think players are foolish for not going to the white house when given the oppurtunity. And I don't just mean the Eagles now with Trump. I am talking about guys who skipped out on Obama as well. You get a chance to go and meet the president and have direct access to him. I don't know how good the chances are but you may have an oppurtunity to sit down and discuss these things with him and try to find some common ground. It is probably highly unlikely that you do but you should always take the chance. If you disagree with his politics you are one of very few people in this country who get the chance to voice it directly to his face instead of from a Twitter handle. Be an adult and go tell him to his face. Side point quickly, I know he ultimately rescinded the invite but that was after he knew so many weren't coming. The main focus here is talking about players should go and try and take the chance to tell the president how they feel and have these conversations. Particularly when it comes to Trump by showing they can rise above his pettiness and be the bigger person.


And now for the last part and that is the topic these protests are supposed to focus on anyway. I don't think this is really the place for a long discussion but I did just want to drop a couple of ideas I had in regards to potential solutions to the problems we see:


1. I am the only person I know to mention this but it isn't like I have actively researched conversations on the topic. When the resources are available, they should always dispatch an officer who is the same race as the suspect or POI. Cultural differences will always exist and differences lead to fear. It is unreasonable to expect white people who have mostly spent time with other white people to understand those differences, or black people who have mostly spent time around black people to understand those differences. So in the short term, make it about race lol. If a black person has the cops called on them, find a black officer to send out to handle it. To further this point and I know it is probably way easier said then done, they should try and hire officers to locations they are familiar with and have knowledge of. You don't bring a black guy from Baltimore and make him a cop in Nebraska and you don't take a white guy from Beverly Hills and put him in Chicago. Find people who can relate to and understand their area of work.

2. The longer term solution is that it starts with the youth. Cycles are hard to break and you can't unsee what you grow up seeing and hearing. So start getting kids field trips to police stations and bringing cops into schools on a weekly or monthly basis to start forming positive relationships early on. If parents have suffered at the hands of police and are constantly bad mouthing them, how do we expect the kids to think of police when they are older? We are all molded by our parents and experiences. Adults already have the right idea in certain places with community outreach and things of that nature but it needs to go further. Get police interacting with kids and showing them that there are tons of good cops and good people in uniform. Don't let the bad ones spoil the whole bunch for you.

3. As some have pointed to here, there needs to be strong emphasis on families being whole. I think that is extremely important (for any race) and not talked about it enough politically. I don't pretend to have all of the answers but I am sure people smarter than me could think of ways to incentivize families and come up with programs to not only benfit families, but to do more for single mothers as well. With that being said, don't get me started on how broken the child support system is in screwing over a lot of good fathers who are out there as well. That is a whole other rant though.


Anyway, those are my thoughts on the issue.

[GBMelBlount]

3. As some have pointed to here, there needs to be strong emphasis on families being whole.

I think that is extremely important (for any race) and not talked about it enough politically.



Agreed.

And this is arguably a much larger issue.

[st33lersguy]

This upcoming season, I am going to wait until kickoff to tune in. I have no desire to watch how the anthem protests will play out live. I just want to focus on the football side

[DesertSteel]

This upcoming season, I am going to wait until kickoff to tune in. I have no desire to watch how the anthem protests will play out live. I just want to focus on the football side
I normally watch on DVR with some build-up in order to skip commercials. I can't remember the last time I watched anything before the kickoff on a regular season game.

[hawaiiansteeler]

NFL, NFLPA announce 'standstill' on anthem rules after Dolphins report

With the Miami Dolphins facing backlash after submitting required paperwork to the NFL that included potential disciplinary measures for player protests during the national anthem, the league has decided to hit pause on its new policy, sources told ESPN.

The league and the NFL Players Association issued a joint statement Thursday that said "no new rules relating to the anthem will be issued or enforced for the next several weeks" while both sides continue to hold discussions to figure out how to move forward.

to read rest of article:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24143418/nfl-nflpa-agree-freeze-national-anthem-rules

[tube517]

Again, just go back to the way it was and the players and coaches come out AFTER the anthem.

The military and the league can do their displays on the field or whatever agreement they have.

This is truly a cluster F and the NFL and BOZO Der Komissar are to blame. Another issue that Goodhell has mishandled yet again.

I don't even watch until kickoff.

[Mojouw]

Again, just go back to the way it was and the players and coaches come out AFTER the anthem.

The military and the league can do their displays on the field or whatever agreement they have.

This is truly a cluster F and the NFL and BOZO Der Komissar are to blame. Another issue that Goodhell has mishandled yet again.

I don't even watch until kickoff.

Agreed. This is what happens when a bunch of not that smart rich people try and "solve" a puzzle. The NFL always seems to confuse activity with achievement. They feel this need to be seen to be doing something, anything on any given issue. Forgetting that it is better to take your time and be effective with your actions. Morons.

[steelreserve]

This again? Jesus christ. Well, I suppose it was inevitable, given the way they farted around for a year and then tried to address it with an overlawyered half-measure.

This is the kind of thing that happens when the way you run things is basically hipshooting in reaction to every story the media jumps on. A pattern that started with Goodell being led around like a dog and apparently has just become the way the whole league does business now.

It's pretty comical, actually - the media just picks a divisive theme to focus on for the year and then watches the league slam its dick in the door over and over. ESPN Concussion Sunday and omg they're out to brain-damage our kids; domestic violence and omg they're teaching everyone to be sexist; Trump Trump Trump and omg they're trying to start a race war (that one's been so good they're doing sequels!). And the league STILL takes the bait every time. Like, actually making rule changes and suspending people and affecting the game on the field. It's no way to run a business, let alone one of the biggest and most publicly visible sports leagues on the planet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMlYoXGtBkQ

[Dwinsgames]

Written by Ted Nugent [1] - yes, THAT Ted Nugent

“Take a little trip to Valley Forge in January. Hold a musket ball in your
fingers and imagine it piercing your flesh and breaking a bone or two.
There won't be a doctor or trainer to assist you until after the battle, so
just wait your turn. Take your cleats and socks off to get a real
experience.

Then, take a knee on the beach in Normandy where man after American man
stormed the beach, even as the one in front of him was shot to pieces, the
very sea stained with American blood. The only blockers most had were the
dead bodies in front of them, riddled with bullets from enemy fire.

Take a knee in the sweat soaked jungles of Vietnam. From Khe Sanh to
Saigon, anywhere will do. Americans died in all those jungles. There was no
playbook that told them what was next, but they knew what flag they
represented. When they came home, they were protested as well, and spit on
for reasons only cowards know.

Take another knee in the blood drenched sands of Fallujah in 110 degree
heat. Wear your Kevlar helmet and battle dress. Your number won't be
printed on it unless your number is up! You'll need to stay hydrated but
there won't be anyone to squirt Gatorade into your mouth. You're on your
own.

There are a lot of places to take a knee where Americans have given their
lives all over the world. When you use the banner under which they fought
as a source for your displeasure, you dishonor the memories of those who
bled for the very freedoms you have. That's what the red stripes mean. It
represents the blood of those who spilled a sea of it defending your
liberty.

While you're on your knee, pray for those that came before you, not on a
manicured lawn striped and printed with numbers to announce every inch of
ground taken, but on nameless hills and bloodied beaches and sweltering
forests and bitter cold mountains, every inch marked by an American life
lost serving that flag you protest.

No cheerleaders, no announcers, no coaches, no fans, just American men and
women, delivering the real fight against those who chose to harm us,
blazing a path so you would have the right to "take a knee." You haven't
any inkling of what it took to get you where you are, but your "protest" is
duly noted. Not only is it disgraceful to a nation of real heroes, it
serves the purpose of pointing to your ingratitude for those who chose to
defend you under that banner that will still wave long after your jersey is
retired.

If you really feel the need to take a knee, come with me to church on
Sunday and we'll both kneel before Almighty God. We'll thank Him for
preserving this country for as long as He has We'll beg forgiveness for our
ingratitude for all He has provided us. We'll appeal to Him for
understanding and wisdom. We'll pray for liberty and justice for all,
because He is the one who provides those things. But there will be no
protest. There will only be gratitude for His provision and a plea for His
continued grace and mercy on the land of the free and the home of the
brave. It goes like this, GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

[Mojouw]

Hmmm...Ted Nugent first got a student deferment to avoid being drafted into Vietnam then he got reclassified as 4F (unfit for service) while he was out of school and a full-time touring musician. He even claimed he purposely got the 4F designation by being drugged out (meth) and neglecting his personal hygiene during medical reviews. Nugent has since claimed that story was made up to make him look better for a "High Times" magazine interview.

Bottom line, Nugent twice got out of being drafted. Made some "rock and roll cred" on being a drugged out draft dodger when that was cool and now that it is better for his career to wrap himself in the flag and support the military he does that. Plus the "High Times" story conflicts with his straight-edge image during much of his career from the 1970's forward. Wonder if brazen marketing of the "Nugent" brand might have something to do with all of this?

Putting all that aside, Nugent had ample opportunity for the service and sacrifice he seems to hold so dear and ensured that he would not be asked to serve. Why does he get to take some sort of moral patriotic high-ground now?

[Fire Goodell]

I don't like the policy either, they need to keep politics out of football. I personally like to watch the games as an escape from the bullshit of real life. I'd go watch the news if I wanted anything to do with politics.

[Dwinsgames]

Hmmm...Ted Nugent first got a student deferment to avoid being drafted into Vietnam then he got reclassified as 4F (unfit for service) while he was out of school and a full-time touring musician. He even claimed he purposely got the 4F designation by being drugged out (meth) and neglecting his personal hygiene during medical reviews. Nugent has since claimed that story was made up to make him look better for a "High Times" magazine interview.

Bottom line, Nugent twice got out of being drafted. Made some "rock and roll cred" on being a drugged out draft dodger when that was cool and now that it is better for his career to wrap himself in the flag and support the military he does that. Plus the "High Times" story conflicts with his straight-edge image during much of his career from the 1970's forward. Wonder if brazen marketing of the "Nugent" brand might have something to do with all of this?

