Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Folly]

When "people are deliberately ignoring us" is among those problems, though, it becomes understandable why clarity of expression might be less important than volume, if you will. You can't dialogue with people ex nihilo about why they won't talk to you.

In that light, the simple fact that you're complaining about not understanding what they're saying is indicative of a state of affairs preferable to nobody noticing they had something to say at all, which has long been the default.

A man and his wife have a disagreement, the wife refuses to see things the man's way, so he punches her in the face. Afterwards he says he did not want to hurt her, he just needed to get her attention. Does that make it okay?

Having valid concerns that people are refusing to listen to does not excuse recklessly acting out.

[Doomblade187]

When "people are deliberately ignoring us" is among those problems, though, it becomes understandable why clarity of expression might be less important than volume, if you will. You can't dialogue with people ex nihilo about why they won't talk to you.

In that light, the simple fact that you're complaining about not understanding what they're saying is indicative of a state of affairs preferable to nobody noticing they had something to say at all, which has long been the default.

A man and his wife have a disagreement, the wife refuses to see things the man's way, so he punches her in the face. Afterwards he says he did not want to hurt her, he just needed to get her attention. Does that make it okay?

Having valid concerns that people are refusing to listen to does not excuse recklessly acting out.

The thing is, they aren't recklessly acting out. They're just kneeling during the national anthem. That's not the same as assault/battery.

[smjjames]

The athletes aren't punching anybody in the face, so, that analogy doesn't work, and how is kneeling on a football field 'recklessly acting out'? Or for that matter, how is protesting peacefully 'recklessly acting out? You're making no sense here.

Ninja'd, but I put some attitude into it.

[Egan_BW]

its frikkin kneeling

[Doomblade187]

its frikkin kneeling

Egan said it best.

[smjjames]

its frikkin kneeling

Exactly. Folly, I really don't see where you're coming from with the analogy of punching someone in the face or even where you're getting the idea that protesting peacefully the way they're doing is equivalent to punching someone in the face.

Or to make it short and plain, folly, you're equating protesting peacefully with a violent act, do you see how you're not making sense here?

[Rolan7]

its frikkin kneeling

Yeah, really.

Though I do agree that it's a bit... vague.  I'm hesitant to fault that, though, because I think it's simple by design.  Going out on the field and reading out a manifesto, or even a short statement, would be... overriding the purpose of the event.

Whereas kneeling is so simple that it seems like a natural thing to do, like saluting or putting a hand on one's heart.  It respects the ceremony, while also being distinctive enough to serve as a reminder.  Kneeling is the exact opposite of disrespect!  In this situation, it's a symbolic gesture that doesn't interrupt.

Still, I don't know exactly what they mean by it.  I blame the media for that, mostly.  It's my fault for not researching what it means for various individual players, but that's kinda what the media is *for*.

My sense is that it's a protest of police brutality specifically against black people, but I hope it is a general protest against police brutality.  Even though I think that concern is vastly overblown, I hope the protest is race-blind.

[smjjames]

The thing is that some people get triggered when you interject politics into sports, so, even though kneeling/raise fisting in itself doesn't disrupt or interrupt things, it still triggers those who don't want politics in their sports.

[Folly]

Personally I agree that kneeling does not seem like a big deal.
However, I do have to acknowledge that many other people are very upset by this action, and in turn this ends up costing the NFL ridiculous amounts of money when viewership declines over the issue. A massive loss of revenue and upset feelings are not exactly the same as acts of physical violence, but it's the same principle. Acting out in harmful ways is not okay just because you're being ignored.

[Trekkin]

Personally I agree that kneeling does not seem like a big deal.
However, I do have to acknowledge that many other people are very upset by this action, and in turn this ends up costing the NFL ridiculous amounts of money when viewership declines over the issue. A massive loss of revenue and upset feelings are not exactly the same as acts of physical violence, but it's the same principle. Acting out in harmful ways is not okay just because you're being ignored.

So black people can protest as long as white people don't lose money or get upset?

EDIT: And if they do, it's morally equivalent to physical violence?

[Reelya]

"who knows what they're protesting about? Do they even know themselves?" is one of the oldest lines in the book for dismissing a protest.

However I suspect that if the actual point of the protest is pointed out the goalposts will shift first to "but it's not really a relevant form of protest" and ultimately to "is police brutality really a 'national' issue?" and if that one was addressed it would become "is police brutality really a race issue?"

This is the most common pattern. Someone's already decided which "side" of an issue they're on and will always and only present arguments that back up their "side". Someone who's actually open to debate will consider points both for and against something, altering their position as new evidence is presented, while someone who already made their mind up will consider all  actual new evidence to be irrelevant and will just present an endless number of unrelated arguments/points that are thinly veiled rationalizations for their original opinion/bias, as each previous one is debunked.

Comparing kneeling during the anthem to "beating your wife" would seem to be one such non-sequiter argument that only serves to justify the origional biased opinion. It certainly has no logical connection whatsoever to any of the original complaints, so it fits the pattern "come up with endless random, unrelated and illogical reasons to justify not liking something".

I mean, if someone just constantly comes up with random reasons to dislike something, then either they are the one who doesn't quite know why they don't like it, or more likely they have some other, unspoken reason for not liking it which they know is not socially acceptable. For example in this case it could be "fuck those unpatriotric non-flag worshippers" or something, which the guy realizes would not fly as a reason if stated openly.

[Teneb]

Upset feelings are sometimes necessary for change to happen. If everyone is content, there is no impetus for change.

The thing is that some people get triggered when you interject politics into sports, so, even though kneeling/raise fisting in itself doesn't disrupt or interrupt things, it still triggers those who don't want politics in their sports.

Culture is politics, and politics is culture. It is outright impossible to separate them. To pretend otherwise is silly.

[Folly]

So black people can protest as long as white people don't lose money or get upset?

It's not about what people of a specific skin color can do, but rather about what people of any skin color should do. And yes, people should strive to find ways of expressing themselves without offending others. And more pointedly, when trying to make a point or change someone's opinions, one is more likely to succeed if they can find a way to communicate without being offensive.

[Lord Shonus]

Personally I agree that kneeling does not seem like a big deal.
However, I do have to acknowledge that many other people are very upset by this action, and in turn this ends up costing the NFL ridiculous amounts of money when viewership declines over the issue. A massive loss of revenue and upset feelings are not exactly the same as acts of physical violence, but it's the same principle. Acting out in harmful ways is not okay just because you're being ignored.

There isn't much evidence to support loss of ratings. Ratings have dipped the last couple of years, but that's more likely to be caused by the concussion issue and the three-ring-circus of the 2016 election in general.

[smjjames]

Bad or poorly explained analogy then, okay.

Also, wasn't it Trump who basically pressured the NFL to do what they did? They caved right in to Trump, and also didn't work with the players union, which is why it got put on hold and the NFL is in the position they are in. The way that the NFL reacted to it is all on them, not the players.

Sure, they could take it off the field, but that's basically like telling LeBron James to 'shut up and dribble'.