|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 25 2017 14:49 LegalLord wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase my objection.
As written, your request is quite clearly not going to lead to productive discussion and as such I am disinclined to answer. You essentially imply that you have already made up your mind, that Trump is by far the worst mouthpiece for any cause in history that isn't unworthy so by extension the cause must be shitty. That kind of attitude is not going to get any useful answer so I will not provide one for preordained dismissal.
However, if you wish to shed the loaded wording, and add some more genuine context and specificity to what kind of cause we're talking about in regards to both Trump and any hypothetical comparable example, then maybe that will be worth an answer: probably not quickly, since I don't expect to post in this thread within the next 24 hours or so (nap time, busy Monday) but if it can be posed as a genuine question then I will do my best to answer. If not, I think it's most proper to simply write it off as a loaded question and leave it at that.
Like I said, I don't think there is a practical way to get rid of that loaded wording, and I agree that further discussion on that front is unlikely to be productive.
If you can find some other way to substantiate your claim that my original point was "horseshit" then I invite you to do so. (edit: you may take it as read that I do not find it obvious a priori.)
Otherwise, I'm left at the position that your claim is also unlikely to lead to productive conversation, and is furthermore insufficiently substantiated to take seriously.
(edit2: to be clear, I am not claiming that the unsuitability of Trump is conclusive proof that the causes he is the primary mouthpiece for are bad. I am merely claiming that [based on historical data] it seems quite significantly more likely that that is the case. I am also not claiming that 'good' people cannot be the primary mouthpiece for bad causes.)
|
For those who want to "keep politics out of sports", I submit NASCAR
|
This won't get the attention it deserves. And I hope the drivers and crew do protest. They are people first, not property.
|
The obsession with the national anthem and flag is ridiculous. If people want their sports non-political they should first get rid of the most political ceremony.
Also, I don't understand how taking a knee can even be considered as disrespect.
|
On September 25 2017 15:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This won't get the attention it deserves. And I hope the drivers and crew do protest. They are people first, not property.
I can't tell if people are idiots or intentionally obfuscating when they say "protesting the anthem". The protest is where it is because if I get 10,000 people and reams of data about the constitutional abuses transpiring no one cares, but some black people with money and attention on them do it and people lose their minds. that's one real reason it upsets so many people, because they know it's effective (and it's much harder to hide from).
To speak to another:
On September 25 2017 15:42 Derity wrote:
The obsession with the national anthem and flag is ridiculous. If people want their sports non-political they should first get rid of the most political ceremony.
Also, I don't understand how taking a knee can even be considered as disrespect.
Because it's not about disrespecting the flag or the anthem, it's about disrespecting their franchise owners and the bigots who think they own them by association.
|
On September 25 2017 15:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 15:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This won't get the attention it deserves. And I hope the drivers and crew do protest. They are people first, not property. I can't tell if people are idiots or intentionally obfuscating when they say "protesting the anthem". The protest is where it is because if I get 10,000 people and reams of data about the constitutional abuses transpiring no one cares, but some black people with money and attention on them do it and people lose their minds. THAT'S the real reason it upsets so many people, because they know it's effective (and it's much harder to hide from).
At this point, it's not about protesting the anthem. It's about protesting the people who want them silenced. For the people who think they should just stick to whatever profession and leave it to the politicians to figure out and make things right.
I don't think anyone is actually protesting the anthem, it's more that they are taking that one moment, when all the cameras are on, and making a stand about something they hold dear. You can't do this during or after the game. Before when the anthem is playing is the only time.
Also, fans (cons) don't realize that they people are training damn near everyday to remain in peak physical condition. These are the gladiators of our times. The best of the best. This stuff just doesn't happen overnight and not everyone can do it or even come close. They earned their money and the right to be out there entertaining because that's what they live for.
|
On September 25 2017 11:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 11:44 Doodsmack wrote:On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:
conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. The problem is that you can't just say "imperfections" because that's too much of an understatement. Trump's the wrong guy, and he only makes things worse. So who is the alternative? Remember what I said during the campaign regarding why Trump drew popular conservative support: he fights.
xDaunt, I have seen you several time refering to Trump, or Breitbart, or the alt right combativness with admiration.