Putting all that aside, Nugent had ample opportunity for the service and sacrifice he seems to hold so dear and ensured that he would not be asked to serve. Why does he get to take some sort of moral patriotic high-ground now?


your point ?

it does not discredit what he feels now as a man in his late 50s early 60s ( or whatever his age is )

it does not change the spirit of the piece written ....

many once believe Kordell Stewart could become a good or even great QB , many also believed it was a good move to draft Gabe Rivera with Marino still on the board but did that make them horrible evaluators ? nope it just made them wrong on that specific scenario...


Why does he get to take some sort of moral patriotic high-ground now?

because he can

you can debate the ethics of a 18-20 year old Nugent all day but it does not effect how correct he is in that writing and if you think it does then I got nothing left to say about that other than you are wrong

[Mojouw]

your point ?

it does not discredit what he feels now as a man in his late 50s early 60s ( or whatever his age is )

it does not change the spirit of the piece written ....

many once believe Kordell Stewart could become a good or even great QB , many also believed it was a good move to draft Gabe Rivera with Marino still on the board but did that make them horrible evaluators ? nope it just made them wrong on that specific scenario...



because he can

you can debate the ethics of a 18-20 year old Nugent all day but it does not effect how correct he is in that writing and if you think it does then I got nothing left to say about that other than you are wrong

OK. So the actions, words, and deeds of a person only matter if you don't agree with them? If you can so readily excuse the actions of young Ted Nugent (he would have been 18 in 1966 and 27 when the war ended) during the same age range of the current NFL players everyone wants condemn, why don't they get any slack? Why are they not young or hot-headed or however else we typically excuse the excesses of youth?

We can look at the "Nug's" career and see that his increasingly confrontational political opinions really only came to the forefront when his career was flagging and he realized his core audience held similar views. But that couldn't have anything to do with it. Nope. No chance.

I mean how easy is it to sidestep the opportunity to back-up your ideals and morality by serving in Vietnam instead choosing to make a bunch of money as a rock-star. Now when it is fantastically beneficial to your career to take a hard-line stance on patriotism, service, and country, suddenly you are all about duty and sacrifice?

He can't have his cake and eat it too.

[steelreserve]

Hmmm...Ted Nugent first got a student deferment to avoid being drafted into Vietnam then he got reclassified as 4F (unfit for service) while he was out of school and a full-time touring musician. He even claimed he purposely got the 4F designation by being drugged out (meth) and neglecting his personal hygiene during medical reviews. Nugent has since claimed that story was made up to make him look better for a "High Times" magazine interview.

Bottom line, Nugent twice got out of being drafted. Made some "rock and roll cred" on being a drugged out draft dodger when that was cool and now that it is better for his career to wrap himself in the flag and support the military he does that. Plus the "High Times" story conflicts with his straight-edge image during much of his career from the 1970's forward. Wonder if brazen marketing of the "Nugent" brand might have something to do with all of this?

Putting all that aside, Nugent had ample opportunity for the service and sacrifice he seems to hold so dear and ensured that he would not be asked to serve. Why does he get to take some sort of moral patriotic high-ground now?


One could make the same argument about the kneelers themselves. What are their "credentials" for protesting, as a group of mostly multimillionaire entertainers who do not experience any of the perceived wrongs they are upset about?

Or is it just that they have strong feelings about an issue, and want to use their public visibility as a platform to support others who ARE living it on a day-to-day basis? (Isn't that exactly the same as what Nugent is doing?)

For that matter, Colin Kaepernick, the person who kicked off the whole fiasco, did so after leading what is likely one of the least-oppressed lives out of anybody in the history of the entire world, and he would have less than zero credibility by that standard.

I do not really care about Ted Nugent one way or the other, but this is actually a pretty good counterexample to the entire debate.

[Mojouw]

One could make the same argument about the kneelers themselves. What are their "credentials" for protesting, as a group of mostly multimillionaire entertainers who do not experience any of the perceived wrongs they are upset about?

Or is it just that they have strong feelings about an issue, and want to use their public visibility as a platform to support others who ARE living it on a day-to-day basis? (Isn't that exactly the same as what Nugent is doing?)

For that matter, Colin Kaepernick, the person who kicked off the whole fiasco, did so after leading what is likely one of the least-oppressed lives out of anybody in the history of the entire world, and he would have less than zero credibility by that standard.

I do not really care about Ted Nugent one way or the other, but this is actually a pretty good counterexample to the entire debate.

I can get on board with that, and in fact I believe that all sides of the debate are free to express their opinion. But I have not read any statements by a single kneeling player that calls out specific individuals or derides anyone's ability to disagree with their positions they way Nugent's posted statement attempts to make the NFL kneelers appear totally illegitimate and anti-American.

As I have repeatedly said, I truly believe it is possible to simultaneous love and respect your country and the sacrifices made to secure freedoms while visibly protesting the aspects of our contemporary society that have negatively impacted your life or a group of people you wish to support.

Messages such as that written by Nugent not only attempt to air his perspective, but it also both implicitly and explicitly paints protesters as not worthy of attention and somehow this makes any claims/opinions they have totally unnecessary of any attention by any one else. That's some oppressive and heavy-handed shit from a dude who is all hat and no cowboy.

FWIW, I have long agreed with some of the elements of Nugent's message. I have been weary and disgusted by the inappropriate aspects of life that we use war metaphors for and feel that we too often forget how this whole thing really works and we consistently honor the wrong people as heroes and role models. BUT -- that doesn't mean I have to crap all over people who feel totally differently then me. If we all opened our ears and listened, actually listened to one another, maybe one of the many depressingly awful things about American life would change for the better, for everyone.

Or we could just keep painting those we don't agree with as somehow worse than us. That is all I was attempting to point out. It is not so much the content of Nugent's message, it his unnecessarily vindictive and reductive delivery that I find totally ridiculous.

[Dwinsgames]

OK. So the actions, words, and deeds of a person only matter if you don't agree with them? If you can so readily excuse the actions of young Ted Nugent (he would have been 18 in 1966 and 27 when the war ended) during the same age range of the current NFL players everyone wants condemn, why don't they get any slack? Why are they not young or hot-headed or however else we typically excuse the excesses of youth?

We can look at the "Nug's" career and see that his increasingly confrontational political opinions really only came to the forefront when his career was flagging and he realized his core audience held similar views. But that couldn't have anything to do with it. Nope. No chance.

I mean how easy is it to sidestep the opportunity to back-up your ideals and morality by serving in Vietnam instead choosing to make a bunch of money as a rock-star. Now when it is fantastically beneficial to your career to take a hard-line stance on patriotism, service, and country, suddenly you are all about duty and sacrifice?

He can't have his cake and eat it too.


so Kap ( and his cronies) are good with you ( apparently teams feel differently hence unemployed also see Eric Reid )


and once again ... regardless how you feel about Uncle Ted , his words on that piece of paper stand true whether you like it or not

[Cyphon25]

Or we could just keep painting those we don't agree with as somehow worse than us. That is all I was attempting to point out. It is not so much the content of Nugent's message, it his unnecessarily vindictive and reductive delivery that I find totally ridiculous.

This is the major hangup I have with most conversations be it political or otherwise. There is more time spent vilifying than there is on actual conversational content. It is something I have pointed out in my other post with the protestors as they currently are. They are spending as much time fighting about protesting as they are talking about the subjects they are protesting for.

Seems like everyone just too easily falls into these traps that seem so obvious to me. If I was a player protesting the next time I was asked about it I would say "the NFL is doing their best to silence us and detract from the issue but I am only going to talk about subject X (be is social injustice or otherwise)". That way you can paint the NFL as bad guys while also steering the conversation back towards what is actually important. Instead all we hear about is the actual protest and not what the protest is about.

[Mojouw]

This is the major hangup I have with most conversations be it political or otherwise. There is more time spent vilifying than there is on actual conversational content. It is something I have pointed out in my other post with the protestors as they currently are. They are spending as much time fighting about protesting as they are talking about the subjects they are protesting for.

Seems like everyone just too easily falls into these traps that seem so obvious to me. If I was a player protesting the next time I was asked about it I would say "the NFL is doing their best to silence us and detract from the issue but I am only going to talk about subject X (be is social injustice or otherwise)". That way you can paint the NFL as bad guys while also steering the conversation back towards what is actually important. Instead all we hear about is the actual protest and not what the protest is about.

Yeah. The best "redirection" attempt I saw was Malcom Jenkins and his silent interview with poster cards. What was the most fascinating was how the assembled reporters just still couldn't understand what he was attempting to say. All Jenkins wanted was them to discuss the issues and not his actions or the league response. They totally refused for well over 10 minutes.

There have been many attempts by the protesting players to rather directly discuss and detail what they are protesting, but the media simply does not want to discuss that. Content focused on a adversarial confrontation between the league, the players, and the fans generates more "hits" and "views" so all we get is a simplified version of staggeringly complex set of issues. This leads to frustration and fatigue on all sides. Until the issue slowly peters out and nothing changes.

Weird. Almost like the money in charge of almost everything wants stuff to stay exactly as it is...

[Dwinsgames]

I went back and edited the Nugent written piece ..... I placed in Bold the central part of it that is where I stand 100% with ...

its how I feel ... period

call me wrong , call me ignorant , whatever but at the end of the day my mind will not be changed

[Mojouw]

so Kap ( and his cronies) are good with you ( apparently teams feel differently hence unemployed also see Eric Reid )


and once again ... regardless how you feel about Uncle Ted , his words on that piece of paper stand true whether you like it or not

It isn't about "good" or "bad". It is about giving all viewpoints a fair hearing. I'll listen to what Kap and other protesters have to say on issues. I will stop listening to them when they engage in reductive ad hominen attacks on individual or even group targets. Just as I did with Nugent's post. I did not attack his opinion nor the content of his message. I simply pointed out that he may want to be cautious about claiming some sort of morally superior position on this issue.

[hawaiiansteeler]

I went back and edited the Nugent written piece ..... I placed in Bold the central part of it that is where I stand 100% with ...

its how I feel ... period

call me wrong , call me ignorant , whatever but at the end of the day my mind will not be changed

I feel the same way you do...

[Fire Goodell]

Ted Nugent is a dirtbag who made a career off people who have bad taste in music anyway. Who gives a f what he thinks lmao.

