Well it seems that Trump is following his Standard Operating Procedure... He is failing to accomplish anything of importance, so to rile up his base he makes up some"villain" to attack.
And of course this has triggered some interesting conversations and reactions.
CNN Sunday Protest Photos
Most interesting to me is watching how different people within one family are reacting on Facebook. The younger Liberal "Racism is Systemic Folks" posting kneeling is good stuff and the older Liberal member posting kneeling is bad stuff.
As for myself, I think I am in the "kneeling is bad" group. Though I respect the rights of people to speak freely on their own free time, these are employees who are hired to play a sport and behave in such a way to support the company that employees them. Their decision to not stand and salute the flag with their other team mates should be a fire-able offense.
As for Trump using the topic as a topic to distract his true believers, I think he is showing just as much disrespect to the flag and the people in the armed services as the kneelers are.
Thoughts?
And of course this has triggered some interesting conversations and reactions.
CNN Sunday Protest Photos
Most interesting to me is watching how different people within one family are reacting on Facebook. The younger Liberal "Racism is Systemic Folks" posting kneeling is good stuff and the older Liberal member posting kneeling is bad stuff.
As for myself, I think I am in the "kneeling is bad" group. Though I respect the rights of people to speak freely on their own free time, these are employees who are hired to play a sport and behave in such a way to support the company that employees them. Their decision to not stand and salute the flag with their other team mates should be a fire-able offense.
As for Trump using the topic as a topic to distract his true believers, I think he is showing just as much disrespect to the flag and the people in the armed services as the kneelers are.
Thoughts?
97 comments:
A few scattered thoughts:
Some people just won't accept any peaceful protest by black folks and objections raised to their kneeling is a willful attempt not to reckon with what the actual purpose of the protest is.
The President doesn't get to decide how other people protest, nor is he the arbiter of flag etiquette. Knuckling under to his demands is unnecessary and would set a dire precedent.
Kneeling during the national anthem is far down on the list of violation of flag/anthem etiquette you see at a professional sports event.
Calling someone a "SOB" over his peaceful protest ought to be beneath POTUS. POTUS has used his "bully pulpit" to go after black professional athletes far more strongly than he did the Charlottesville neo-Nazis or white supremacists in general.
Nearly two weeks ago, the current administration bristled when an ESPN anchor called POTUS a "white supremacist". Since then, POTUS and his administration have gone out of their way to prove her right.
The issue of whether Trump was a racist was pretty much decided for me when he argued that our first black president wasn't qualified because on obviously false grounds. His statements about the NFL the other day are rank with racism.
We have elected an utterly contemptible man as president, and there just isn't anything we can do about it.
--Hiram
We should also remember that we have a government official (POTUS) saying that these people should be fired because of their speech. The government can't do that. In fact, it's illegal. If the NFL does anything to these players, they will be in huge trouble. Furthermore, the team owners are standing by their players and supporting them, so it looks like they are being allowed to make this statement while "on the job".
Word has it, and I have not taken the time to verify it, that teams and players were not on the field for the National Anthem prior to 2009, when the DoD paid the league lots of money to make the football pre-games into patriotic celebrations. I wonder if the NFL Players Union was involved in that decision?
Moose
Of course the POTUS can say it... He just did.
And yes the Football owners can terminate contracts, bench players, etc if the employee fails to do as they are told on the field while being paid.
Finally, not sure why the players would not have been on the field for the playing of the anthem. They are for High School sports etc.
I am curious what the Owners will do if a boycott does take hold?
A lot of patriotic Americans are taking some serious offense at the behaviors of these would rebels.
From the WAPO post.
"But we all know why Colin Kaepernick is most famous. Beginning in 2016, he refused to stand to attention during the playing of the American national anthem.
Kaepernick decided to either remain seated or kneel during renditions of the Star Spangled Banner in support of Black Lives Matter and to protest police violence against black people.
He explains, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
He vowed to continue to protest until he feels like “[the American flag] represents what it’s supposed to represent.”