Combativness is only a virtue if one can also stop and listen, and think and keep his integrity. If fighting means lying, insulting and be driven by impulse and petty passions, there is nothing to be admired about that.
Breitbart fights, by presenting an utterly distorted view of the world on purpose. Trump fights, by insulting, dividing, without an idea, a moment to think, an inch of humility or compassion. The alt right fights, out of hatred and petty resentment. Those are not virtuously combative people.
Many people who fought were utterly evil or completely stupid. Hitler fought, you know? And so did Lenin or Pol Pot. Very combative people. Lead their countries to utter ruin.
|
lets just do what they do in parts of asia and play the national anthem before movies and have the police arrest anyone who doesn't stand
|
edit: never mind, not really important or relevant.
|
On September 25 2017 15:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This won't get the attention it deserves. And I hope the drivers and crew do protest. They are people first, not property.
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I find it interesting that so many people talk about free speech rights in this situation.
What about all of the big news stories about people that have been fired from their jobs for things that they have said/expressed? We frequently condone that with reasoning along the lines of, "if a company wants to fire you because you represent them in a poor light with your words/actions, it's OK", but this doesn't apply to professional athletes?
As a military service member, if I ever chose to protest the anthem or national ensign (not salute, stand for colors, etc.), I would most likely get a swift NJP, probably reduction in rank, and most likely restriction (no liberty i.e. personal freedom to leave base and whatnot, and half pay for 45 days).
Now, you might say, "well you agreed to join the military and they have different rules. You agreed to have your rights limited." Sure, I did, but are we then saying that if you have the government as an employer, they're allowed to infringe on your constitutional rights? And private employers aren't allowed to do the same? The military dictates when I get free time, how I act during that free time, where I can(not) go during that free time, what I wear during that free time, the fact that I'm severely limited in how I can express my political opinions in any way (no participating in protests, publicly bashing elected officials, etc.). how do we ethically justify 1) all of the other times people have been fired for expressing their beliefs and 2) the fact that we're OK with the federal government taking away so many rights from its employees?
|
First.admendment only extends to legal action against you so anything to do with employment is.free game. I would imagine that you signed a.contract in the military and the guy from google.signed.one as well. What to do about no contract employment is a little bit more gray but I don't know of any court ruling that supports a workers rights to political.views or speech on the.job.
|
I don't know how it is for your military, but when i was in the spanish i actually signed papers giving up those rights and they were well explained to me. I presume such kind of contract are illegal for civies, understandably.
We are fine reducing their rights if it helps the army to do its job better because we find it useful and worthwhile to give them that power.
Now you would need to explain what does the Nascar provide to the nation and society valuable enough to justify it and how they will providing it better if you allow them to infringe your constitutional rights.
About your point about firing people for their opinions, i agree there are a lot of double standards in play.
|
On September 25 2017 21:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 15:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This won't get the attention it deserves. And I hope the drivers and crew do protest. They are people first, not property. Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I find it interesting that so many people talk about free speech rights in this situation. What about all of the big news stories about people that have been fired from their jobs for things that they have said/expressed? We frequently condone that with reasoning along the lines of, "if a company wants to fire you because you represent them in a poor light with your words/actions, it's OK", but this doesn't apply to professional athletes? As a military service member, if I ever chose to protest the anthem or national ensign (not salute, stand for colors, etc.), I would most likely get a swift NJP, probably reduction in rank, and most likely restriction (no liberty i.e. personal freedom to leave base and whatnot, and half pay for 45 days). Now, you might say, "well you agreed to join the military and they have different rules. You agreed to have your rights limited." Sure, I did, but are we then saying that if you have the government as an employer, they're allowed to infringe on your constitutional rights? And private employers aren't allowed to do the same? The military dictates when I get free time, how I act during that free time, where I can(not) go during that free time, what I wear during that free time, the fact that I'm severely limited in how I can express my political opinions in any way (no participating in protests, publicly bashing elected officials, etc.). how do we ethically justify 1) all of the other times people have been fired for expressing their beliefs and 2) the fact that we're OK with the federal government taking away so many rights from its employees?
