|
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 29 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 13:16 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 09:49 Nevuk wrote:Football players aren't just kneeling anymore. In a statement released Tuesday night, the players said coaches and staff will join them with arms intertwined to represent a coming together of people who want "freedom, equality, tolerance, understanding and justice for those who have been unjustly treated, discriminated against or otherwise treated unfairly."
"Those of us joining arms on Thursday will be different in so many ways, but one thing that binds us together is that we are all individuals who want to help make our society, our country and our world a better place," the players said in the statement. "We believe that in diversity there can be UNI-versity. Intertwined, we represent the many people who helped build this country, and we are joining together to show that we are ready to continue to build.
"Let's work together to build a society that is more fair and just."
The statement, which called the NFL family "one of the most diverse communities in the world," noted how the game of football brings people together.
"The eclectic group of players that you root for, the coaches you admire, the people you sit next to in the stands, those high-fiving on military bases, fans at the sports bar or during tailgate parties -- we all come from different walks of life and have unique backgrounds and stories," the statement said.
"The game of football brings people together. As NFL players, we are a living testimony that individuals from different backgrounds and with different life experiences can work together toward a common goal."
Rodgers, speaking before the players' statement was released, said what the Packers are doing is not a protest.
"This is about equality," the quarterback said. "This is about unity and love and growing together as a society and starting a conversation around something that may be a little bit uncomfortable for people. But we've got to come together and talk about these things and grow as a community, as a connected group of individuals in our society, and we're going to continue to show love and unity, and this week we're going to ask the fans to join in as well and come together and show people that we can be connected and we can grow together."
www.espn.com What a positive development! I was expecting everybody to double down on kneeling for another week. I'll give you credit for recognizing this as closer to what you want. Why do you think so many people don't see a difference between the two? Loaded question aside, I thought his/their cheerleaders doing their thing would prevail. There was certainly pressure to keep it up unchanged. It looks like smarter heads prevailed. Don't think it was loaded, but not surprised you didn't answer. ClutZ got it, people made up their mind and it's not on the side of recognizing the grave injustice that is the massive abuses of people's constitutional rights, regardless of color.
I mean, I think it is a loophole. Either you think police brutality is bad, and that the appropriate time to voice your complaint is during the national anthem, or you don't. Maybe you don't think police brutality is a big problem, or maybe you prefer to protest at a different time. However, once you decide you think its a big problem, and the anthem is a good time to protest you don't get to be like, "actually I am just locking arms for unity" and expect people to accept that as an actual representation of what you think.
We all know what these players think, and now we also know that they think that they are super-geniuses that can trick ordinary people with idiotic loopholes they make up during their morning hottubbing.
|
On September 29 2017 15:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 13:16 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 09:49 Nevuk wrote:Football players aren't just kneeling anymore. https://twitter.com/packers/status/913561279402475520In a statement released Tuesday night, the players said coaches and staff will join them with arms intertwined to represent a coming together of people who want "freedom, equality, tolerance, understanding and justice for those who have been unjustly treated, discriminated against or otherwise treated unfairly."
"Those of us joining arms on Thursday will be different in so many ways, but one thing that binds us together is that we are all individuals who want to help make our society, our country and our world a better place," the players said in the statement. "We believe that in diversity there can be UNI-versity. Intertwined, we represent the many people who helped build this country, and we are joining together to show that we are ready to continue to build.
"Let's work together to build a society that is more fair and just."
The statement, which called the NFL family "one of the most diverse communities in the world," noted how the game of football brings people together.
"The eclectic group of players that you root for, the coaches you admire, the people you sit next to in the stands, those high-fiving on military bases, fans at the sports bar or during tailgate parties -- we all come from different walks of life and have unique backgrounds and stories," the statement said.
"The game of football brings people together. As NFL players, we are a living testimony that individuals from different backgrounds and with different life experiences can work together toward a common goal."
Rodgers, speaking before the players' statement was released, said what the Packers are doing is not a protest.