You know what happened next, right? Kaepernick was voted the “most disliked” player in the NFL. People posted videos of them burning his jerseys. He was called “an embarrassment” and “a traitor.” He was blamed for a significant drop in NFL television ratings, with fans boycotting the NFL because of his protest. He received death threats."
Some dude on Twitter
It is a bit like me boycotting my job because everything isn't perfect at my work place. Now if he wishes to do it, please feel free. As long as he is ready to pay for his actions.
Do you think Rosa Parks was protesting the existence of buses?
Was Rosa Parks paid extremely well to be on that bus in front of 100's of thousands of people to entertain them? (ie Not make half of them angry)
Here is an interesting thought experiment... What if one of the players chose to protest because they thought the KKK is being treated unfairly in the USA?
Would that be okay with the "systemic racism" folks?
Or would they raise holy havoc?
"Was Rosa Parks paid extremely well to be on that bus in front of 100's of thousands of people to entertain them? (ie Not make half of them angry)"
What does that have to do with anything? Are NFL players just supposed shut up and enjoy life on the plantation? The idea that because black athletes are paid well so they shouldn't advocate is more than a bit racist.
"Would that be okay with the "systemic racism" folks?"
I wouldn't advocate for his firing. (Riley Cooper of the Philadelphia Eagles, for instance, played three seasons after being caught dropping the n-word on video.)
I am curious what the Owners will do if a boycott does take hold?
That's an unlikely scenario. Trump did lose the popular vote, after all, and he is now terribly unpopular. While it's a choice they might not want to be forced to make, the owners would be well advised to come down on the anti Trump side. There is just more potential for them there. That said, the NFL has deeper long term problems.
I did get a kick out an article in the Strib I saw recently about how anxious the NFL was to protect it's brand. Trump's statements this weekend amounted to an incredible trashing of the NFL brands, the effects of which are unpredictable and largely out of the NFL's control. Among other things, it put Minnesota's half billion dollar investment in the Vikings football in more than a little jeopardy.
--Hiram
What if one of the players chose to protest because they thought the KKK is being treated unfairly in the USA?
Well, the comparable situation is Trump talking about how, basically, there were some good Nazi's. Donald took some heat for it, but he wasn't run out of office, something one would have hardly predicted a couple of years ago.
Baseball play Schilling was pretty much ostracized for unacceptable views. And there was that player who was kicked out of the NFL a couple of years for going to far.
--Hiram
Legal?
Maybe someone else can better interpret this for me, but it seems that it is illegal for the President to influence a private entity's employment decisions.
Moose
it is illegal for the President to influence a private entity's employment decisions.
It's a free country, even for presidents. If you argue something is illegal, my first reaction is to say, "What law?". Off hand, I know of no law against someone should get fired, and I don't think there should be. That might change a bit if you add some facts. It might violate the law to say someone should be fired because of his race or religion, or because the person is a member of some other protected class, and then to do something about it.
Generally, the first amendment only protects individuals from government sanctions. Private employers, in theory at least, can fire an employee for saying something they don't like, but on the whole, that's sort of a high risk employment practice. If I were advising anyone in that kind of thing, I would tell them, first let's all cool down a bit, and let's see if we can find a better solution.
--Hiram
Interesting link. I guess I must have missed the official threat. It seemed to me he was just voicing an opinion.
"Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
I find this more amusing from the "flip flopper in chief".
Sean,
The players as citizens do have a right to speak out on their free time.
The players as employees need to behave as good employees unless they want to get fired.
Does this in some way surprise you?
I guess I would refer you back to my original thought in this thread.
I guess I must have missed the official threat.
Donald is a weak man in a very weak political position and nobody is really afraid of him. His days of intimidating women and children are long behind him. That helps to explain the remarkable show of unity against him by the NFL, an entity not otherwise known for it's moral courage.
That said, a threat does not have to be explicit in order to be real. The classic case is Edward II who said to his nobles about Thomas Beckett, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" Several of them then did.
--Hiram
I guess I disagree with this.
"Some people just won't accept any peaceful protest by black folks and objections raised to their kneeling is a willful attempt not to reckon with what the actual purpose of the protest is."
