Print

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

[smjjames]

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.

If people are being 'triggered' by you protesting, then that usually means the protest is working. The point of protesting is to upset the status quo and let their grievances be known.

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.

I know, but some people are going to get triggered and be upset regardless.

[Reelya]

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.

Screw not being offensive. The whole conservative movement is talking about how people on the Left are too sensitive to minor offense. The Right can't suddenly act all cry-baby when it suits them, and still go on about how bad PC culture is.

Someone kneeled during the anthem, just get over it, crybabies. This is the real world, where people do things that make you "slightly uncomfortable" and you just get over it. Seriously the same people telling us to shut up about school shootings are whining about kneeling.

[smjjames]

Yes, and the NFL can reply in whatever means they see fit within the power they hold as... does the NFL technically employ the players? Not sure how that works; my corporate law knowledge is sketchy.

NFL could also randomly ban players based on a screw-you roulette game held every Sunday. They're beholden to their bottom line. That's how capitalism works. Perhaps the change might lie there.

The player union can still put the screws on them, a player strike is the last thing the NFL wants.

@Reelya: Yep, those on the right who complain about the left being 'snowflakes' are just as snowflakey (or is it snowflaky?), sometimes worse, as the left are, exhibit 1: Trump.

[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.

If people are being 'triggered' by you protesting, then that usually means the protest is working. The point of protesting is to upset the status quo and let their grievances be known.

That only works though if people are becoming upset in response to awareness of the inequity which protesters are endeavoring to draw attention to. In this instance, people are not upset about racial inequality, they are upset by unpatriotic and disrespectful behavior.
Again, it's not acceptable or effective to draw attention to one problem by creating another completely different problem.

[Reelya]

Also consider the Streisand Effect. Someone like Trump talking about it makes it into a national issue. The point of the protests is that people start noticing it, and that part is working. Politely addressing an issue is too easy to ignore. Ghandi didn't win by writing letters to the British, he won through acts of civil disobedience, which offended the status-quo.

Damage control from the media that's opposed to the protests is then the "who even knows know why they're protesting?" line, because they know that if they mention the reason for the protests they risk drawing attention to the actual issue the protests are about, and they don't want to do that. So they make it all about the kneeling.

[Il Palazzo]

Again, it's not acceptable or effective to draw attention to one problem by creating another completely different problem.

Don't you people have union strikes over there? 'Round here, in the socialist paradise, they're usually super effective.

[Reelya]

American unions were crushed long ago.

[Teneb]

NFL could also randomly ban players based on a screw-you roulette game held every Sunday. They're beholden to their bottom line. That's how capitalism works. Perhaps the change might lie there.

And if the players keep kneeling despite bans, it will reach a point where the NFL will either have too few players left or be forced to relent.

[smjjames]

Again, it's not acceptable or effective to draw attention to one problem by creating another completely different problem.

Don't you people have union strikes over there? 'Round here, in the socialist paradise, they're usually super effective.

They happen, yes, but unions have been hammered for decades and aren't as strong as they once were. Obviously the NFL player union is strong enough to get the NFL to suspend the rule and as I said, a player strike is absolutely the last thing the NFL wants. However, the protests aren't about the NFL, so, a strike would only go so far I guess.

American unions were crushed long ago.

Some still exist, but yes, they got crushed long ago.

[Trekkin]

NFL could also randomly ban players based on a screw-you roulette game held every Sunday. They're beholden to their bottom line. That's how capitalism works. Perhaps the change might lie there.

And if the players keep kneeling despite bans, it will reach a point where the NFL will either have too few players left or be forced to relent.

One could say they will be brought to their knees. At which point one assumes they will be lambasted for unpatriotic metaphors.

[Folly]

people are not upset about racial inequality, they are upset by unpatriotic and disrespectful behavior.

By "people" i assume you mean that you are personally upset by unpatriotic displays, and that's the real point behind all your arguments.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not personally offended by the kneeling. I do however try to look at the situation objectively, and the situation as I've heard it reported is that a significant percentage of the football viewing audience have interpreted the kneeling as disrespectful.

As to the point behind my arguments, that gets back to the original post from this tangent wherein Trump tweeted that he believes these kneelers have failed to effectively communicate the specific nature of their grievances, which is a stance I find myself in agreement with.

[smjjames]

Trump is Trump though, he couldn't understand it if he tried. Hell, he tried to offer the players to give him some names to pardon, which isn't going to fix anything.

edit: Or perhaps he could actually make an effort to understand the problem by having some of them over for a listening session. If he doesn't understand, all he has to do is freaking ask!

[hector13]

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.

Unfortunately the US has a principle of freedom of expression, and to suggest that a billion dollar company’s bottom line takes precedence over that is cuntishness of the highest order.

Wikipedia article on the matter. Googling would also answer your initial question, particularly considering it’s been going on for two years.

Also re: people being offended by players kneeling, apparently engaging in unpatriotic behaviour: do you think the US should be proud of the way the police deal with black people and minorities? D you think the US should be proud that black folks have to hold seminars to teach their kids how to deal with the police? Do you think that the US should be proud that the police- “to serve and protect” - kill more people in the US in a year than some countries have in decades?

Post before my phone battery runs out. I don’t have the rhetorical ability to adequately articulate how ridiculous I find this discussion.

[Rolan7]

That you agree with message behind the protest isn't relevant.  What if players were raising a fist... or perhaps, an open hand, at a 45 degree angle, in defense of "border security"?

I agree that the Right plays dirty, but the question is whether athletes should be allowed to perform low-key political messages before their games.

I think the answer is yes, it ought to be allowed.  However, will their *employer* threaten to terminate their contract over it?  That's fair game, as far as I see it.  The protest has no impact if there are no stakes.  People losing their (obscenely lucrative) careers over this issue only strengthens their message.

Trying to prevent them from being fired... deflates the whole protest.
Which is still a misguided protest in my *very* humble opinion, but I have a lot of respect for the participants.

[Reelya]

Also there's the point, as per the wikipedia article, that the players weren't even on the field during the anthem until 2009, then by 2016 they were "encouraged" to stand, and later were demanded to stand, or else. Now, the President is saying stand to attention or we should ship your black asses out of the country.

All while the Department of Defense poured millions of dollars of taxpayers money in to encourage these patriotic displays. If that isn't seriously compromised and already politicized, i don't know what is. Sure, blame the players for kneeling, but this is a recent situation that the NFL and the DoD actually created the tinder for, by trying to hamfistedly force people to act patriotic. Using government money to coerce people to behave in patriotic displays then freaking out when they don't comply isn't democratic, it's a downright fascistic tendency. I thought Big Government was a bad thing, and this type of thing is the most extreme form of Big Government: thoughtcrime.