"This is about equality," the quarterback said. "This is about unity and love and growing together as a society and starting a conversation around something that may be a little bit uncomfortable for people. But we've got to come together and talk about these things and grow as a community, as a connected group of individuals in our society, and we're going to continue to show love and unity, and this week we're going to ask the fans to join in as well and come together and show people that we can be connected and we can grow together."
www.espn.com What a positive development! I was expecting everybody to double down on kneeling for another week. I'll give you credit for recognizing this as closer to what you want. Why do you think so many people don't see a difference between the two? Loaded question aside, I thought his/their cheerleaders doing their thing would prevail. There was certainly pressure to keep it up unchanged. It looks like smarter heads prevailed. Don't think it was loaded, but not surprised you didn't answer. ClutZ got it, people made up their mind and it's not on the side of recognizing the grave injustice that is the massive abuses of people's constitutional rights, regardless of color. I mean, I think it is a loophole. Either you think police brutality is bad, and that the appropriate time to voice your complaint is during the national anthem, or you don't. Maybe you don't think police brutality is a big problem, or maybe you prefer to protest at a different time. However, once you decide you think its a big problem, and the anthem is a good time to protest you don't get to be like, "actually I am just locking arms for unity" and expect people to accept that as an actual representation of what you think. We all know what these players think, and now we also know that they think that they are super-geniuses that can trick ordinary people with idiotic loopholes they make up during their morning hottubbing.
If one thinks the injustice is a fraction as bad as it is (regardless of race) then they wouldn't object to it being during the anthem or pretty much anywhere else. There's a reason MLK jr had an abysmal approval rating before he was assassinated.
|
On September 29 2017 09:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Actually this is kinda mixed.
While some of the rather moderate will act or honestly be shocked about such a statement, here's a post from the EU thread that contains a connection of AfD members quotes, some high ranking.
On September 29 2017 13:15 fronkschnonk wrote:But is the CSU copying the populists though? They never were known as very cosmopolitan  And for the scariness of AfD, here are some quotes of quite popular members (many of them in Bundestag now): Gauland to commissioner for integration Özoguz (after she said that german culture is more marked by regional influences and therefore very diverse and no specific general culture of Germany exists): "Invite her to the Eichsfeld and tell her, what specific german culture is. Then she'll never come back here, and then - thank God - we'll be able to depollute her in Anatolia." Beatrix von Storch about refugees at the border: Storch: "People who enter from austria don't have the right of asylum (...). If they don't accept the STOP at the border, "the police officers of border service can use firearms even against persons"" (cited from a german law). Facebook User: "That's idiocy. Do you want to prevent access of women with children at the "green line" (german term for unoffical border crossing points) with armed force?" Storch: "Yes" Höcke about the holocaust memorial in Berlin: "We Germans, our people, are the only people of the word that has planted a monument of shame in the heart of it's capital." Poggenburg about little participation of muslims in protests against war and terror: "Islam represents terror, violence & co, shy should muslims demonstrate against that?" Dubravko Mandic: "We are distincted from the NPD (nationalsocialist party) mainly by our civil suppoters not so much by our topics." Gauland: "We have to close borders and then withstand the cruel scenes." Gauland again: "If the french are rightfully proud of their emperor and the Britains of Nelson and Churchill, then we have the right to be proud of the accomplishments of german soldiers in two worldwars." Aaaand Gauland on german football star Jerome Boateng: "The people like him as football player. But they don't want a Boateng as a neighbour." Dubravko Mandic about Barack Obama: "Quota nigger" (Quotenneger) Storch: "I propose to check, at what stage tax fraud is justified as self-defence." Armin Paul Hampel on arson attacks on homes for asylum-seekers: „I really don't want to downplay this, but it's obvious that a large part of those socalled arson attacks is caused by the refugees themselves."