[steelreserve]

As I have repeatedly said, I truly believe it is possible to simultaneous love and respect your country and the sacrifices made to secure freedoms while visibly protesting the aspects of our contemporary society that have negatively impacted your life or a group of people you wish to support.


Let me talk about that part first, as it ties in to the bigger point you are making about civility and respect in general as it relates to the current political climate.

I firmly believe that the protesters would have found a far, far more receptive audience if they had not picked what is quite likely THE worst possible time, place, and manner to get their point across. Not specifically because it's the flag, or because of people's feelings about patriotism and whatever - but simply because the meaning was already taken by something else and was very firmly established. Double bonus that the specific meaning for many people (honoring war veterans) is largely unrelated to what the protests are about, AND is often a very powerful and personal one.

I literally cannot think of any better way to take the focus off of your own message and get people talking instead about whether or not YOU are a jerk. Which is exactly what happened.

There are some people who say, "Well, the whole point is that you NEED to draw attention to the cause, so choosing a target like that and making people 'uncomfortable' was a brilliant move!" On a practical basis, I would disagree very strongly with that. Alienating people is certainly one way of getting their attention, but generally does the opposite of converting them to your cause. Especially since this is an issue that most people, by and large, were already aware of; you were not going to find any new recruits to your cause that way.

The one thing it probably DOES do is strengthen people's existing opinions on the subject. Either you already agree with their point and you get more galvanized in favor of it, or you already disagree with their point and now you start resenting them for their actions, not just disagreeing with their message.

For example, last time I took my kids to the circus, these assholes were outside with posters of animals being beaten and tortured, and they were shouting at everyone who was walking in the door. My reaction was not "Now that you have my attention, I'll consider your point," it was "I came here to enjoy myself, not get a lecture on morality, so FUCK YOU and your cause." And this was for a protest that, while more in-your-face than kneeling for a song is, was actually somewhat relevant to the event. Certainly a lot more connected to the circus than general racial anger is connected to a football game. The overall principle is the same, though - you are not going to win any converts that way, just amplify existing opinions and get people angrier at each other.

And in a broader sense, this is just a microcosm of the entire political climate. On almost every significant topic, everyone has their minds made up and their heels dug in, and the only "discussion" that takes place is primarily through an endless stream of soundbites and memes trying to paint the other side as people who are crazy or evil with no real reason for being that way. And the more that goes on, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; people's political opinions and social discourse really ARE reduced to the mental equivalent of potato chips. A real problem with the country and the Kaepernick story is a great example of it.

edit: I just wanted to say that overall, I do think your point is right on the money, and a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum share the blame for the monkey-shit-fight that is the current state of public affairs.

[Mojouw]

Let me talk about that part first, as it ties in to the bigger point you are making about civility and respect in general as it relates to the current political climate.

I firmly believe that the protesters would have found a far, far more receptive audience if they had not picked what is quite likely THE worst possible time, place, and manner to get their point across. Not specifically because it's the flag, or because of people's feelings about patriotism and whatever - but simply because the meaning was already taken by something else and was very firmly established. Double bonus that the specific meaning for many people (honoring war veterans) is largely unrelated to what the protests are about, AND is often a very powerful and personal one.

I literally cannot think of any better way to take the focus off of your own message and get people talking instead about whether or not YOU are a jerk. Which is exactly what happened.

There are some people who say, "Well, the whole point is that you NEED to draw attention to the cause, so choosing a target like that and making people 'uncomfortable' was a brilliant move!" On a practical basis, I would disagree very strongly with that. Alienating people is certainly one way of getting their attention, but generally does the opposite of converting them to your cause. Especially since this is an issue that most people, by and large, were already aware of; you were not going to find any new recruits to your cause that way.

The one thing it probably DOES do is strengthen people's existing opinions on the subject. Either you already agree with their point and you get more galvanized in favor of it, or you already disagree with their point and now you start resenting them for their actions, not just disagreeing with their message.

For example, last time I took my kids to the circus, these assholes were outside with posters of animals being beaten and tortured, and they were shouting at everyone who was walking in the door. My reaction was not "Now that you have my attention, I'll consider your point," it was "I came here to enjoy myself, not get a lecture on morality, so FUCK YOU and your cause." And this was for a protest that, while more in-your-face than kneeling for a song is, was actually somewhat relevant to the event. Certainly a lot more connected to the circus than general racial anger is connected to a football game. The overall principle is the same, though - you are not going to win any converts that way, just amplify existing opinions and get people angrier at each other.

And in a broader sense, this is just a microcosm of the entire political climate. On almost every significant topic, everyone has their minds made up and their heels dug in, and the only "discussion" that takes place is primarily through an endless stream of soundbites and memes trying to paint the other side as people who are crazy or evil with no real reason for being that way. And the more that goes on, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; people's political opinions and social discourse really ARE reduced to the mental equivalent of potato chips. A real problem with the country and the Kaepernick story is a great example of it.

edit: I just wanted to say that overall, I do think your point is right on the money, and a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum share the blame for the monkey-shit-fight that is the current state of public affairs.

Yeah, I should be clear that individuals and groups from the left, right, and center are all guilty here. No one escapes the current political morass we are in looking good.

You and I fundamentally differ on the symbol was already taken thing, but that’s okay - at least for me. Symbols typically hold multiple meanings and rarely represent the same thing to everyone who views them.

It is just frustrating that we can’t, as a society, recognize that and incorporate some complexity and nuance into our thinking.

All that being said, I’m often guilty of what I accuse others of. If I seem to have called anyone out or not adequately listened, I apologize. Recent events and public debates have me on an uncalled for hair trigger lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hawaiiansteeler]

Ted Nugent is a dirtbag who made a career off people who have bad taste in music anyway. Who gives a f what he thinks lmao.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c3d7QgZr7g

[Fire Goodell]

Little too much before my time. I know I probably have an unpopular opinion but I also think the Beatles suck. Zeppelin is the only classic band I can stomach. As for what I listen to, give me some Metallica (old Metallica), Pantera, or Slayer :rockon:

My dad and I always got into arguments over rock, he says those bands I'm hating on are the reason why the metal bands exist today. But whatever, if I like it I listen to it. If not, I don't. Though I'd say our arguments probably fueled even more of my hating on 'old people music' even more :chuckle:

[hawaiiansteeler]

Little too much before my time. I know I probably have an unpopular opinion but I also think the Beatles suck. Zeppelin is the only classic band I can stomach. As for what I listen to, give me some Metallica (old Metallica), Pantera, or Slayer :rockon:

My dad and I always got into arguments over rock, he says those bands I'm hating on are the reason why the metal bands exist today. But whatever, if I like it I listen to it. If not, I don't. Though I'd say our arguments probably fueled even more of my hating on 'old people music' even more :chuckle:

come on man, you gotta give the Rolling Stones some props. they have spanned almost 6 decades, it's absolutely amazing to me how Keith Richards is still alive...

[st33lersguy]

Let me talk about that part first, as it ties in to the bigger point you are making about civility and respect in general as it relates to the current political climate.

I firmly believe that the protesters would have found a far, far more receptive audience if they had not picked what is quite likely THE worst possible time, place, and manner to get their point across. Not specifically because it's the flag, or because of people's feelings about patriotism and whatever - but simply because the meaning was already taken by something else and was very firmly established. Double bonus that the specific meaning for many people (honoring war veterans) is largely unrelated to what the protests are about, AND is often a very powerful and personal one.

I literally cannot think of any better way to take the focus off of your own message and get people talking instead about whether or not YOU are a jerk. Which is exactly what happened.

There are some people who say, "Well, the whole point is that you NEED to draw attention to the cause, so choosing a target like that and making people 'uncomfortable' was a brilliant move!" On a practical basis, I would disagree very strongly with that. Alienating people is certainly one way of getting their attention, but generally does the opposite of converting them to your cause. Especially since this is an issue that most people, by and large, were already aware of; you were not going to find any new recruits to your cause that way.

The one thing it probably DOES do is strengthen people's existing opinions on the subject. Either you already agree with their point and you get more galvanized in favor of it, or you already disagree with their point and now you start resenting them for their actions, not just disagreeing with their message.

For example, last time I took my kids to the circus, these assholes were outside with posters of animals being beaten and tortured, and they were shouting at everyone who was walking in the door. My reaction was not "Now that you have my attention, I'll consider your point," it was "I came here to enjoy myself, not get a lecture on morality, so FUCK YOU and your cause." And this was for a protest that, while more in-your-face than kneeling for a song is, was actually somewhat relevant to the event. Certainly a lot more connected to the circus than general racial anger is connected to a football game. The overall principle is the same, though - you are not going to win any converts that way, just amplify existing opinions and get people angrier at each other.

And in a broader sense, this is just a microcosm of the entire political climate. On almost every significant topic, everyone has their minds made up and their heels dug in, and the only "discussion" that takes place is primarily through an endless stream of soundbites and memes trying to paint the other side as people who are crazy or evil with no real reason for being that way. And the more that goes on, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; people's political opinions and social discourse really ARE reduced to the mental equivalent of potato chips. A real problem with the country and the Kaepernick story is a great example of it.

edit: I just wanted to say that overall, I do think your point is right on the money, and a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum share the blame for the monkey-shit-fight that is the current state of public affairs.

Totally agree 100%. There is no better way to alienate people and draw focus away from your message than to kneel during the national anthem, which is widely viewed as a sign of disrespect.

I read somewhere where Torrey Smith was speaking out about how it was misinterpreted as being disrespectful. That may be something the players like to tell themselves to make themselves feel better, but it just comes off as tone deaf to the majority of Americans who hold the national anthem as sacred and view kneeling as a sign of disrespect.

