|
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 27 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You call it a discomfort fetish, but you don't have to feel discomfort if you speak up for equality for all, ignore the racists charges and refute them at every turn if they are applied directly to you, and don't shy away from topics you are uncomfortable with, you'll be just fine. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. I like how " if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa" Became you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa"
It was the definition I provided. It's also the academic definition for those who study it including people like Coats. It wasn't even a clever way of saying it without saying it, he just said it without using my name.
These needed juxtaposition.
On September 27 2017 01:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 01:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
If the resident..."conservative" posters in this thread feel ashamed by being called racists, maybe they should think about why they feel that way. If i am called a son of a bitch, i am laughing at the insult because i know my mother wasn't one. If i am called racist i am not acting ashamed except if i come to realize i actually was racist. So if you feel ashamed, maybe stop doing racist things? Like waving off racism because the slaves were freed. Or act pissed about black people raising the fist and then defend the free speech of neonazis with swastikas and doing Hitler salutes. I'll go ahead and speak for the resident conservative posters on this one: We do not feel ashamed about anything because we know that we have not done anything racist.
|
On September 27 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You call it a discomfort fetish, but you don't have to feel discomfort if you speak up for equality for all, ignore the racists charges and refute them at every turn if they are applied directly to you, and don't shy away from topics you are uncomfortable with, you'll be just fine. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. I like how " if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa" Became you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa"
Pro tip to avoid being seen as racist. Don't tell black people to get back on the boat to Africa. Like ever. The words should just not be used.
If you don't want to be called racist, do not use the catch phrases of racists.
|
On September 27 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You call it a discomfort fetish, but you don't have to feel discomfort if you speak up for equality for all, ignore the racists charges and refute them at every turn if they are applied directly to you, and don't shy away from topics you are uncomfortable with, you'll be just fine. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. I like how " if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa" Became you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa"
Yet somehow I'm the one arguing "in bad faith"....
Our position here is relatively simple and straightforward, in addition to being unerringly consistent, so it is quite curious that the other side feels the need to go so far out of their way so as to misconstrue it.
|
On September 27 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. I like how " if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa" Became you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa" Yet somehow I'm the one arguing "in bad faith".... Our position here is relatively simple and straightforward, in addition to being unerringly consistent, so it is quite curious that the other side feels the need to go so far out of their way so as to misconstrue it.
What is this nonsense?
|
United States43957 Posts
On September 27 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. I like how " if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa" Became you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa" Yet somehow I'm the one arguing "in bad faith".... Our position here is relatively simple and straightforward, in addition to being unerringly consistent, so it is quite curious that the other side feels the need to go so far out of their way so as to misconstrue it. What is this nonsense?
It's the "I know in my heart I'm not an asshole so if everyone else would just stop being wrong about me acting like an asshole and realize that I'm not acting like an asshole then we wouldn't even have a problem" thing again.
|
|
|
Take us at our actual words and understand that that we mean what we say and aren't just being terrible people.
It should be the starting place for this topic of race, protests, and Trump. I don't need Plansix's help to tell me what he thinks I almost said, or reinterpreting a phrase to say the user needs to avoid being seen as racist. Pro tip.
|
On September 27 2017 08:10 Danglars wrote:
Take us at our actual words and understand that that we mean what we say and aren't just being terrible people.
It should be the starting place for this topic of race, protests, and Trump. I don't need Plansix's help to tell me what he thinks I almost said, or reinterpreting a phrase to say the user needs to avoid being seen as racist. Pro tip.
What? Forgetting p6, What?
|
United States43957 Posts
On September 27 2017 08:10 Danglars wrote:
Take us at our actual words and understand that that we mean what we say and aren't just being terrible people.
People are taking you at your words. That's your problem. It's not a misunderstanding. People know exactly why you post the things your post.
|
On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Tehran to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great grandparents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct?
White is all about being able to pass for it and you dodge all the bullshit that would otherwise come with it. I knew a half black girl who looked white. I guarantee you she would have gotten shit if people knew her dad was black. I know a guy that was born in Palestine. If he told you his name was Mike instead of Husam, you probably wouldn't know he was middle eastern. There's a reason why white(hispanic) is on the census.
|
Canada11503 Posts
Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion.
|
On September 27 2017 08:33 Falling wrote:Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion.
It is. Same with sit ins. It's so peaceful that something more has to be made to make it divisive. With it being before the game even starts and during the anthem, you are forced to see something you would rather not. Now you have to dwell on it. People who are content with the status quo do not want that extra thinking on their minds. They just wanna watch sports. So in order for that to stop, it moves from the actual reason the protests began, to an imaginary one where people can get all up in arms about.
|
On September 27 2017 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 08:10 Danglars wrote:
Take us at our actual words and understand that that we mean what we say and aren't just being terrible people.