|
On September 29 2017 15:22 Artisreal wrote:Actually this is kinda mixed. While some of the rather moderate will act or honestly be shocked about such a statement, here's a post from the EU thread that contains a connection of AfD members quotes, some high ranking. Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 13:15 fronkschnonk wrote:But is the CSU copying the populists though? They never were known as very cosmopolitan And for the scariness of AfD, here are some quotes of quite popular members (many of them in Bundestag now): Gauland to commissioner for integration Özoguz (after she said that german culture is more marked by regional influences and therefore very diverse and no specific general culture of Germany exists): "Invite her to the Eichsfeld and tell her, what specific german culture is. Then she'll never come back here, and then - thank God - we'll be able to depollute her in Anatolia." Beatrix von Storch about refugees at the border: Storch: "People who enter from austria don't have the right of asylum (...). If they don't accept the STOP at the border, "the police officers of border service can use firearms even against persons"" (cited from a german law). Facebook User: "That's idiocy. Do you want to prevent access of women with children at the "green line" (german term for unoffical border crossing points) with armed force?" Storch: "Yes" Höcke about the holocaust memorial in Berlin: "We Germans, our people, are the only people of the word that has planted a monument of shame in the heart of it's capital." Poggenburg about little participation of muslims in protests against war and terror: "Islam represents terror, violence & co, shy should muslims demonstrate against that?" Dubravko Mandic: "We are distincted from the NPD (nationalsocialist party) mainly by our civil suppoters not so much by our topics." Gauland: "We have to close borders and then withstand the cruel scenes." Gauland again: "If the french are rightfully proud of their emperor and the Britains of Nelson and Churchill, then we have the right to be proud of the accomplishments of german soldiers in two worldwars." Aaaand Gauland on german football star Jerome Boateng: "The people like him as football player. But they don't want a Boateng as a neighbour." Dubravko Mandic about Barack Obama: "Quota nigger" (Quotenneger) Storch: "I propose to check, at what stage tax fraud is justified as self-defence." Armin Paul Hampel on arson attacks on homes for asylum-seekers: „I really don't want to downplay this, but it's obvious that a large part of those socalled arson attacks is caused by the refugees themselves."
Gauland again:
"If the french are rightfully proud of their emperor and the Britains of Nelson and Churchill, then we have the right to be proud of the accomplishments of german soldiers in two worldwars."
I thought that one was going to end with "our Führer in ..."
I mean "one of these things is not like the other ones"... At least there's no signs of it being a slippery slope toward anything dangerous.
|
On September 29 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 15:08 cLutZ wrote:On September 29 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 13:16 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 09:49 Nevuk wrote:Football players aren't just kneeling anymore. https://twitter.com/packers/status/913561279402475520In a statement released Tuesday night, the players said coaches and staff will join them with arms intertwined to represent a coming together of people who want "freedom, equality, tolerance, understanding and justice for those who have been unjustly treated, discriminated against or otherwise treated unfairly."
"Those of us joining arms on Thursday will be different in so many ways, but one thing that binds us together is that we are all individuals who want to help make our society, our country and our world a better place," the players said in the statement. "We believe that in diversity there can be UNI-versity. Intertwined, we represent the many people who helped build this country, and we are joining together to show that we are ready to continue to build.
"Let's work together to build a society that is more fair and just."
The statement, which called the NFL family "one of the most diverse communities in the world," noted how the game of football brings people together.
"The eclectic group of players that you root for, the coaches you admire, the people you sit next to in the stands, those high-fiving on military bases, fans at the sports bar or during tailgate parties -- we all come from different walks of life and have unique backgrounds and stories," the statement said.
"The game of football brings people together. As NFL players, we are a living testimony that individuals from different backgrounds and with different life experiences can work together toward a common goal."
Rodgers, speaking before the players' statement was released, said what the Packers are doing is not a protest.