[Dwinsgames]

come on man, you gotta give the Rolling Stones some props. they have spanned almost 6 decades, it's absolutely amazing to me how Keith Richards is still alive...

to the bold ....

if you had no idea who Kieth Richards is and was asked a multiple choice question of what his name is 99% would probably say B) Rob Zombie :alcohol:

[st33lersguy]

(This next post is from a purely observational and neutral perspective, I'm not to suggest anything personally)

Another problem with the messaging of using kneeling for the national anthem to raise awareness is it reinforces conservatives opinions in their eyes that liberals/democrats hate America. Conservatives had already been criticizing Obama/Democrats/Liberals for being anti-American/anti-military citing his cuts to the Military, his mishandling of Benghazi invasion, his American apology tour, and his perceived weakness of foreign policy with critics citing examples such as the Iran Nuclear Deal and the 2009 Russian reset. Having social justice activists choose the national anthem as the platform for their protests really only reinforces a conservative's views in their eyes that liberals are anti-American and they don't end up listening. Colin Kaepernick the poster boy, didn't help matters with imaging when he praised Fidel Castro in a press conference.

A more effective method for this is doing what NFL players were doing is reaching out and having honest conversation with law enforcement to try and come together rather than discourse from guys like Malcolm Jenkins, Brandon Marshal (LB) (and pictured Torrey Smith mentioned earlier). That is probably more effective and better for political discourse


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJpXGjpQzuI

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/14/brandon-marshall-spends-an-hour-talking-to-denver-police-chief/

[GBMelBlount]

come on man, you gotta give the Rolling Stones some props. they have spanned almost 6 decades, it's absolutely amazing to me how Keith Richards is still alive...

Agreed!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4xjr9v5ehk

[tom444]

NFL players, give it up. I applaud your effort. I back your mission. Find another way.


The beginning of a new era:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM&lc=z22ctfmwltawuvnbz04t1aokgol e3qdzdoshy4eoli3xrk0h00410.1530396194152348

[ThorndikeFFA]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5809625503001/?#sp=show-clips

[teegre]

it's absolutely amazing to me how Keith Richards is still alive...

Keith Richards is part vampire, part Dorian Gray.

[steelreserve]

Totally agree 100%. There is no better way to alienate people and draw focus away from your message than to kneel during the national anthem, which is widely viewed as a sign of disrespect.

I read somewhere where Torrey Smith was speaking out about how it was misinterpreted as being disrespectful. That may be something the players like to tell themselves to make themselves feel better, but it just comes off as tone deaf to the majority of Americans who hold the national anthem as sacred and view kneeling as a sign of disrespect.

Yeah I mean, you can say the protests are not "about" the flag or veterans or hating your country all you want but ... tone deaf is a great way of describing that.

Like, if I was angry about something (say, high taxes) and chose to make my protest by getting in people's face at the Martin Luther King Day parade - that would be a really stupid way to try to get my point across. I could have a really important message that was 100% indisputable, and people wouldn't even care, I'd just be the dumb asshole who caused a scene on Martin Luther King Day.

If I then said "But the protest wasn't ABOUT Martin Luther King Day," how many people do you think would care? About zero. No, not everybody holds that day as sacred as everyone else either - but the fact is that a lot of people do, and I would have to be a real moron not to realize my protest was just going to piss off a ton of people needlessly.

If Martin Luther King Day is too sensitive a subject, then take everything I just said and replace that with going around shouting "HAIL SATAN!" on Christmas Eve as your protest, and it's the same point. Some people won't be bothered by your choice of format and venue, but you will piss a lot of others off.

You want my honest opinion, I think Kaepernick himself was just too stupid to consider any of this. But once the kneeling protest became the default symbol of "us against them" (and the president further cemented it by opening his big mouth), then it ceased to even really be about the issue so much as the act of defiance and what was an appropriate venue for it.

Reminds me of some History Channel show about jail (back before it was all reality shows), where they interviewed a guy who killed another prisoner over a pack of cigarettes. And the guy said, "You say it's about a pack of cigarettes. But if someone asks you for a cigarette and you tell him no, and then he spits in your face and says 'what are you gonna do about it, you dumb motherfucker?' and 10 of his friends and 10 of your friends join in - well, then it's not about a pack of cigarettes anymore, is it?"

That pretty well summarizes the state of the NFL protests, not to mention politics in general in 2018.

[Mojouw]

Who gets to decide what appropriate protest symbols/targets are? The majority or the minority? By definition a protest and its associated symbols are going to piss of the majority of people. That's the fundamental goal. Bottom line of the majority gets to designate how the minority protests in a given issue then protest is by definition stopped. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Many people thought tea was an atrocious way to protest. How'd that work?

[Mojouw]

Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

Henry David Thoreau - On Civil Disobedience

[steelreserve]

Who gets to decide what appropriate protest symbols/targets are? The majority or the minority? By definition a protest and its associated symbols are going to piss of the majority of people. That's the fundamental goal. Bottom line of the majority gets to designate how the minority protests in a given issue then protest is by definition stopped. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Many people thought tea was an atrocious way to protest. How'd that work?

Not really. There are plenty of ways you can protest without just being a dick. The two are not the same, and if you are smart, the goal is not the same either.

At least if your goal is to actually achieve change rather than just make people angry. There's a also a reason why it's called MLK Day and not Black Panthers Day.

[tom444]

Who gets to decide what appropriate protest symbols/targets are? The majority or the minority? By definition a protest and its associated symbols are going to piss of the majority of people. That's the fundamental goal. Bottom line of the majority gets to designate how the minority protests in a given issue then protest is by definition stopped. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Many people thought tea was an atrocious way to protest. How'd that work?

It's not a matter of appropriate, or inappropriate, or who designates the how of it, and who doesn't. It's a matter of what's effective, and what isn't. After all, being effective is the point.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Donald Trump re-embraces anthem issue

Posted by Mike Florio on July 20, 2018

Giants co-owner Steve Tisch wishes that Donald Trump would leave the NFL alone. That wish won’t be coming true.

“The NFL National Anthem Debate is alive and well again — can’t believe it!” Trump said on Twitter. “Isn’t it in contract that players must stand at attention, hand on heart? The $40,000,000 Commissioner must now make a stand. First time kneeling, out for game. Second time kneeling, out for season/no pay!”

Of course, there’s nothing in any contract requiring any players to stand for the national anthem. The NFL had recognized the right of players to protest during the anthem, and the NFL has suspended the application of a new policy that would have required any player not in the locker room to stand for the anthem.

The NFL and NFL Players Association currently are trying to resolve the situation. It’s highly unlikely that the final outcome will reflect the wishes of the President. Which means that it’s highly unlikely that he’ll leave the issue alone.

Especially when it provides a welcome distraction to a week’s worth of not-so-flattering stories.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/20/donald-trump-re-embaces-anthem-issue/

[Steeldude]

Why not protest during the week or after the game?

[Craic]

Hmmm...Ted Nugent first got a student deferment to avoid being drafted into Vietnam then he got reclassified as 4F (unfit for service) while he was out of school and a full-time touring musician. He even claimed he purposely got the 4F designation by being drugged out (meth) and neglecting his personal hygiene during medical reviews. Nugent has since claimed that story was made up to make him look better for a "High Times" magazine interview.

Bottom line, Nugent twice got out of being drafted. Made some "rock and roll cred" on being a drugged out draft dodger when that was cool and now that it is better for his career to wrap himself in the flag and support the military he does that. Plus the "High Times" story conflicts with his straight-edge image during much of his career from the 1970's forward. Wonder if brazen marketing of the "Nugent" brand might have something to do with all of this?

Putting all that aside, Nugent had ample opportunity for the service and sacrifice he seems to hold so dear and ensured that he would not be asked to serve. Why does he get to take some sort of moral patriotic high-ground now?

Nugent has pretty much never touched drugs. His high, and probably almost his undoing, was sex. As his former? wife says, it was "Bag 'em, tag 'em, then give them cab fair." So, yes, I do believe him when it comes to a magazine making stuff up.

As for the other, well, it's a development of an ethos over several decades. What started his journey was getting arrested for shooting a arrow from a bow in one of his concerts as part of the stage act. That opened his eyes to issues of weapons, 2A, civil rights, and other issues tied into it. And from there his journey began. On top of all of that, the whole draft dodgers lose their credibility pretty much died with the election of Bill Clinton. If he could dodge military service and still be the commander and chief, someone else can dodge and later on recognize the importance of honoring other's service.

- - - Updated - - -


Why not protest during the week or after the game?

That really makes no sense. You do realize the entire purpose is to draw attention to the issue, right? So, you do it exactly when the crowd is the largest. Agree or disagree, the theory is sound: if you want the biggest audience, then make a statement when you have the biggest audience.

[stillers4me]

The NFL caved and it has nothing to do with Artie Burns. Again...the story changed. Please make new posts and let the old ones die in cyberspace. If you are pulling up months old threads to post new story angles..............that's your clue that you should be probably be making a new thread. Please.

[AtlantaDan]

The NFL caved and it has nothing to do with Artie Burns. Again...the story changed. Please make new posts and let the old ones die in cyberspace. If you are pulling up months old threads to post new story angles..............that's your clue that you should be probably be making a new thread. Please.

I am not going to re-enter the fray on the anthem but would respectfully note every story changes whenever new facts occur.

I for one have limited clues on what the guidelines are for starting a new thread but personally have no interest in sorting through a dozen threads on the same topic.

Accordingly, I am going to post a thread requesting the mods to provide guidance on what the suggested guidelines are for starting a new thread rather than adding a post to an existing thread in order to avoid inadvertently being out of compliance with board policies now that posting will be picking up with the start of training camp.

[steelreserve]

It's not a matter of appropriate, or inappropriate, or who designates the how of it, and who doesn't. It's a matter of what's effective, and what isn't. After all, being effective is the point.


That really makes no sense. You do realize the entire purpose is to draw attention to the issue, right? So, you do it exactly when the crowd is the largest. Agree or disagree, the theory is sound: if you want the biggest audience, then make a statement when you have the biggest audience.


A pretty flawed way of looking at it. The purpose of protesting is to gain support for your cause. Attracting attention without attracting any support is not effective. Attracting a large audience but generating more opposition than support for your cause is, by definition, the opposite of effective.

Taken to an extreme example - terrorism is great at attracting a large audience. After all, murder is perhaps the best tool of all for drawing attention to yourself. Does it help the people behind it get any closer to their goals, and convince others to see things from their point of view? No, it's actually one of the least effective methods of doing that, because it alienates everyone who is not a lunatic.