I am fine with anyone protesting anything as long as they don't block traffic, incite a violent riot, disrespect the flag, etc. And unfortunately BLM, Antifa and their supporters seem to have no problem doing all 3.
We have a great State Capital grounds, please feel free to protest there whenever you want. Some camera crews will maybe show up.
You know my view... The kneelers are actually protesting to draw attention away from the real problem... Kind of like Trump is.
If they really want to solve the problem they would be protesting in front of the gang houses and pushing "baby mammas / daddies" to be responsible parents.
How is kneeling "disrespectful"? Is it more or less disrespectful than those who leave their hats on during the anthem, or head to the concession stand, or look at their phones? Because there are far more people in the stadium doing those things than kneeling. This is the nothingburgerest of protests, yet people are flipping their lids over it.
"If they really want to solve the problem they would be protesting in front of the gang houses and pushing "baby mammas / daddies" to be responsible parents."
Sorry, black people don't exist to service your desires. That ended in 1865.
I also disagree with people leaving their hats on, talking, etc during the national anthem... But what they do on their time is their choice. The Players are a different story.
Well they can continue to blame others for their problems and deny that they own them, that is what dependent people do. Unfortunately it will not help them escape their current problems. Only learning, working and making good responsible life choices will do that.
And please feel free to keep enabling and supporting their familial dysfunction, however I would not get my hopes up too high that they will resolve their generational poverty problem without them making BIG changes in their beliefs and behaviors.
Now here is an NPR article that seems at odds with my opinions. Or maybe not. Thoughts?
They aren't protesting generational poverty.
In a way they are.
Why do you think police enforce harder in poor neighborhoods?
Why do you think they are more nervous around ghetto, white trash, gang members and other citizens?
You keep wanting to make this about race, but it is much more about behaviors, poverty, risk, etc.
No, you don't get to tell them what they are protesting.
Of course I can... This is the country of free speech...
And I can do it without even breaking any laws, dissing the US flag, damaging property or inconveniencing other citizens. :-)
Now if they could learn to do this we would not have all these escalated situations and violence.
All this anthem flak shows is that all the right-wing anti-political correctness warriors are just as easily (if not more easily) triggered. This is a peaceful, non-violent protest that inconveniences no one but is a mild violation of national anthem etiquette. (And, of course, if it's just about the anthem/flag, why did the Cowboys get booed last night?)
I found this analysis fascinating.
Chris strives to paint Trump as the one trying to sow division, which he is... But not once mentioning that the kneeling protesters are also seeking to do so.
I assume the Cowboys got booed because they chose to not stand erect, with their hands over their hearts during the playing of the national anthem.
If one wants to rebel against social norms... They should knowingly except the consequences of doing so. (ie boos included)
The Cowboys stood up, arms linked, during the anthem -- just like the Vikings did. They kneeled *before* the anthem.
Which brings us back, again, to my original point.
Sorry, I don't watch much football so I have no idea why the fans booed. It seems some customers don't want any political theatrics before the game. I would be right there with them if I had paid a lot of money to be entertained. (ie not preached to)
So you seem to be saying that people should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech without push back from other citizens.
How was Charlottesville different?
They had a permit to gather / march and yet you were all for the Liberals trouncing on their rights and standing up to them.
Much of the "patriotism" we see before games are "political theatrics". Since 2012, the military has spent over $10 million buying "paid patriotism" events at MLB, NFL, NHL, MLS, and NBA games and in the neighborhood of $100 million on auto racing sponsorships. The Minnesota Wild, for instance, received $570,000 over four years for such events.
"So you seem to be saying that people should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech without push back from other citizens."
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying it's inappropriate for POTUS to call such protesters SOBs. I'm saying it's inappropriate for POTUS to call for such protesters to be fired (did he call for any of the Charlottesville neo-Nazis to be fired?). I'm saying that the President (or anyone) doesn't get to tell black people what they should protest about or how they should do it. I'm saying that some people will always find fault with where, when, how or why a black person tries to protest. I'm saying that imposing a standard that everyone has to stand with hand over heart is just as much enforcing political correctness as anything liberals are accused of. I'm saying that people are trying to make kneeling the story instead of honestly addressing the purpose of the protest. I'm saying that the people who are trying to make kneeling the story overlook far worse violations of the flag code.