"This is about equality," the quarterback said. "This is about unity and love and growing together as a society and starting a conversation around something that may be a little bit uncomfortable for people. But we've got to come together and talk about these things and grow as a community, as a connected group of individuals in our society, and we're going to continue to show love and unity, and this week we're going to ask the fans to join in as well and come together and show people that we can be connected and we can grow together."
www.espn.com What a positive development! I was expecting everybody to double down on kneeling for another week. I'll give you credit for recognizing this as closer to what you want. Why do you think so many people don't see a difference between the two? Loaded question aside, I thought his/their cheerleaders doing their thing would prevail. There was certainly pressure to keep it up unchanged. It looks like smarter heads prevailed. Don't think it was loaded, but not surprised you didn't answer. ClutZ got it, people made up their mind and it's not on the side of recognizing the grave injustice that is the massive abuses of people's constitutional rights, regardless of color. I mean, I think it is a loophole. Either you think police brutality is bad, and that the appropriate time to voice your complaint is during the national anthem, or you don't. Maybe you don't think police brutality is a big problem, or maybe you prefer to protest at a different time. However, once you decide you think its a big problem, and the anthem is a good time to protest you don't get to be like, "actually I am just locking arms for unity" and expect people to accept that as an actual representation of what you think. We all know what these players think, and now we also know that they think that they are super-geniuses that can trick ordinary people with idiotic loopholes they make up during their morning hottubbing. If one thinks the injustice is a fraction as bad as it is (regardless of race) then they wouldn't object to it being during the anthem or pretty much anywhere else. There's a reason MLK jr had an abysmal approval rating before he was assassinated.
That is a non-sequitur to the first thing I responded to.
|
On September 29 2017 16:09 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 15:08 cLutZ wrote:On September 29 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 13:16 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 09:49 Nevuk wrote:Football players aren't just kneeling anymore. https://twitter.com/packers/status/913561279402475520In a statement released Tuesday night, the players said coaches and staff will join them with arms intertwined to represent a coming together of people who want "freedom, equality, tolerance, understanding and justice for those who have been unjustly treated, discriminated against or otherwise treated unfairly."
"Those of us joining arms on Thursday will be different in so many ways, but one thing that binds us together is that we are all individuals who want to help make our society, our country and our world a better place," the players said in the statement. "We believe that in diversity there can be UNI-versity. Intertwined, we represent the many people who helped build this country, and we are joining together to show that we are ready to continue to build.
"Let's work together to build a society that is more fair and just."
The statement, which called the NFL family "one of the most diverse communities in the world," noted how the game of football brings people together.
"The eclectic group of players that you root for, the coaches you admire, the people you sit next to in the stands, those high-fiving on military bases, fans at the sports bar or during tailgate parties -- we all come from different walks of life and have unique backgrounds and stories," the statement said.
"The game of football brings people together. As NFL players, we are a living testimony that individuals from different backgrounds and with different life experiences can work together toward a common goal."
Rodgers, speaking before the players' statement was released, said what the Packers are doing is not a protest.
"This is about equality," the quarterback said. "This is about unity and love and growing together as a society and starting a conversation around something that may be a little bit uncomfortable for people. But we've got to come together and talk about these things and grow as a community, as a connected group of individuals in our society, and we're going to continue to show love and unity, and this week we're going to ask the fans to join in as well and come together and show people that we can be connected and we can grow together."
www.espn.com What a positive development! I was expecting everybody to double down on kneeling for another week. I'll give you credit for recognizing this as closer to what you want. Why do you think so many people don't see a difference between the two? Loaded question aside, I thought his/their cheerleaders doing their thing would prevail. There was certainly pressure to keep it up unchanged. It looks like smarter heads prevailed. Don't think it was loaded, but not surprised you didn't answer. ClutZ got it, people made up their mind and it's not on the side of recognizing the grave injustice that is the massive abuses of people's constitutional rights, regardless of color. I mean, I think it is a loophole. Either you think police brutality is bad, and that the appropriate time to voice your complaint is during the national anthem, or you don't. Maybe you don't think police brutality is a big problem, or maybe you prefer to protest at a different time. However, once you decide you think its a big problem, and the anthem is a good time to protest you don't get to be like, "actually I am just locking arms for unity" and expect people to accept that as an actual representation of what you think. We all know what these players think, and now we also know that they think that they are super-geniuses that can trick ordinary people with idiotic loopholes they make up during their morning hottubbing. If one thinks the injustice is a fraction as bad as it is (regardless of race) then they wouldn't object to it being during the anthem or pretty much anywhere else. There's a reason MLK jr had an abysmal approval rating before he was assassinated. That is a non-sequitur to the first thing I responded to.