Since some rocket scientist will inevitably say "OH SO YOUR COMPARING KNEELING BEFORE A FOOTBALL GAME TO MASS MURGER OMG YOUR SO RACIST" that's obviously not the point. It's that merely drawing the attention of a large audience does not, by itself, mean that you have been "effective."

Put another way, if you are attracting a lot of attention to yourself, but not convincing any new people to support you, then you are just making noise.

[st33lersguy]

That really makes no sense. You do realize the entire purpose is to draw attention to the issue, right? So, you do it exactly when the crowd is the largest. Agree or disagree, the theory is sound: if you want the biggest audience, then make a statement when you have the biggest audience.

If you want to draw attention to yourself doing the act, then yes kneel for the anthem, if you want to draw attention to your cause, then kneeling for the anthem will not be very effective. Kneeling for the anthem will only make millions of Americans who hold the national anthem in high regard resent the person kneeling/doing their protest, they really won't care why. And since players have spoken negatively about how the message they are trying to convey isn't being heard and that intention has been misconstrued, it hasn't been effective.

[Born2Steel]

Actually, Ted Nugent was never a drug user.

"Since the 1970s Nugent has promoted anti-drug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug) and anti-alcohol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage) stances. In an interview for VH1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VH1)'s Behind The Music (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_The_Music), Nugent said this was due to his father's having reprimanded him when he came home smelling of alcohol after a night of drinking.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
He has been cited as a key influence on the straight edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_edge) movement, a punk rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock)-associated lifestyle that developed in the early 1980s and discourages drug and alcohol use. Henry Rollins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rollins), vocalist for Black Flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Flag_(band)), reports that he and friend Ian MacKaye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_MacKaye) (vocalist for Minor Threat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Threat) and writer of the song "Straight Edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Edge_(song))" that gave the movement its name) were inspired by Nugent during their high school years in the 1970s when he was the only major rock star to publicly eschew drug use: "[We] would read about the Nuge and the thing that really rubbed off on us was the fact that he didn't drink or smoke or do drugs ... [Nugent's performance] was the craziest thing we'd ever seen onstage and here's this guy saying, 'I don't get high.' We thought that was so impressive."[59] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-59)
Nugent is a national spokesman for the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education) (DARE) program,[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-60) In 2015, however, Nugent declared his support for the legalization of marijuana for medical use.[61] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-61) In 2018 he admitted that he drinks "a little wine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine)".[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-62)"

[Mojouw]

Actually, Ted Nugent was never a drug user.

"Since the 1970s Nugent has promoted anti-drug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug) and anti-alcohol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage) stances. In an interview for VH1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VH1)'s Behind The Music (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_The_Music), Nugent said this was due to his father's having reprimanded him when he came home smelling of alcohol after a night of drinking.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
He has been cited as a key influence on the straight edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_edge) movement, a punk rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock)-associated lifestyle that developed in the early 1980s and discourages drug and alcohol use. Henry Rollins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rollins), vocalist for Black Flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Flag_(band)), reports that he and friend Ian MacKaye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_MacKaye) (vocalist for Minor Threat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Threat) and writer of the song "Straight Edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Edge_(song))" that gave the movement its name) were inspired by Nugent during their high school years in the 1970s when he was the only major rock star to publicly eschew drug use: "[We] would read about the Nuge and the thing that really rubbed off on us was the fact that he didn't drink or smoke or do drugs ... [Nugent's performance] was the craziest thing we'd ever seen onstage and here's this guy saying, 'I don't get high.' We thought that was so impressive."[59] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-59)
Nugent is a national spokesman for the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education) (DARE) program,[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-60) In 2015, however, Nugent declared his support for the legalization of marijuana for medical use.[61] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-61) In 2018 he admitted that he drinks "a little wine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine)".[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#cite_note-62)"




FWIW, I was not making the claim that Nugent was a drug user. I am citing a story that both High Times AND Nugent have both claimed as true and then fought about. Nugent self-reported to an interviewer that he briefly used drugs (meth) and neglected his personal hygiene in order to ensure he was designated as unfit to serve once his student deferment ran out. Years later, he then claimed that was an urban legend and it never happened.

[Born2Steel]

Little too much before my time. I know I probably have an unpopular opinion but I also think the Beatles suck. Zeppelin is the only classic band I can stomach. As for what I listen to, give me some Metallica (old Metallica), Pantera, or Slayer :rockon:

My dad and I always got into arguments over rock, he says those bands I'm hating on are the reason why the metal bands exist today. But whatever, if I like it I listen to it. If not, I don't. Though I'd say our arguments probably fueled even more of my hating on 'old people music' even more :chuckle:

I can understand you not being 'in tune' with your parent's music but there are things you can love about all styles and genres if you are a true music lover. Ted Nugent whom you seem to really hate(dirtbag and bad taste in music referenced), was a disciple of Chuck Berry. The Beatles influenced everyone from the Foo Fighters to Lady GaGa, from the Beach Boys to Kiss, the Bee Gees to Billy Joel, the list goes on and on. Lemmy cited the Beatles as his favorite band of all, the most influential music on his career including Motorhead. People that simply just throw away history just because it doesn't interest them are simple minded fools.

[Born2Steel]

FWIW, I was not making the claim that Nugent was a drug user. I am citing a story that both High Times AND Nugent have both claimed as true and then fought about. Nugent self-reported to an interviewer that he briefly used drugs (meth) and neglected his personal hygiene in order to ensure he was designated as unfit to serve once his student deferment ran out. Years later, he then claimed that was an urban legend and it never happened.

I guess you have to decide which version you believe is true and which is the lie then. I do know that since I started following him musically in the late 70s, he has always maintained an anti-drug message and lifestyle.

[Dwinsgames]

I guess you have to decide which version you believe is true and which is the lie then. I do know that since I started following him musically in the late 70s, he has always maintained an anti-drug message and lifestyle.

this ... and recall an interview on the Mike Douglas show of him saying if I used drugs I would fall off the F#%#ing rope ( he would swing out on stage with )

[Mojouw]

I guess you have to decide which version you believe is true and which is the lie then. I do know that since I started following him musically in the late 70s, he has always maintained an anti-drug message and lifestyle.

For me, the drug use or non use is a red herring. The take away is the Nugent penned a message that was an attempt to paint anyone who kneels as dishonoring all service members and their sacrifice and somehow unworthy of having their voices heard because they are lacking a Nugent sanctioned perspective.

He had multiple chances to engage in the honor, duty, sacrifice, God and country service he claims to hold so dear. But he choose the life of a touring rock star.

I find his attempt to now sieze some moral high ground and discredit individuals he has never met or spoken to duplicitous, mean spirited, an obvious attempt to keep his "brand" in the news, and more than a little bit dishonest.

Returning to the drug story, he let it ride for some time. He tore the lie until it didn't work for him anymore. Branding.

[Dwinsgames]

For me, the drug use or non use is a red herring. The take away is the Nugent penned a message that was an attempt to paint anyone who kneels as dishonoring all service members and their sacrifice and somehow unworthy of having their voices heard because they are lacking a Nugent sanctioned perspective.

He had multiple chances to engage in the honor, duty, sacrifice, God and country service he claims to hold so dear. But he choose the life of a touring rock star.

I find his attempt to now sieze some moral high ground and discredit individuals he has never met or spoken to duplicitous, mean spirited, an obvious attempt to keep his "brand" in the news, and more than a little bit dishonest.

Returning to the drug story, he let it ride for some time. He tore the lie until it didn't work for him anymore. Branding.

not to be judgmental or anything but are you not in some way doing that very thing here to a man you never met sat down with or spoken to ?

seems eerily pot calling the kettle black here to me but I digress because it is going to seem like I am picking on you when I truly am not

[Mojouw]

not to be judgmental or anything but are you not in some way doing that very thing here to a man you never met sat down with or spoken to ?

seems eerily pot calling the kettle black here to me but I digress because it is going to seem like I am picking on you when I truly am not

It's possible, but I am not trying to totally invalidate Nugent's message. Just want to point out that he paints a binary distinction that one side is moral and honorable while the other isn't. I think that's BS. Good and honorable people are in both sides. Both sides also feature dirtballs. Just like any group anywhere in life.

I'm also sure that since I personally find Nugents opinions on women, minorities, and a few other subjects totally deplorable that I'm taking some extra shots at him. But I'll stand behind the larger point.

Protesters have asked to have a public conversation about a specific set of social grievances and have attempted to back these grievances with facts, figures, and other data points. Rarely have they attacked individuals. The other side offers little to counter their grievances but instead offers ad hominem attacks on morality, character, and motivations. Figure maybe someone turns that around and sees what it looks like he otger way around.

Like I said before, most of the message I don't have any problem with. Just the bits where he implies he is better than others because of a muddled bit of reasons.

Finally and coincidentally, I found this like 5 minutes ago on a completely unrelated to any of this website. Thought some may find it interesting. Challenging perspective.

http://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2018/07/20/military-sports-astore-francona

[Dwinsgames]

http://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2018/07/20/military-sports-astore-francona


this kind of skews the premise of the article does it not ?

note military fly over , note servicemen in the scene ... prior to when they claim it started ...seems this has been going on a long long time from my recollection but hey I am old sometimes memories get distorted but even the grainy video below shows it

for the record ray Charles as famous as he was never got his due IMO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN-VldHX7Ys

[Mojouw]

this kind of skews the premise of the article does it not ?

note military fly over , note servicemen in the scene ... prior to when they claim it started ...seems this has been going on a long long time from my recollection but hey I am old sometimes memories get distorted but even the grainy video below shows it

for the record ray Charles as famous as he was never got his due IMO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN-VldHX7Ys

Yeah, I got no idea.

Maybe that some special game?

Ray Charles is impossible to over rate.

[Dwinsgames]

Yeah, I got no idea.

Maybe that some special game?

Ray Charles is impossible to over rate.

a little research I came up with this .... its a long standing tradition in many countries signifying different occasions and not just done here in the US at sporting events

hell even Luciano Pavarotti had a fly over at his funeral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flypast

[Born2Steel]

For me, the drug use or non use is a red herring. The take away is the Nugent penned a message that was an attempt to paint anyone who kneels as dishonoring all service members and their sacrifice and somehow unworthy of having their voices heard because they are lacking a Nugent sanctioned perspective.