BTW, do you know how Colin Kaepernick ended up kneeling instead of sitting on the bench during the anthem? It's an interesting tale.
"They had a permit to gather / march and yet you were all for the Liberals trouncing on their rights and standing up to them."
Guess who else had a permit to gather and march?
Politifact
I believe I agreed that the POTUS was in the wrong for using this as political theater.
Of course the military advertises in many ways to attract new recruits.
It seems the anti-KKK folks ended up at the wrong park somehow... It must have been an accident.
So we have protesters and counter protesters in the same football stadium. One protests and the other boos, boycotts, etc. Seems like American freedom at it's finest. I am just with the booing crowd.
What exactly in your mind is the "purpose of the protest"?
You disagreed with me above regarding the reality of the complicated situation.
"What exactly in your mind is the "purpose of the protest"?
You disagreed with me above regarding the reality of the complicated situation."
Yes, I do disagree with you. The players -- the ones who are actually doing the protesting -- have said why they are protesting. You may not like their answer, but you don't get to change it. But that's your white privilege at work.
BTW, do you know how Colin Kaepernick ended up kneeling instead of sitting on the bench during the anthem?
"Of course the military advertises in many ways to attract new recruits."
So you're fine with politics that you agree with during sports, but not politics you don't agree with. Noted.
Not sure... Sitting vs Standing
It seems like he does not want to stand for the flag until bad folks are no longer bad...
""I'm going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change. When there's significant change and I feel that flag represents what it's supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it's supposed to, I'll stand."
"This stand wasn’t for me. This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t."
"It's something that can unify this team. It's something that can unify this country. If we have these real conversations that are uncomfortable for a lot of people. If we have these conversations, there's a better understanding of where both sides are coming from."
"I have great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country. I have family, I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. And they fight for freedom, they fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice, for everyone. That’s not happening. People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody. That’s something that’s not happening. I’ve seen videos, I’ve seen circumstances where men and women that have been in the military have come back and been treated unjustly by the country they fought have for, and have been murdered by the country they fought for, on our land. That’s not right."
I guess I don't see advertising our military and promoting national pride as politics. Next you will want to block beer commercials and apple pie.
As I repeatedly state... I am fine with them protesting as much as they want for whatever they want. However I think they are wrong and that the Teams / Crowds should be able to squash their behavior if they wish. They are employees doing a job of entertaining fans.
If their chosen behaviors alienate paying customers... Then it becomes a business decision.
"I guess I don't see advertising our military and promoting national pride as politics."
Is patriotism bought real patriotism? Seems pretty fake to me.
Moose
Advertising can can do amazing things to win hearts and minds.
Given the definition...
Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
I would definitely say that patriotism can be grown and encouraged in many ways, including through advertisements, flag ceremonies, fly overs, etc. Do you disagree?
And how would one tell the difference between real patriotism and fake patriotism?
And are the kneelers in anyway patriots? (ie devoted love, support, and defense of one's country)
It seems to me that they are not patriots since they definitely are disenchanted with our great country.
"It seems to me that they are not patriots since they definitely are disenchanted with our great country."
By this standard, Donald Trump is not a patriot -- just refer to his campaign where he pointed out how awful everything was in America.
But I wouldn't agree with that standard. Being a "patriot" doesn't mean that you blithely accept whatever happens, rather, a true patriot takes action to try and make their country better.
And to answer the question you won't bother to examine:
"I approached Colin the Saturday before our next game to discuss how I could get involved with the cause but also how we could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice movement. We spoke at length about many of the issues that face our community, including systemic oppression against people of color, police brutality and the criminal justice system. We also discussed how we could use our platform, provided to us by being professional athletes in the N.F.L., to speak for those who are voiceless.
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.