I take your point about "loophole' and was suggesting there's no one upset about the "loophole" that recognizes a fraction of the injustice they are "loopholing" against.
|
On September 29 2017 16:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 16:09 cLutZ wrote:On September 29 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 15:08 cLutZ wrote:On September 29 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 13:16 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 09:49 Nevuk wrote:Football players aren't just kneeling anymore. https://twitter.com/packers/status/913561279402475520In a statement released Tuesday night, the players said coaches and staff will join them with arms intertwined to represent a coming together of people who want "freedom, equality, tolerance, understanding and justice for those who have been unjustly treated, discriminated against or otherwise treated unfairly."
"Those of us joining arms on Thursday will be different in so many ways, but one thing that binds us together is that we are all individuals who want to help make our society, our country and our world a better place," the players said in the statement. "We believe that in diversity there can be UNI-versity. Intertwined, we represent the many people who helped build this country, and we are joining together to show that we are ready to continue to build.
"Let's work together to build a society that is more fair and just."
The statement, which called the NFL family "one of the most diverse communities in the world," noted how the game of football brings people together.
"The eclectic group of players that you root for, the coaches you admire, the people you sit next to in the stands, those high-fiving on military bases, fans at the sports bar or during tailgate parties -- we all come from different walks of life and have unique backgrounds and stories," the statement said.
"The game of football brings people together. As NFL players, we are a living testimony that individuals from different backgrounds and with different life experiences can work together toward a common goal."
Rodgers, speaking before the players' statement was released, said what the Packers are doing is not a protest.
"This is about equality," the quarterback said. "This is about unity and love and growing together as a society and starting a conversation around something that may be a little bit uncomfortable for people. But we've got to come together and talk about these things and grow as a community, as a connected group of individuals in our society, and we're going to continue to show love and unity, and this week we're going to ask the fans to join in as well and come together and show people that we can be connected and we can grow together."
www.espn.com What a positive development! I was expecting everybody to double down on kneeling for another week. I'll give you credit for recognizing this as closer to what you want. Why do you think so many people don't see a difference between the two? Loaded question aside, I thought his/their cheerleaders doing their thing would prevail. There was certainly pressure to keep it up unchanged. It looks like smarter heads prevailed. Don't think it was loaded, but not surprised you didn't answer. ClutZ got it, people made up their mind and it's not on the side of recognizing the grave injustice that is the massive abuses of people's constitutional rights, regardless of color. I mean, I think it is a loophole. Either you think police brutality is bad, and that the appropriate time to voice your complaint is during the national anthem, or you don't. Maybe you don't think police brutality is a big problem, or maybe you prefer to protest at a different time. However, once you decide you think its a big problem, and the anthem is a good time to protest you don't get to be like, "actually I am just locking arms for unity" and expect people to accept that as an actual representation of what you think. We all know what these players think, and now we also know that they think that they are super-geniuses that can trick ordinary people with idiotic loopholes they make up during their morning hottubbing. If one thinks the injustice is a fraction as bad as it is (regardless of race) then they wouldn't object to it being during the anthem or pretty much anywhere else. There's a reason MLK jr had an abysmal approval rating before he was assassinated. That is a non-sequitur to the first thing I responded to. I take your point about "loophole' and was suggesting there's no one upset about the "loophole" that recognizes a fraction of the injustice they are "loopholing" against.
But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc.
Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take.
Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest.