He had multiple chances to engage in the honor, duty, sacrifice, God and country service he claims to hold so dear. But he choose the life of a touring rock star.

I find his attempt to now sieze some moral high ground and discredit individuals he has never met or spoken to duplicitous, mean spirited, an obvious attempt to keep his "brand" in the news, and more than a little bit dishonest.

Returning to the drug story, he let it ride for some time. He tore the lie until it didn't work for him anymore. Branding.

There are a lot of people out there that say things, post things, even some with their own social platform or radio/tv show, that just enjoy the conflict. Example, why post a picture on social media of a giraffe you hunted knowing the backlash it will produce? I think Ted Nugent is one of these people.(That wasn't him with the giraffe just fyi) Ted says things on his radio show or in interviews on other platforms that are purely inflammatory and meant to cause angry reaction. Whether you agree with any or all of his views or not you can see it in the choice of words he uses. I do not like or follow anyone on social media that uses these tactics. I still listen to Ted's music and would love to see him in concert one more time. But like you I disagree with his method of expression when it comes to politics.

[Mojouw]

There are a lot of people out there that say things, post things, even some with their own social platform or radio/tv show, that just enjoy the conflict. Example, why post a picture on social media of a giraffe you hunted knowing the backlash it will produce? I think Ted Nugent is one of these people.(That wasn't him with the giraffe just fyi) Ted says things on his radio show or in interviews on other platforms that are purely inflammatory and meant to cause angry reaction. Whether you agree with any or all of his views or not you can see it in the choice of words he uses. I do not like or follow anyone on social media that uses these tactics. I still listen to Ted's music and would love to see him in concert one more time. But like you I disagree with his method of expression when it comes to politics.

Yeah, there is no doubt dude can play some decent music!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teegre]

I liked Ray Charles in Django Unchained. Great movie. But, I still don’t know how he was able to hit those target dead-on (you know... with him being blind & all).

[hawaiiansteeler]

I liked Ray Charles in Django Unchained. Great movie. But, I still don’t know how he was able to hit those target dead-on (you know... with him being blind & all).

:noidea:

I thought Jamie Foxx did a great job of portraying him in the movie "Ray".

and Django Unchained is a classic!

[hawaiiansteeler]

https://media1.fdncms.com/clevescene/imager/u/original/9525849/14744338_g.jpg

[hawaiiansteeler]

Bengals owner says he’s been “instructed” to avoid anthem talk

Posted by Darin Gantt on July 24, 2018

The NFL failed to make its national anthem problem go away by making a unilateral policy designed to appease a person who drags them out for parties like a pinata, so maybe a gag order will work.

According to Katherine Terrell of ESPN.com, Bengals owner Mike Brown was asked about the anthem policy Tuesday, and said owners had been “instructed” to stay out of it.

“The league and the union are talking on this and we’re instructed to stand down while that’s ongoing,” Brown said. “I’m not going to sit here and stir the pot. They don’t want to hear from me right now. Let’s see how this bubbles up and I hope they can come up with some kind of answer that is acceptable to not just the clubs and the players but more the public.”

Brown then added with a laugh: “And let’s not forget the president!”

Of course, no policy the NFL comes up with is going to do that, because Donald Trump has decided it’s a political winner for him. Earlier today while addressing a VFW gathering in Kansas City, he ran the NFL up the proverbial flagpole again.

“We don’t apologize for America anymore,” Trump said. “We stand up for America. We stand up for the patriots who defend America. And we stand up for our national anthem.”

to read rest of article:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/24/bengals-owner-says-hes-been-instructed-to-avoid-anthem-talk/

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Bengals owner says he’s been “instructed” to avoid anthem talk

Posted by Darin Gantt on July 24, 2018

The NFL failed to make its national anthem problem go away by making a unilateral policy designed to appease a person who drags them out for parties like a pinata, so maybe a gag order will work.

According to Katherine Terrell of ESPN.com, Bengals owner Mike Brown was asked about the anthem policy Tuesday, and said owners had been “instructed” to stay out of it.

“The league and the union are talking on this and we’re instructed to stand down while that’s ongoing,” Brown said. “I’m not going to sit here and stir the pot. They don’t want to hear from me right now. Let’s see how this bubbles up and I hope they can come up with some kind of answer that is acceptable to not just the clubs and the players but more the public.”

Brown then added with a laugh: “And let’s not forget the president!”

Of course, no policy the NFL comes up with is going to do that, because Donald Trump has decided it’s a political winner for him. Earlier today while addressing a VFW gathering in Kansas City, he ran the NFL up the proverbial flagpole again.

“We don’t apologize for America anymore,” Trump said. “We stand up for America. We stand up for the patriots who defend America. And we stand up for our national anthem.”

to read rest of article:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/24/bengals-owner-says-hes-been-instructed-to-avoid-anthem-talk/

Smartest move so far by the NFL. Stop talking about the issue and work on it with the NFLPA and its members without it playing out in the media.

I think Trump still harbors some bad feelings towards the NFL from his not being able to get a franchise, so he and others had to form the USFL. That is probably why he likes wading in and stirring things up/piling on the NFL and this when he can.

[Mojouw]

Smartest move so far by the NFL. Stop talking about the issue and work on it with the NFLPA and its members without it playing out in the media.

I think Trump still harbors some bad feelings towards the NFL from his not being able to get a franchise, so he and others had to form the USFL. That is probably why he likes wading in and stirring things up/piling on the NFL and this when he can.

Weird. So you're saying he's a vindictive man who will gladly use any issue to settle old scores? What a shocking idea. An old rich guy acting like a petulant child. Let's not forget that Trump and company ran the USFL into the ground.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Jerry Jones told players they can’t stay in locker room during anthem

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/25/jerry-jones-told-players-they-cant-stay-in-locker-room-during-anthem/

[tom444]

Smartest move so far by the NFL. Stop talking about the issue and work on it with the NFLPA and its members without it playing out in the media.

I think Trump still harbors some bad feelings towards the NFL from his not being able to get a franchise, so he and others had to form the USFL. That is probably why he likes wading in and stirring things up/piling on the NFL and this when he can.

That and he's sucking up to his base.

[Mojouw]

These idiots just can't keep from tripping over their own feet on this.

Just stop talking about it. Present and maintain a united front. Then establish a functional relationship with the union on social issues and how to best use the league to disseminate a message.

That's all it takes to get this out of the news. But since the league lacks leadership and the owners are entitled children aside from the few remaining old guard, they will continue to fall flat.

[steelreserve]

These idiots just can't keep from tripping over their own feet on this.

Just stop talking about it. Present and maintain a united front. Then establish a functional relationship with the union on social issues and how to best use the league to disseminate a message.

That's all it takes to get this out of the news. But since the league lacks leadership and the owners are entitled children aside from the few remaining old guard, they will continue to fall flat.


I don't know if being "entitled" is the main problem. This is just the same issue that has been snowballing in the league for about two decades, namely that the owners are trying to run it like you would run a regular corporation that sells insurance or mobile phone service or whatever. And regular corporations basically do what the lawyers tell them to do, which means every new policy is the most flat, awkward, ham-handed way of handling things, which just is not compatible with a huge entertainment business right in the public spotlight.

Adding on top of that mess a couple dozen guys who are used to being the top dog, each with his own plan that MUST be the best one, and you get an idiot gridlock situation. The one person who might be able to actually keep the ship on course is a commissioner who knows what the hell he's doing, but all Goodell contributes is an even worse version of both those problems.

For as much as the NBA has its own issues and Adam Silver looks like an alien, that sure is a night and day comparison. There's how you run a league with gigantic egos everywhere you look on both sides of the fence, and actually SOLVE problems instead of making them worse.

[Mojouw]

I don't know if being "entitled" is the main problem. This is just the same issue that has been snowballing in the league for about two decades, namely that the owners are trying to run it like you would run a regular corporation that sells insurance or mobile phone service or whatever. And regular corporations basically do what the lawyers tell them to do, which means every new policy is the most flat, awkward, ham-handed way of handling things, which just is not compatible with a huge entertainment business right in the public spotlight.

Adding on top of that mess a couple dozen guys who are used to being the top dog, each with his own plan that MUST be the best one, and you get an idiot gridlock situation. The one person who might be able to actually keep the ship on course is a commissioner who knows what the hell he's doing, but all Goodell contributes is an even worse version of both those problems.

For as much as the NBA has its own issues and Adam Silver looks like an alien, that sure is a night and day comparison. There's how you run a league with gigantic egos everywhere you look on both sides of the fence, and actually SOLVE problems instead of making them worse.

I think that there are multiple owners in the league who are the definition of entitled. They continually refuse to follow league directives, they pop off with their own opinions whenever they feel like it, they ignore or disregard policy whenever convenient for them, and there is zero sense of small sacrifice for the greater good.

These are arrogant, stubborn, cranky rich dudes who can not function in a day to day where their opinion doesn't become action by those around them.

You hit the nail on the head, the NBA has had a much stronger central office along with a unified front with the union and is therefore able to offer a check to owners running wild. Goodell has no such lever to pull on when he needs it. As a result the NFL looks foolish and amateurish.

[steelreserve]

I think that there are multiple owners in the league who are the definition of entitled. They continually refuse to follow league directives, they pop off with their own opinions whenever they feel like it, they ignore or disregard policy whenever convenient for them, and there is zero sense of small sacrifice for the greater good.

These are arrogant, stubborn, cranky rich dudes who can not function in a day to day where their opinion doesn't become action by those around them.

You hit the nail on the head, the NBA has had a much stronger central office along with a unified front with the union and is therefore able to offer a check to owners running wild. Goodell has no such lever to pull on when he needs it. As a result the NFL looks foolish and amateurish.


Maybe I just have a different notion of what "entitled" means. I would call "arrogant" a more fitting word for the personality problems you are talking about, and it does describe most of the owners dead-on. Like, arrogant means you are cocky based on a history of being the top dog. Entitled is when you think you're important but you're not.