It baffles me that our protest is still being misconstrued as disrespectful to the country, flag and military personnel. We chose it because it’s exactly the opposite. It has always been my understanding that the brave men and women who fought and died for our country did so to ensure that we could live in a fair and free society, which includes the right to speak out in protest."
NYT: Why Colin Kaepernick and I Decided To Take A Knee
I can agree that Trump is not a patriot.
As for promoting the victim mentality, that I can not go along with as you know.
"the issues that face our community, including systemic oppression against people of color, police brutality and the criminal justice system."
One does not improve their situation by pouting on the sideline and ignoring their contribution to the issue.
Just like BLM, where are the protests against gang houses, poor Parenting, single Parent households, a disrespect of academics, gangster rappers, saggy pants, etc...
One does not improve their situation by pouting on the sideline and ignoring their contribution to the issue.
Anthem demonstrations by athletes have always been seen as legitimate in the black community. The history of them goes pretty far back. And in reaction to them, the white community has always worked hard to persuade us that they were an attack on patriotism, or at the very least, that they were ineffective.
One might ask why athletics is seen as an arena protest. People have been telling me a lot lately that they don't like the protests because they see the NFL, for example, as a safe space from politics. But I have to ask, in America, how many institutions, like the NFL which are dominated by black Americans, have a wide impact on the society as a whole? Would Colin Kaepernick have the impact that he did, if he were a performer at a jazz club?
May I make a modest proposal? Instead of imposing our politically convenient views on what others have to say, let's instead listen? For all I know, maybe Kaepernick does actually hate the military. If he does, let's give him the opportunity to say so.
--Hiram
Back to my original point:
Sitting during the national anthem: wrong
Kneeling during the national anthem: wrong
Wearing t-shirts while warming up: wrong
Making a speech after a Broadway musical: wrong
Kneeling before the national anthem: wrong
Kneeling at a concert: wrong
Protest a guy who flies the Confederate flag: wrong
Protesting about police violence, not black-on-black crime: wrong
Use "hands up, don't shoot" gesture: wrong
"Advertising can can do amazing things to win hearts and minds."
Imagine what being treated equally can do.
Moose
Gunning innocent people down: wrong.
Fighting pointless wars with a largely minority military: wrong.
Banning speech we don't like: wrong.
--Hiram
"Advertising can can do amazing things to win hearts and minds."
As a political advocate, my theory is that 90% of what I do is wasted effort. The problem is that I don't know which 90% is wasteful.
Advertising, in general, is an industry in a quiet crisis. How could it be otherwise? If newspapers are in collapse, how could advertising in newspapers not be? Advertisements just aren't seen anymore. The only place where advertising is really effective is with NFL games, and even there, the audience is in decline and the product is being politicized. Last night, the financed candidate, the one with big money for tv spots, lost big. If anything the money he spent was a liability.
The times indeed are a'changing.
--Hiram
So it seems that you would like the freedom for people with Liberal views to protest as they wish without push back from counter protesters.
Where as you want to allow people with Liberal views to be free to counter protest as they wish. Even if it means them blockading, interrupting and/or generating violence at events that they were not invited to.
USA Sessions Speech
"Sessions's very appearance at the Georgetown campus also drew protests from students and professors, dozens of whom assembled on the steps of the law center, asserting that they had been denied entry to the hall where the attorney general spoke.
“We were uninvited,” said Amber Smith, a third-year law student and protest leader. “We are deeply disappointed in Georgetown Law."
Many students and teachers stood silently with tape over their mouths, while others raised hand-written placards, many of them denouncing the attorney general.
Randy Barnett, director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution which organized the event, acknowledged that Sessions' speech was "a closed, invitation-only" gathering in part to promote a "civil" discussion and guard the university from embarrassment.
"We did not screen for political views," Barnett said. A block of empty seats in the hall where Sessions spoke, however, offered mute testimony to the protests outside.
But the Georgetown controversy tracked similar recent eruptions on other college campuses, including the University of California at Berkeley.
Earlier this month, the campus was virtually locked down under heavy police guard to allow for a speech at the liberal university by conservative former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.
Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, chanting "no Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.'' The demonstrations resulted in a handful of arrests.
“We had a successful event," UC spokesman Dan Mogulof said earlier this month, adding that the university is committed to hosting speakers like Shapiro.
In his speech Tuesday, Sessions referred to the Berkeley incident, saying that the university was "forced to spend more than $600,000 and have an overwhelming police presence simply to prove that the mob was not in control of the campus."
"In the end, Mr. Shapiro spoke to a packed house," Sessions said. "And to my knowledge, no one fainted, no one was unsafe. No one needed counseling."
Inside the Georgetown Hall, Sessions spoke without interruption. The only demonstration occurred after the speech when a row of students, tape covering their mouths, rose in silent protest.
One of them, Elijah Staggers, a 25-year-old law student, said that while he believed Sessions' speech was "on point," he believed the university's decision to close to the general public was "wrong."
"My issue is with the implementation of the event," Staggers said. "Students just didn't have an adequate opportunity to participate."
And of course the challenge is that often the dissenters do not want to "participate"... They want to disrupt, make headlines, etc.
So what are we to do as a country if neither side is willing to let the other speak openly?
"So it seems that you would like the freedom for people with Liberal views to protest as they wish without push back from counter protesters."
Nope, that's not what I've said. Try again.
Of course you have over and over.
You defended the Charlottesville counter protesters very vigorously. Even giving me their permit information. Even though they intentionally located themselves at the wrong park and tried to block the Unite the Right folks from meeting and protesting.
I don't remember your comments regarding all the people working to disrupt the Trump rallies and Conservative speakers, however given your stand on Charlottesville I assume you believe it is okay for people to "stand against bigotry and hate"... Or some such thing.
Now a bunch of people are pushing back against liberal protests and you cry foul. Please try to be more consistent.
If it is okay for Liberal groups to try to chant down Conservatives.
It seems only fair that Conservative groups get to try and chant down Liberals.
Personally as you know, I would support more civil behavior from both sides.
"Now a bunch of people are pushing back against liberal protests and you cry foul. Please try to be more consistent."
The important point here that you're missing is *who* is pushing back and *how* they are doing it. President Trump and members of his administration should not be suggesting that people who are advocating for their First Amendment rights be fired for doing so. You would have gone bananas if President Obama had suggested that NBC fire Donald Trump over his birtherism.
Other people are free to disagree with such protests as they see fit.
And let's talk about "consistency", shall we? The protest of kneeling during the anthem is peaceful. It is non-violent. It doesn't block any highways or inconvenience anyone in the slightest. Does it break norms? Sure. Is it politically incorrect? Yep. I thought that's what all you Trumpers loved about your guy -- that he told it how he saw it. But maybe it's only old rich white guys who are allowed to do that.
The fact that the Cowboys got criticized for their protest of kneeling not during the anthem tells you all you need to know. The fact that people listen to the players' own words and profess not to understand what the protest is about is telling. Criticizing these players isn't about the flag or the anthem, it's essentially a modern version of calling these players "uppity" and putting them back into their place.
CNN More Coverage
I guess I would say the same for the Unite the Right Rally, the Trump Rallies, the Far Right Speakers, etc. They should have been peaceful legal events, and yet the Liberal counter protesters escalated the situations and tried to block free speech.
Now it is the Conservatives and older "Patriots" who are fighting against this form of protest... Where is the difference?
Either you protect free speech for all or you don't and you are inconsistent.
Just because you deem it to be about something you support, you think the counter protesters should shut up and let the protesters have their time in the spot light?
Then next time are you going to call out Liberal Counter-Protesters / Antifa as the villains who are striving to block free speech when they work to disrupt rallies etc?
"Just because you deem it to be about something you support, you think the counter protesters should shut up and let the protesters have their time in the spot light?"
That, AGAIN, is not my position. Stop saying what you think my position is. Just stop it. Now.
Well you certainly don't think much of the counter protesters booing or any adverse consequences happening to the protesters.
And look at how you are negatively judging the counter protesters who you have never met or talked to.