By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not.
|
On September 29 2017 16:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 16:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 16:09 cLutZ wrote:On September 29 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 15:08 cLutZ wrote:On September 29 2017 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2017 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2017 13:16 Danglars wrote:What a positive development! I was expecting everybody to double down on kneeling for another week. I'll give you credit for recognizing this as closer to what you want. Why do you think so many people don't see a difference between the two? Loaded question aside, I thought his/their cheerleaders doing their thing would prevail. There was certainly pressure to keep it up unchanged. It looks like smarter heads prevailed. Don't think it was loaded, but not surprised you didn't answer. ClutZ got it, people made up their mind and it's not on the side of recognizing the grave injustice that is the massive abuses of people's constitutional rights, regardless of color. I mean, I think it is a loophole. Either you think police brutality is bad, and that the appropriate time to voice your complaint is during the national anthem, or you don't. Maybe you don't think police brutality is a big problem, or maybe you prefer to protest at a different time. However, once you decide you think its a big problem, and the anthem is a good time to protest you don't get to be like, "actually I am just locking arms for unity" and expect people to accept that as an actual representation of what you think. We all know what these players think, and now we also know that they think that they are super-geniuses that can trick ordinary people with idiotic loopholes they make up during their morning hottubbing. If one thinks the injustice is a fraction as bad as it is (regardless of race) then they wouldn't object to it being during the anthem or pretty much anywhere else. There's a reason MLK jr had an abysmal approval rating before he was assassinated. That is a non-sequitur to the first thing I responded to. I take your point about "loophole' and was suggesting there's no one upset about the "loophole" that recognizes a fraction of the injustice they are "loopholing" against. But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc. Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take. Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest. By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not.
Well yeah, if you look at the injustice and think "how disrespectful to the anthem" you don't understand the injustice. SO if after learning about the whole thing one comes to the conclusion "this is a loophole and they should have apologized" they don't recognize why he was kneeling in the first place.
Of course they are full of shit anyway because it doesn't have anything to do with the anthem or especially the flag.
|
On September 29 2017 16:58 cLutZ wrote:...
But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc.
Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take.
Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest.
By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not.
I don't think this new thing is intended as an apology as such. I doubt anybody is apologising for holding the opinion that equality and justice are more important than doing something unobtrusive while a song's being played.
|
On September 29 2017 17:38 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 16:58 cLutZ wrote:...
But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc.
Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take.
Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest.
By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not. I don't think this new thing is intended as an apology as such. I doubt anybody is apologising for holding the opinion that equality and justice are more important than doing something unobtrusive while a song's being played.
I bolded that part because the people who really care would find that characterization so wrong that they would laugh at your (at best). You and GH make it quite clear why the players thought they could get away with the little change, and its because they are convinced that the two points I initially pointed out are basically uncontroversial and true beyond any reasonable doubt. These are positions that are so far disconnected from the reality on the ground (particularly the one where you call the Anthem+Flag "a song") that the differences are probably irreconcilable.
That's really all there is, one side doesn't understand why you are so upset with what they perceive to be appropriate police action, and the other side doesn't understand how you can get upset when traditions, symbols, etc of the country are not observed.
|
On September 29 2017 17:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 17:38 Aquanim wrote:On September 29 2017 16:58 cLutZ wrote:...
But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc.
Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take.
Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest.
By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not. I don't think this new thing is intended as an apology as such. I doubt anybody is apologising for holding the opinion that equality and justice are more important than doing something unobtrusive while a song's being played. I bolded that part because the people who really care would find that characterization so wrong that they would laugh at your (at best). You and GH make it quite clear why the players thought they could get away with the little change, and its because they are convinced that the two points I initially pointed out are basically uncontroversial and true beyond any reasonable doubt. These are positions that are so far disconnected from the reality on the ground (particularly the one where you call the Anthem+Flag "a song") that the differences are probably irreconcilable. That's really all there is, one side doesn't understand why you are so upset with what they perceive to be appropriate police action, and the other side doesn't understand how you can get upset when traditions, symbols, etc of the country are not observed.
I expect my opinion doesn't represent that of even most people who are behind this protest with respect to the "just a song" bit.
Also to further clarify, I understand how and why people get upset when traditions and symbols aren't observed. I just think that caring more about that than about realities is a symptom of nationalism and similar memes that does far more harm than good, and that soft-footing around that and similar memes indefinitely is not viable.
