And I didn't say "Get out", either. I said if you don't like it here, what's keeping you?
Snubbing/flag burning is a very specific kind of protest. Rationalize it any way you want, but the fact is there's an awful lot of veterans and other people who find flag burning/snubbing the anthem highly offensive. Protestors choose this method of protest, knowing it will offend certain people. So why do it?
It's also a fact patrotism and "Eh, I just work here" sentiments cross idealogy lines. Which is just ridiculous, imo.
You don't see this thing in, say, Israel. Israeli's disagree on a lot, but they're united in one thing: Reverence for Israel, as an entity.
Not so true for the United States... I see a LOT of hate for this country, and equating "patrotism" with racists and rednecks is proof of this.
And the thing that makes me angry, is many, many pundits, progressives, tech gurus, celebrities and such have gotten very, very rich from this country. Very rich. They live like kings and queens. Yet these same people will call this the most racist country on Earth, or say "God damn America", or call themselves "citizens of the world."
You know why I think this is? Because unlike Israel, we're not under rocket attacks every day. We're not in a goddamn warzone, and we don't have a need to come together. We're like ancient Rome in the decline.. People living in relative safety, squabbling over the spoils of this nation.
That's not love. That's parasitism.. Tearing ourselves apart because everyone wants it all, right now, and **** everybody else.
"Get out" might not have been literally stated, but "what's keeping you" is a bit of a flippant question that implies much the same sentiment. You must see the similarity, no?
I don't think love of country is a good thing in and of itself. We may disagree on a fundamental level there. But I also separate "America" into its component parts, so that I can love or hate various aspects based upon my personal values. So like, love of those serving in the armed forces while hating most militaristic foreign policy, which we're guilty of a lot. Love of freedom of speech while detesting the content of some speech. Etc. etc.
So I don't think people are equating patriotism with racism and hate. I think they're rebelling against those who use patriotism as an excuse for racism and hate. Others see enough negative, and begin to wonder if patriotism for a country with more bad than good is, in fact, a good thing. You're right, though, we have it great for the most part (ad I personally think there's a lot more good than bad here).
As for choice of protest, most NFL protesters have gone out of their way to say it ISN'T protesting armed forces, or America as a whole. But they have to choose sometime to protest if they feel so moved, right? So when would you have them do it? If there's a better time, I'm personally all ears. But for a protest to invoke anything meaningful, is has to be a little uncomfortable, and it has to have a lot of eyeballs on it.
Otherwise, you're saying it's offensive, but seem to be ignoring that the reasons they're doing it have nothing to do with why you're offended. I think we should take them at their word that, for example, they greatly respect our armed forces. And they do. So why say you're disrespecting them, when this is clearly about something else? And why monopolize what the anthem or flag means when, to some, it might mean they have the right to protest in defense of the rights the flag stands for?
The Cowboys nailed it, imo. Right message on both fronts.
I think the reason why it's such a big issue is the close-minded insistence that doing anything other than standing, taking your hat off, and putting a hand on your chest for the anthem is an insult anybody who ever served the military. It's really not.
There are many veterans of different wars and eras who have no issue with the kneeling during the anthem protest, and some even support those protesting. Villanueva, a former Army Ranger, is one of them. Do we just ignore their feelings toward the situation?
Villanueva, who was deployed to Afghanistan three times, said he has no issue with players who protest during the anthem and said several have thanked him for his service.
Here's WWII veteran John Middlemas supporting the protest and what it stands for. Even as a survivor of the most infamous wars of the previous century, he doesn't seem to think it's a slap in the face to him or others who fought and died.
"I wanted to communicate what I always told to my grandkids and everybody else," Middlemas told the publication about his support for the athletes. "When they'd go to bed at night, we'd tell the kids we wanted to be like Jesus."
“I'm trying to say that you have to love everybody," he added. “We don't kill people. We want to make people live."
Two things, your first statement is why many here and mainly myself fundamentally disagree with you, and will never agree with you on much of anything. Which is why I try to have as little interaction with you as possible as well, because it pains me to do so.
But you are right on the thing, the cowboys did nail it.
So the guy who initially went and stood(the only guy, the guy who was an army ranger) now apologized and said he regrets what he did. Well, all my respect for the man is gone. What a pussy lol. Is this the country we live in now? An army ranger is embarrassed over not being a pussy and actually standing for the anthem? Are these feelings genuine or did his team just whine at him so much? Doesn't matter either way, he's a chump now. He spit in the face of all the people who have served even more than those kneeling have. Also what a way to shit all over the folk who went out and bought his jersey over his actions.