"Criticizing these players isn't about the flag or the anthem, it's essentially a modern version of calling these players "uppity" and putting them back into their place."
You seem quite confident that you are correctly stating their position and intent.
By the way, it is okay to be inconsistent. Most people are when they are highly aligned to one view, position, etc.
Here is an excellent example
My favorite part in all this is the moment that support of the military (service members, veterans, etc.) became the only acceptable form of patriotism.
Good times.
Moose
"Well you certainly don't think much of the counter protesters booing or any adverse consequences happening to the protesters."
I have *never* said that counter-protesters couldn't boo or express their opinions. In fact, I have said the exact opposite, which you have now ignored on multiple occasions.
"You seem quite confident that you are correctly stating their position and intent."
I've demonstrated many examples in this thread where the behavior speaks for itself. It's interesting that you pulled out the "uppity" sentence without reckoning with the paragraph and a half that came before it or the other examples.
Moose,
Actually it is about respecting the flag and our country, even with it's warts. True love / pride is not conditional on the other party being perfect. It is loving that entity in spite of their flaws. These folks seem to only want to love and respect our USA if all injustice disappears miraculously. Until then they will refuse to stand at attention with their hand over their heart.
Sean,
Then it seems I was incorrect, you do not believe this...
"Just because you deem it to be about something you support, you think the counter protesters should shut up and let the protesters have their time in the spot light?"
Apparently you believe something like this.
It is okay for people to boo, harass and fire people who choose to protest by kneeling at the football games. Because counter protesting and drowning out the voice and message of the protester is okay even when it leads to escalation and potential violence. (ie Charlottesville)
Am I getting closer?
And to repeat my position...
"Personally as you know, I would support more civil behavior from both sides."
"These folks seem to only want to love and respect our USA if all injustice disappears miraculously."
What a load of B.S. If they didn't care, they wouldn't even be taking a knee. Taking a knee is a sign of respect, but it's not politically correct. I thought we were against political correctness. It's so hard to keep up with your flip-flopping, John. I've never seen such fragile snowflakes as the right-wing, redneck mouth-breathers upset at the people taking a knee to get others to take a critical look at themselves and their country. We've never been terribly good as a country at recognizing our faults. That truth has never been more obvious than right now.
Furthermore, why is it only military that we honor during these self-adoring displays of patriotism? Because they're paying for it, I guess. One would think they wouldn't have to buy it.
Moose
"I would support more civil behavior..."
If you think kneeling is uncivil, you're a lot more unhinged than I would ever have guessed.
Moose
Personally I think both sides have plenty "fragile snowflakes" who seem intent on blocking the free speech of others.
To me kneeling at the game is fine as is the Unite the Right holding a rally in Charlottesville as is Trump having a political rally. What is not civil is counter protesters booing or trying to get in the way of the rallies.
What has happened to respecting and accepting the freedom of others to say and do as they wish?
So should people be allowed to harass women going into abortion clinics?
"To me kneeling at the game is fine as is the Unite the Right holding a rally in Charlottesville as is Trump having a political rally."
One is peaceful, one is not, one is a fine example of poor grammar and infantile reasoning.
Moose
Sean, Of course not. I think harassing people while they trying to do a legal activity is uncivil.
Moose, The Unite the Right rally would not have been violent if the counter protesters would have been there. And if had been, then the police would have arrested them for breaking a law.
For reference...
CNN Inauguration Arrests
"Sean, Of course not. I think harassing people while they trying to do a legal activity is uncivil."
So it should be illegal? Or are you just calling it uncivil?
Uncivil...
As has been mentioned here many times... Counter protesting is legal in this country as long as one does not break the law.
"The Unite the Right rally would not have been violent..."
'Blood and Soil' and 'Jews will not replace us' are calls of white supremacy, violence, and oppression.
It was by its nature violent.
Moose
Sticks and stones may break my bones...
But words will never hurt me...
There was no violence until the two parties physically tried to occupy the same space at the same time.
Ah yes...the 'both sides' argument.
Despicable.
Moose
If one intentionally stands in front of a rolling boulder...
They really should not cry and play the victim when they get crushed...