As a veteran, I know what you're talking about. In the military, they need everyone to function as a machine. If one cog is out of place, essentially that machine isn't effective. They place a lot of responsibility on you to act as ambassadors to the world when deployed and they need you to behave a certain way because of SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).You go out in Germany or Japan and act a fool, those countries can hit the government for a pretty hefty bill, regardless of the severity of your actions.
At will employment is different than the military because you sign some rights away to be given access to a lot of things a normal civilian would not have access to. All of the weapons systems. Security clearances. The list goes on. We talk about free speech a lot in this thread because while some profess that everyone should be able to exercise those rights, they don't mean for everyone or for the topic being protested in its myriad of ways. You can be in the military and be a conscientious objector, and face the corresponding consequences. Or you can be an athlete in the civilian world and take a knee and face those consequences. Some posters would rather the athletes not have the right to do so if it's during their time on camera because it takes away from the sport.
There's a vast difference in you, an athlete, and your typical blue/white collar worker, and what's allowed in terms of free speech.
|
On September 25 2017 21:33 Godwrath wrote:
I don't know how it is for your military, but when i was in the spanish i actually signed papers giving up those rights and they were well explained to me. I presume such kind of contract are illegal for civies, understandably.
We are fine reducing their rights if it helps the army to do its job better because we find it useful and worthwhile to give them that power.
Now you would need to explain what does the Nascar provide to the nation and society valuable enough to justify it and how they will providing it better if you allow them to infringe your constitutional rights.
About your point about firing people for their opinions, i agree there are a lot of double standards in play.
I think it's definitely a double standard between professional athletes and most other jobs. We've seen a lot of cases of people being fired or punished for expressing their political opinions when it adversely affects how a company is represented, but now that professional athletes are doing it, we can't infringe on their free speech rights! If athletes with as much money and privilege and these folks have get the right to express themselves, then we should be advocating for all employees to be able to peacefully express themselves politically.
Also, while I agree that the military limits a lot of rights for good reason (good order and discipline, mission readiness, public image, not doing stupid shit in other countries), it's also interesting that society is OK with the government taking away so many rights from people just because it's the military. The American public is generally pretty passionate about keeping their rights. Hell, people still throw up a fuss about the fact that military bases don't allow you to carry firearms in most locations.
|
The Ft Hood shooter was expressing himself politically. Snowden and Manning were expressing themselves politically. So forth and so on. The rules are in place for a reason in the military. I'm not agreeing with what they did, just playing devil's advocate.
|
The Trump administration is updating its travel ban, just hours before it was set to expire. In a proclamation signed by President Trump on Sunday, the travel restrictions now include eight countries, a couple of which are not majority-Muslim, as had been the case with all the nations in the original ban.
Five countries in the previous ban remain under restriction: Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Chad, North Korea and Venezuela have been added. The latter two are the first nations included in a version of the travel ban that do not have majority-Muslim populations, which has been a key point in litigation challenging the ban as discriminatory based on religion.
The new restrictions on Chad and North Korea are a broad ban on nationals from those countries entering the U.S. For Venezuela, restrictions apply to government officials and their immediate family.
Source
|
would like to see some restricted travel for turkish government officials imo
|
On September 25 2017 15:42 Derity wrote:
The obsession with the national anthem and flag is ridiculous. If people want their sports non-political they should first get rid of the most political ceremony.
Also, I don't understand how taking a knee can even be considered as disrespect.
Also stop accepting money from the military to run recruitment ads.
|
On September 25 2017 22:07 brian wrote:
would like to see some restricted travel for turkish government officials imo
They should also encourage North Koreans to defect instead of banning people who cannot travel just for show.
|
As an outsider I'd say armies don't allow full freedom because the result of losing a battle due to orders not being followed or people starting a discussion is worse than temporary losing rights. Probably something even the ancient Greeks would do already. If the same level of discipline/rights loss is really necessary when just chilling at a base at home, just to keep combat discipline I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