"Entitled" has also just become such a go-to phrase for airing any grievance against anyone living more than a gritty middle-class existence, that it has mostly lost all meaning except as a toxic modifier employed to help steer a discussion toward an argument.

That aside, I think we're basically talking about the same thing - which is that the owners carrying over both the business strategies and personality issues from their previous occupations have left the league dysfunctional and aimless.

It's hard to say whether the NBA is doing a better job because of the nature of the commissioner's office or because of the man. No question that league is run much differently with the central office taking the lead role and the owners staying at 30,000 feet. But for that, the owners need a high level of faith that the commissioner can just handle shit for them. Clearly, the NFL owners don't have that same trust, and increasingly feel like they need to grab the wheel to get through the daily crisis.

I could just be remembering things through the lens of 20 years, but it seemed like when the NFL had a strong commissioner who knew what he was doing, he ran the show and the owners stayed in the background except for, like, CBA negotiations and that was it. I don't remember much of this type of garbage under Rozelle or Tagliabue. It's possible to argue that this has as much to do with the change in the type of people who own the teams as with who the commissioner is - but the NBA is basically the same situation. Their commissioner even has a background that is practically identical to Goodell's. It seems to me that the difference is that Silver is the kind of guy who can both deal with a problem and navigate a room full of powerful indivuduals and their expectations ... whereas Goodell is basically a yes-man who has avoided being fired because he happened to be there when a big TV deal was signed and a huge quasi-gambling side business (fantasy football) materialized out of almost nothing because of the internet.

It does beg the question of why the owners would keep around a guy like that. Can they not see how Goodell had a hand in creating the ongoing clusterfuck that they're in? Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the financial success of the league is happening independently of, if not in spite of, the commissioner. I am reasonably certain that I could have been just as effective, if not more, as NFL commissioner by staying out of the way and watching big-butt Brazilian porn for 40 hours a week. Maybe even 50 if they paid me as much as him. OK, even if they didn't.

[Mojouw]

Maybe I just have a different notion of what "entitled" means. I would call "arrogant" a more fitting word for the personality problems you are talking about, and it does describe most of the owners dead-on. Like, arrogant means you are cocky based on a history of being the top dog. Entitled is when you think you're important but you're not.

"Entitled" has also just become such a go-to phrase for airing any grievance against anyone living more than a gritty middle-class existence, that it has mostly lost all meaning except as a toxic modifier employed to help steer a discussion toward an argument.

That aside, I think we're basically talking about the same thing - which is that the owners carrying over both the business strategies and personality issues from their previous occupations have left the league dysfunctional and aimless.

It's hard to say whether the NBA is doing a better job because of the nature of the commissioner's office or because of the man. No question that league is run much differently with the central office taking the lead role and the owners staying at 30,000 feet. But for that, the owners need a high level of faith that the commissioner can just handle shit for them. Clearly, the NFL owners don't have that same trust, and increasingly feel like they need to grab the wheel to get through the daily crisis.

I could just be remembering things through the lens of 20 years, but it seemed like when the NFL had a strong commissioner who knew what he was doing, he ran the show and the owners stayed in the background except for, like, CBA negotiations and that was it. I don't remember much of this type of garbage under Rozelle or Tagliabue. It's possible to argue that this has as much to do with the change in the type of people who own the teams as with who the commissioner is - but the NBA is basically the same situation. Their commissioner even has a background that is practically identical to Goodell's. It seems to me that the difference is that Silver is the kind of guy who can both deal with a problem and navigate a room full of powerful indivuduals and their expectations ... whereas Goodell is basically a yes-man who has avoided being fired because he happened to be there when a big TV deal was signed and a huge quasi-gambling side business (fantasy football) materialized out of almost nothing because of the internet.

It does beg the question of why the owners would keep around a guy like that. Can they not see how Goodell had a hand in creating the ongoing clusterfuck that they're in? Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the financial success of the league is happening independently of, if not in spite of, the commissioner. I am reasonably certain that I could have been just as effective, if not more, as NFL commissioner by staying out of the way and watching big-butt Brazilian porn for 40 hours a week. Maybe even 50 if they paid me as much as him. OK, even if they didn't.

Agreed. No need to argue about this term or that.

Bottom line is that now that most of the old guard owners are gone or in their 3rd generation, it is becoming increasingly clear that the owners do not want a strong commissioner, player's union, or anything else that gets in their way of maximizing profits and shutting out bad press. Which, while may be exactly how to run a business, it may not be the best way to run a league.

[steelreserve]

Agreed. No need to argue about this term or that.

Bottom line is that now that most of the old guard owners are gone or in their 3rd generation, it is becoming increasingly clear that the owners do not want a strong commissioner, player's union, or anything else that gets in their way of maximizing profits and shutting out bad press. Which, while may be exactly how to run a business, it may not be the best way to run a league.


Yeah, they'd rather get in their own way, I guess.

What I don't understand is how all of these "new guard" owners can come in fresh off of running multibillion-dollar companies, which generally requires dedicating your entire attention to, to the point where it basically IS your life ... then after having experienced that, they go, "OK, I'm going to run another multibillion-dollar company with thousands of employees, but I can just kind of wing it as a side hustle in my spare time, because hey, sports! And I don't know very much about this new industry since I came in completely cold, but I won't give up any control to a dedicated person who understands it." I mean, that's not a way to run ANY business.

The problem of sports teams as a status symbol / hobby / investment. Very few people left who are running a pro sports team because they spent their whole lives on the game. And the hobbyists come in thinking the whole thing is basically going to run itself because the game is popular. I don't get it.

[EzraTank]

Artie Burns is not happy with new NFL National Anthem policy

By SAM QUINN

Artie Burns, like the rest of the Pittsburgh Steelers, made a very controversial decision before their Week 3 game against the Chicago Bears. The Steelers decided to sit out the National Anthem as a way to protest comments made by President Donald Trump. He remembers what followed: months of criticism, fans saying that they would give up the team, a whole lot of distractions that hindered the team's football performance. The decision that the Steelers made shined a light on them. It put a target on their back that made the center of the National Anthem debate whether they liked it or not.

And now, Burns believes the NFL is doing that to all of its players.

to read rest of article:

https://www.scout.com/Article/Artie-Burns-is-not-happy-with-new-NFL-National-Anthem-policy-118495166

If Burns wants to help the black community there are thousands of better ways then hiding in a locker room or kneeling down.

[Fire Goodell]

Cleveland still sucks

[Hawkman]

Is there really no way to work this thread to the bottom of the board......see what I did there.:wink02:

[hawaiiansteeler]

Art Rooney: Everyone wants the players to stand, including most players

Posted by Mike Florio on July 30, 2018

The NFL and NFL Players Association made progress on Friday, as they try to hammer out Anthem Policy 3.0. Steelers owner Art Rooney II possibly has provided a glimpse regarding what the new policy will entail.

“Of course everybody wants the players to be standing, including most of the players,” Rooney said in a weekend appearance on NFL Network, via SportsBusiness Daily. “At the end of last season, we were down to just a handful of players that were protesting at the anthem, so the vast majority of players want to be focused on football, don’t want to be getting into politics on the field. If everyone has that mindset, we can work something out.”

to read rest of article:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/30/art-rooney-everyone-wants-the-players-to-stand-including-most-players/

[tom444]

this kind of skews the premise of the article does it not ?

note military fly over , note servicemen in the scene ... prior to when they claim it started ...seems this has been going on a long long time from my recollection but hey I am old sometimes memories get distorted but even the grainy video below shows it

for the record ray Charles as famous as he was never got his due IMO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN-VldHX7Ys

That was a Super Bowl. The article notes that big games had put on that kind of display. His point was that it's become common practice for every game now post 9/11.

[steelreserve]

That was a Super Bowl. The article notes that big games had put on that kind of display. His point was that it's become common practice for every game now post 9/11.

It was common practice before that. I remember going to A's games, Giants games, 49ers games in the 1980s, and they would have planes fly over from the local Air Force base all the time, just for regular games. One time they had a C-5 cargo plane buzz the stadium (like seriously, it must have cleared the lights by 50 feet) and it was the coolest thing ever. Like, you could feel the damn thing rumbling in your chest bones, that's how loud it was. Every game they had a bunch of Marines bring out the flag and then they played the national anthem. In baseball at least, the players would all be out there standing on the base lines.

They have been doing the same thing for at least 30-40 years across multiple sports, probably longer than that. The idea that it is some new thing because of 9/11 or a recent "paid patriotism" campaign from the past decade is nonsense.

Basically, it's something that they always just had before games, and as far as I can tell it was just because it was the tradition, not because of some sinister military brainwashing purpose. You never heard about THAT until the past few years - in other words, until deriding it and delegitimizing it became beneficial to a certain political group. "What do you really have to complain about, it was never ______!" Big Brother and MiniTruth would revise history to fit their own ends too.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

This Dallas Sports reporter calls out Jerruh.....he's not lying.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdpiZUPZtE

[tom444]

It was common practice before that. I remember going to A's games, Giants games, 49ers games in the 1980s, and they would have planes fly over from the local Air Force base all the time, just for regular games. One time they had a C-5 cargo plane buzz the stadium (like seriously, it must have cleared the lights by 50 feet) and it was the coolest thing ever. Like, you could feel the damn thing rumbling in your chest bones, that's how loud it was. Every game they had a bunch of Marines bring out the flag and then they played the national anthem. In baseball at least, the players would all be out there standing on the base lines.

They have been doing the same thing for at least 30-40 years across multiple sports, probably longer than that. The idea that it is some new thing because of 9/11 or a recent "paid patriotism" campaign from the past decade is nonsense.

Basically, it's something that they always just had before games, and as far as I can tell it was just because it was the tradition, not because of some sinister military brainwashing purpose. You never heard about THAT until the past few years - in other words, until deriding it and delegitimizing it became beneficial to a certain political group. "What do you really have to complain about, it was never ______!" Big Brother and MiniTruth would revise history to fit their own ends too.


No, it was ratcheted up after 9/11, and for good reason. The military needed bodies. They were fighting non stop for years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Those displays before games aren't by accident, or for patriotic reasons. The DOD pays NFL teams to put on those displays to attract volunteers. It's a big advertisement.