Steve Martin Steam Roller
Counterprotesters had the same right to be in the park as the neo-Nazis. (Having a permit does not prohibit others from entering a public space.)
Just as the fans have the right to boo, the POTUS has the freedom to tweet, the owners have the right to fire, etc.
And please remember that those innocent peace loving counter protesters in Charlottesville came for their day in the park prepared with pepper spray, rocks, etc. And they apparently used them liberally.
You seem to be back to supporting counter protesters physical trying to stifle free speech.. Okay then. Let the civil unrest, firings, injuries, tweeting, etc continue. It does make for exciting news, if a bit distasteful.
"You seem to be back to supporting counter protesters physical trying to stifle free speech.."
Just stop.
I'll stop if you do.
You should not be working to support and make excuses for counter protesters who intentionally and physically try to block or squash the voices of others.
I mean you would have a fit if the roles were reversed and the Unite the Right folks were trying to block the BLM folks from holding a rally.
"Just as the fans have the right to boo..."
Of course they do, but it belies their misunderstanding of the protest, and more importantly, their inconsistent views of patriotism.
"the POTUS has the freedom to tweet"
He does not, however, have the freedom to interfere in the employment of people exercising their first amendment rights.
Moose
Please stop asserting you know what my position is.
Because you demonstrate your ignorance of what my position is over and over and over again.
Now this should come as no shock to us here.
CNN People are Split regarding Protest
"Overall, 49% say the protesting players are doing the wrong thing to express their political opinion when they kneel during the National Anthem, while 43% say it's the right thing. Those views are sharply divided by race, partisanship and age.
Among whites, 59% say the players are doing the wrong thing while 82% of blacks say it's the right thing to do. Almost 9 in 10 Republicans say it's the wrong thing (87%) while just about three-quarters of Democrats say the opposite (72%). And most younger Americans call it the right thing (56% among those under age 45) while a majority of older Americans say it's wrong (59% among those age 45 or older). "
It divides along racial lines.
Black Americans are often confronted with the issue of the nature of patriotism in a racist society. For them, national anthem demonstrations of various kinds are nothing new. And for them, I think, the deliberate effort to miscontrue those demonstrations as unpatriotic is seen in the black community as evidence of society's racism as a whole.
People often talk about how they put politics aside when they watch football, but what does that really mean? Something Donald Trump has been quite blunt about is ripping away the veneer of "political correctness" from our national discourse. Donald Trump challenges to look at things differently. And what he did a week ago Friday is remind us that the sanitized NFL we watch on Sundays is really played by large and powerful black men, of the sort that loom large in Trump's nightmares. Donald is quite candid in observing that he is frightened of them, and disturbed by their uppity-ness, their sense of entitlement, and the fact that, unlike the black people in his world, are well paid.
--Hiram
The irony of the claim that the anthem demonstrations are anti military is that minority communities are much more engaged with the military than society as a whole. Donald Trump didn't serve. Neither did any of his children. Probably very few people within his community did. The fact is, the proportion of minority individuals in the military is much higher than in our country as a whole. The military is very present in minority communities in ways it isn't generally. That's why the claim that demonstrations with regard to the anthem are demonstrations against the military are perceived at the very least as weird in the black community, if not downright racist.
One of the funny things about Trump is the way he reveres generals. Nobody with actual military experience reveres generals. Just another way Donald shows how out of touch he is.
--Hiram
Why did Trump target the NFL for assault?
The National Football League is one of the unifying institutions of our culture. It's a place where black people and white are unified on terms of equality. It is one of the few instances where a mostly black community is integrated into the society as a whole. This doesn't come easily, it's not without it's stresses. Note how Colin Kaeperinick, someone who did stress this relationship had to be ejected from the institution. It's that unity and those stresses that Donald Trump with his feral instinct for weakness and vulnerability, chose to exploit a week ago for this personal political advantage. He ripped away this sort of idealized version of itself the NFL we created for ourselves, to present an alternative view of the NFL, the one with large scary black men. No wonder ratings are down.
--Hiram
Post a Comment