It should be the starting place for this topic of race, protests, and Trump. I don't need Plansix's help to tell me what he thinks I almost said, or reinterpreting a phrase to say the user needs to avoid being seen as racist. Pro tip. What? Forgetting p6, What?
He wants to use the catch phrases of racists and have us judge him as a good person wouldn't couldn't possible have meant racist things.
|
On September 27 2017 08:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 08:10 Danglars wrote:
Take us at our actual words and understand that that we mean what we say and aren't just being terrible people.
It should be the starting place for this topic of race, protests, and Trump. I don't need Plansix's help to tell me what he thinks I almost said, or reinterpreting a phrase to say the user needs to avoid being seen as racist. Pro tip. What? Forgetting p6, What? He wants to use the catch phrases of racists and have us judge him as a good person wouldn't couldn't possible have meant racist things.
I mean, is that what he's really saying? I'm kinda flabbergasted at the moment.
|
On September 27 2017 08:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 08:33 Falling wrote:Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion. It is. Same with sit ins. It's so peaceful that something more has to be made to make it divisive. With it being before the game even starts and during the anthem, you are forced to see something you would rather not. Now you have to dwell on it. People who are content with the status quo do not want that extra thinking on their minds. They just wanna watch sports. So in order for that to stop, it moves from the actual reason the protests began, to an imaginary one where people can get all up in arms about.
Can anyone explain why the anthem is played before every game in the first place? With both sides representing the same country, it makes no sense for me as anything but nationalistic, military propaganda. As I have heard, there is a lot of brainwashing kids to believing the US is the greatest country in the world, and overusing the flag and National anthem is a big part of that. I am very happy this backfires!
If anyone took a knee or sat down in an INTERNATIONAL event, though, that would send a message, and cause a reaction no matter the country.
|
On September 27 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 08:58 Plansix wrote:On September 27 2017 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 08:10 Danglars wrote:
Take us at our actual words and understand that that we mean what we say and aren't just being terrible people.
It should be the starting place for this topic of race, protests, and Trump. I don't need Plansix's help to tell me what he thinks I almost said, or reinterpreting a phrase to say the user needs to avoid being seen as racist. Pro tip. What? Forgetting p6, What? He wants to use the catch phrases of racists and have us judge him as a good person wouldn't couldn't possible have meant racist things. I mean, is that what he's really saying? I'm kinda flabbergasted at the moment.
I don't know, we have hit the final level of poe's law. Telling black anyone to go back to Africa(which is comical since you were born here) is a good way to get punch. It isn't dropping the N-bomb, but its within spitting distance. Not a maneuver I would pull, but apparently its cool around here. Maybe we will start talking about tar-babies next? Or that black face is cool again?
|
On September 27 2017 09:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 08:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 08:33 Falling wrote:Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion. It is. Same with sit ins. It's so peaceful that something more has to be made to make it divisive. With it being before the game even starts and during the anthem, you are forced to see something you would rather not. Now you have to dwell on it. People who are content with the status quo do not want that extra thinking on their minds. They just wanna watch sports. So in order for that to stop, it moves from the actual reason the protests began, to an imaginary one where people can get all up in arms about. Can anyone explain why the anthem is played before every game in the first place? With both sides representing the same country, it makes no sense for me as anything but nationalistic, military propaganda. As I have heard, there is a lot of brainwashing kids to believing the US is the greatest country in the world, and overusing the flag and National anthem is a big part of that. I am very happy this backfires! If anyone took a knee or sat down in an INTERNATIONAL event, though, that would send a message, and cause a reaction no matter the country.
Afaik, it's done before every sporting even. It's done in the morning every day of school too. I've long been confused with this country's anthem fetish.
|
On September 27 2017 09:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 08:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 08:33 Falling wrote:Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion. It is. Same with sit ins. It's so peaceful that something more has to be made to make it divisive. With it being before the game even starts and during the anthem, you are forced to see something you would rather not. Now you have to dwell on it. People who are content with the status quo do not want that extra thinking on their minds. They just wanna watch sports. So in order for that to stop, it moves from the actual reason the protests began, to an imaginary one where people can get all up in arms about. Can anyone explain why the anthem is played before every game in the first place? With both sides representing the same country, it makes no sense for me as anything but nationalistic, military propaganda. As I have heard, there is a lot of brainwashing kids to believing the US is the greatest country in the world, and overusing the flag and National anthem is a big part of that. I am very happy this backfires! If anyone took a knee or sat down in an INTERNATIONAL event, though, that would send a message, and cause a reaction no matter the country.
The NFL didn't use to have national anthem playing. It was later added for the specific purposes of national pride.
|
On September 27 2017 08:33 Falling wrote:Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion.
He paired it with explicitly divisive statements on the flag.
“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.
Then he had his police=pigs socks and Che Guevara shirt. I don't care what this new round of players thinks, because Trump has certainly thrown his hat into the ring. It started with an overtly political stance and it was all about what the flag symbolized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