Furthermore, I think that the expectation that people should only do things which are liked by a large majority of their country/peers/whatever is not a reasonable expectation for any action, much less one intended to disrupt the current status quo.
|
On September 29 2017 17:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2017 17:38 Aquanim wrote:On September 29 2017 16:58 cLutZ wrote:...
But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc.
Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take.
Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest.
By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not. I don't think this new thing is intended as an apology as such. I doubt anybody is apologising for holding the opinion that equality and justice are more important than doing something unobtrusive while a song's being played. I bolded that part because the people who really care would find that characterization so wrong that they would laugh at your (at best). You and GH make it quite clear why the players thought they could get away with the little change, and its because they are convinced that the two points I initially pointed out are basically uncontroversial and true beyond any reasonable doubt. These are positions that are so far disconnected from the reality on the ground (particularly the one where you call the Anthem+Flag "a song") that the differences are probably irreconcilable. That's really all there is, one side doesn't understand why you are so upset with what they perceive to be appropriate police action, and the other side doesn't understand how you can get upset when traditions, symbols, etc of the country are not observed.
There's no one arguing that police are well trained and doing a good job except the police and people ignoring the inexcusable lack of deescalation, and generally bad job they do with poor white people so they can focus on what they view as a legitimate infringement or complete disregard for the rights of PoC.
By focus on it, I mean blame the way PoC have brought up that 200+ years later it still hasn't been fixed as en excuse for not dealing with the underlying problems (or dismiss PoC outright).
|
I mean wasn't the point of the protest to offend and create controversy in order to bring attention to the issues that they want raised? I don't understand the conversation the left is having about how it isn't divisive and offensive when if it wasn't it wouldn't have been a protest in the first place.
Like gh can you at least say you legitimately think the flag and anthem is worth respecting enough to protest to bring light to injustice? Why else would someone protest then of all times?
|
On September 29 2017 21:56 Sermokala wrote:
I mean wasn't the point of the protest to offend and create controversy in order to bring attention to the issues that they want raised? I don't understand the conversation the left is having about how it isn't divisive and offensive when if it wasn't it wouldn't have been a protest in the first place.
Like gh can you at least say you legitimately think the flag and anthem is worth respecting enough to protest to bring light to injustice? Why else would someone protest then of all times?
Because the anthem is a time where most people are tuned in yet nothing else is happening to pay attention to.
They cant protest during the game because their playing. After the game people go to other channels or are busy leaving the stadium. So the time to protest is before the game, which is when the anthem is played.
|
Visibility is always a big part of protest. It is supposed to promote discussion through forcing people to pay attention to the problem they are protesting. It is impossible to please everyone, but in this case the act of kneeling is an active attempt to protest while still being respectful.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 29 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I have a friend who's stuck in PR, from Boston, went to PR for vacation, and his return flight got cancelled (He was suppose to fly back Tuesday) because of Hurricane Maria. Today he was legit in a line waiting since 5am at Royal Carribean, one of the first 20 there. Royal Carribean didn't let him on board of a 3800 passenger ship because he didn't stay in a "Hotel". He also said they only let 800 people on board an empty ship.
He said there is a huge need for water over there. Showers have turned into couple cups of water on your body. Removing this Jones act hopefully will help move supplies to PR much faster, but the overall damage is really fucking bad.
Shit is getting scarce, and bad. They're hoping to start restoring flights by mid Oct. Right now Jetblue is one of the few that is flying in and out consistently, and that's with no radar, and only three-four planes.
|
|
|
On September 29 2017 00:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2017 23:35 Doodsmack wrote:
This has gotten very personal between Trump and McCain now lol. Mostly just with the former of course. And no he's not just "hitting back twice as hard". Getting into piss fights with McCain is a worthy endeavor, to be fair. He certainly deserves more shit than non-Trump individuals are willing to give him.
Not on the basis of his military service, age or health condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