[Dwinsgames]

1024699025512169472

[steelreserve]

No, it was ratcheted up after 9/11, and for good reason. The military needed bodies. They were fighting non stop for years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Those displays before games aren't by accident, or for patriotic reasons. The DOD pays NFL teams to put on those displays to attract volunteers. It's a big advertisement.

That would make sense, except that the total number of active military personnel has remained the same since the mid-1990s (when it went down by about a third due to overall downsizing/base closures). It's very simple to look this stuff up.

In any case, what's wrong with the military advertising to get recruits? Everyone else advertises when they're trying to hire people. Is there something inherently bad about the army?

My original point, though, was that they have been playing the national anthem at sporting events way, way, WAY before any of this, and that is not really even debatable. Having some kind of patriotic or military thing along with it is not new either. Whether they "ratcheted it up" has very little to do with anything. It is just something that people use to complain about, an excuse to belittle the other side. "omg look, they're all so dumb that they're just falling for an advertisement!!!! They have no point and if they are upset it's invalid!!!" Except that I can pretty much guarantee that's not the reasoning or the thought process behind it at all.

You want to talk about people whose opinions come from being easily manipulated, there is a whole political party whose strategy is essentially based around that, but I digress.

[tom444]

That would make sense, except that the total number of active military personnel has remained the same since the mid-1990s (when it went down by about a third due to overall downsizing/base closures). It's very simple to look this stuff up.

In any case, what's wrong with the military advertising to get recruits? Everyone else advertises when they're trying to hire people. Is there something inherently bad about the army?

My original point, though, was that they have been playing the national anthem at sporting events way, way, WAY before any of this, and that is not really even debatable. Having some kind of patriotic or military thing along with it is not new either. Whether they "ratcheted it up" has very little to do with anything. It is just something that people use to complain about, an excuse to belittle the other side. "omg look, they're all so dumb that they're just falling for an advertisement!!!! They have no point and if they are upset it's invalid!!!" Except that I can pretty much guarantee that's not the reasoning or the thought process behind it at all.

You want to talk about people whose opinions come from being easily manipulated, there is a whole political party whose strategy is essentially based around that, but I digress.

Look, they've ratcheted it up since 9/11 to get recruits, and the DOD pays teams for it. Its that simple.They aren't paying 100s of thousands of dollars to teams so they can put on that display in their stadiums so that you'll feel warm and fuzzy.

[steelreserve]

Look, they've ratcheted it up since 9/11 to get recruits, and the DOD pays teams for it. Its that simple.They aren't paying 100s of thousands of dollars to teams so they can put on that display in their stadiums so that you'll feel warm and fuzzy.

sigh. Well, I guess simply ignoring anything that contradicts your point, and then restating that point a second time, technically IS one way to present an argument. I would not recommend it for its effectiveness, though.

[tom444]

sigh. Well, I guess simply ignoring anything that contradicts your point, and then restating that point a second time, technically IS one way to present an argument. I would not recommend it for its effectiveness, though.

I guess closing your eyes to reality is one way to pretend you're making a valid a point.

[Mojouw]

Look, they've ratcheted it up since 9/11 to get recruits, and the DOD pays teams for it. Its that simple.They aren't paying 100s of thousands of dollars to teams so they can put on that display in their stadiums so that you'll feel warm and fuzzy.

Right.

Pre 9/11 the anthem and pre-game stuff was largely off-camera and if there were events pre-game that was arranged by the individual teams and local sponsors. Big games, like the SB or World Series, have always been different.

Post 9/11 the anthem and pre-game stuff was televised and bought and paid for by public tax dollars through the DOD. Which one could argue gives anyone who pays taxes a pretty solid reason to voice any opinions they have...

I would argue that the pre-game anthem and flag displays can have multiple simultaneous meanings and they may be different for each person who experiences them; since that is fundamentally how symbols and rituals work. For some it is a deeply moving and emotional connection to beliefs and values they hold dear. For others it is a background event that signals the start of the game they came to see. To others it is an advertisement for the political and military establishment. For others it is a symbol of unfulfilled promises. For some people it may be all of those things at the same time.

That is why, for me, this whole debate is so frustrating. The flag and the anthem can stand for many different things to many different people because that is the entire purpose and point of a symbol. No one side gets to own the "correct" interpretation.

[tom444]

Right.

Pre 9/11 the anthem and pre-game stuff was largely off-camera and if there were events pre-game that was arranged by the individual teams and local sponsors. Big games, like the SB or World Series, have always been different.

Post 9/11 the anthem and pre-game stuff was televised and bought and paid for by public tax dollars through the DOD. Which one could argue gives anyone who pays taxes a pretty solid reason to voice any opinions they have...

I would argue that the pre-game anthem and flag displays can have multiple simultaneous meanings and they may be different for each person who experiences them; since that is fundamentally how symbols and rituals work. For some it is a deeply moving and emotional connection to beliefs and values they hold dear. For others it is a background event that signals the start of the game they came to see. To others it is an advertisement for the political and military establishment. For others it is a symbol of unfulfilled promises. For some people it may be all of those things at the same time.

That is why, for me, this whole debate is so frustrating. The flag and the anthem can stand for many different things to many different people because that is the entire purpose and point of a symbol. No one side gets to own the "correct" interpretation.


Well said.

Anyone who hasn't served, particularly in a combat arm, see the documentary RESTREPO about a forward fire base in Afghanistan. If you do you'll understand why during war time the military needs fresh young recruits of the kind that plays, or played, football, or enjoys their youthful aggression and watches the NFL. There's a reason the average age of an 11B, or 0311, is most likely under 28.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

. The flag and the anthem can stand for many different things to many different people because that is the entire purpose and point of a symbol. No one side gets to own the "correct" interpretation.

So true. Watch that video from a Dallas Sports Reporter that I posted on the previous page.

To Jerry Jones it means he can threaten to fire the hired help if they don't respect the anthem and stand for it......but Jerry can keep his had on during the anthem, even if somebody reminds him to take it off during the anthem.

Apparently, being wealthy means you can interpret the anthem how you want to.

[86WARD]

Don’t forget that the Gulf War boosted the National Anthem with Whitney Houston.

Frankly, it’s serves no purpose to play on a weekly/daily basis. It should be taken out of sports altogether unless it’s a big event...Super Bowl, College Bowl, World Series, etc.

[steelreserve]

That is why, for me, this whole debate is so frustrating. The flag and the anthem can stand for many different things to many different people because that is the entire purpose and point of a symbol. No one side gets to own the "correct" interpretation.

That is the crux of the issue. However, I would still say that since it was well-known ahead of time that a not insignificant number of people already attach a different meaning to that symbol, it was an especially poor choice of venue for protest, because right up front, you are going to alienate all of those folks.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the pregame national anthem does not hold the same meaning for everyone, that does not exempt you from the fact that if you co-opt it for your own purpose, a lot of people will think you are a dick, and they will not be wrong.

I have no particularly strong feelings about, say, the Gay Pride parade, but if someone went there and disrupted it for their own reason - related to the event or not - I would think that person was an inconsiderate fuckin' moron. Maybe they had a good point. Maybe not. I don't care, either way they ruined it for themselves and I'm not going to listen. Same principle.

That works double for the national anthem protesters, since there is a second event with a meaning that they are disrupting, namely a football game that people watch for entertainment. You can argue that the "purpose" of one is more important or poignant than the other, but the fact remains that you are primarily pissing off the people who are there with entertainment higher on their priority list than politics, which is not a very smart way to further your cause.

tl;dr version - Protesting by trying to grab people's attention during an event where they have a different purpose in mind does not generate anything positive for your cause, it is only a way of attracting attention to yourself - a difference that Kap & Friends would have been smart to consider, but did not.

[Mojouw]

That is the crux of the issue. However, I would still say that since it was well-known ahead of time that a not insignificant number of people already attach a different meaning to that symbol, it was an especially poor choice of venue for protest, because right up front, you are going to alienate all of those folks.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the pregame national anthem does not hold the same meaning for everyone, that does not exempt you from the fact that if you co-opt it for your own purpose, a lot of people will think you are a dick, and they will not be wrong.

I have no particularly strong feelings about, say, the Gay Pride parade, but if someone went there and disrupted it for their own reason - related to the event or not - I would think that person was an inconsiderate fuckin' moron. Maybe they had a good point. Maybe not. I don't care, either way they ruined it for themselves and I'm not going to listen. Same principle.

That works double for the national anthem protesters, since there is a second event with a meaning that they are disrupting, namely a football game that people watch for entertainment. You can argue that the "purpose" of one is more important or poignant than the other, but the fact remains that you are primarily pissing off the people who are there with entertainment higher on their priority list than politics, which is not a very smart way to further your cause.

tl;dr version - Protesting by trying to grab people's attention during an event where they have a different purpose in mind does not generate anything positive for your cause, it is only a way of attracting attention to yourself - a difference that Kap & Friends would have been smart to consider, but did not.

And that is a fair and valid take. You and many, many others hold and defend that opinion. That is totally fine. You should.

I have a completely different opinion of it and that's fine as well.

My point is that both can co-exist and be correct. No one has to be wrong here. The only thing that is wrong is to attempt to elevate one take as more valuable and morally superior than another.

[steelreserve]

And that is a fair and valid take. You and many, many others hold and defend that opinion. That is totally fine. You should.

I have a completely different opinion of it and that's fine as well.

My point is that both can co-exist and be correct. No one has to be wrong here. The only thing that is wrong is to attempt to elevate one take as more valuable and morally superior than another.


Which is exactly what the protests are doing. "My political view is more important than your football game or your moment of reflection, or whatever else you're here for."

Yes, you and I can view it differently from an outside perspective, and those points of view can co-exist just fine. The protesters' opinions can also co-exist just fine with the opposite opinions in the world at large.

When someone forces confrontation, though, those opinions no longer co-exist in that particular time and place. And generally, the people who are having the confrontation forced on them are going to react negatively. That's all I'm saying. Honestly, the players can hold whatever opinion they want and approach that however they want - but MAN, was this a dumb way to do it.