As for those saying at least this kneeling gets attention, lol no. Not the attention they wanted, this is why it's funny they got trolled by Trump and Trump is enjoying the fiasco, he flat out said this.
Think about it, this was about police brutality. Even when Colin K was wearing his little pig socks(indeed, all he cares about is police brutality which is why he wore those socks), but even then when there was controversy was the conversation about police brutality? Lol nope. It was about 1st amendment rights and disrespecting the flag.
Now, are the protests about police brutality? Are we having serious discussions about it more often? Nope lol, they are just to whine at Trump. That is hilarious to me. Anyways, 500 murders in Chicago and counting. I await all the knee's that will be taken over this.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
Last edited by Surtur on Sep 27th, 2017 at 11:03 AM
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
And the hilarious thing is...I read they break the rules lol. Like, you have to be on the field or in a tunnel or some shit, within 10 minutes of kick off time. Due to protesting not every team has done that, but no fines or discipline have been done to any teams.
So...what other rules is it okay to break for the players? If every member of a team on the field, in solidarity, gets an offsides penalty, does it get removed?
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
This kind of thing comes pretty close to "triggering" me.
Lets unpack this a bit:
The way I see it, the arguments for kneeling encompass a few arguments:
1. Individualism. Let people do what they want, when they want. Who cares if you stand, kneel, sit, whatever.
I can respect this. I don't agree with it, but I can respect it.
The other reason commonly given is:
2. Peaceful protest.
Ok, again, not something I agree with. I think they've done a terrible job of getting the message out why, exactly, they're protesting. To spread awareness? To end specific police practices? Because slavery happened? I dunno, and no one else seems to know.
But I can respect the right to protest.
Here's the triggering things in this article:
1. It makes mention of "doing damage". Why? If this is about individualism, why would player unity even be an issue? Why would a former army ranger disagreeing with his team be newsworthy? Why would a "mistake" be something to own up for?
2. They bring up "Triggering liberals", and talk about "Trump". So, this "isn't" only about protest or individualism, but about idealogy? Liberals vs Trumpers?
Look, I'll play along with the partisan sniping day and night on a private forum, but the fact is I'm not a conservative, and most of my feelings on issues have nothing to do with taking sides. If a conservative does/says something I disagree with, I'll attack them for it.
In fact, I try very much to avoid giving much weight to "sides" when I can avoid it. Because, imo ETHICS are more important then identity politics. So when someone tells me they support a right to protest, I take them at their word that all they really care about is a right to protest.
But when an article starts apologizing because of what Liberals and Conservatives think about the actions of a single individual on the Steelers team, and when when they feel the need to make excuses because of the "damage" it can do, I can't pretend there isn't a lot of ideological baggage sewn up in this thing, with people basing their arguments off of which side they support.
Which is very, very troubling to me. It boils thesr debates down to rhetoric and opportunism disguised as sincerity, and makes me feel like a chump for taking someone at their word that they support an issue for the reasons they say they do every time they say "LOL Trumpers".
I'll let you in on another secret: I except far more from liberals then I do from conservatives.
This is because conservatives claim, outright, that they're for self interest. They want a free society where they and their loved ones can thrive. They don't care about you and yours (Unless they do, but don't EVER force them.)
Liberals, otoh, send a lot of messages about caring for people other then family, friends, personal gain ect.. They're the caring ones. The ones with empathy. The ones who believe in equality, truth, transparency... The ones who don't believe in exploitation, lying, getting rich at everyones expense ect ect ect..
Now, plenty of liberals also admit they aren't perfect, and justify/rationalize the lowest behaviors they do. But the point is, they attack conservatives non stop as the bad guy. And when you attack someone for behaving wrongly, it implies you want to act rightly.
Because if it didn't, what are you even attacking them for? Attacking someone else for being an ******* when you have every intention of acting like an ******* is like two siblings going after each other because one stole all the cookies before the other got the chance..
That saddens me. Interaction with those we disagree with is one of the ways we can grow.
I believe that loving the positive values a country represents is a noble practice. So I do have a lot of love for America. Or, more particularly, for freedom in all its forms, insofar as those freedoms don't harm others. My views on economics and social issues tend to advocate for more freedom than anyone I know on either side of the political spectrum. Problem is, a country can become different than the values it supposedly represents, which is when love of country and love of its values end up as different things. "America" in an abstract sense is only as strong as those values. So I simply choose to adhere to principles and values instead of abstractions that can become warped by time and perception.
It's Nietzche's "state is the new idol" and all that. Or evolutionary tribal mentality, writ large...at least when it becomes perverted. It's easy to become blinded when we don't think critically about our allegiances, and get too dogmatic about specific words, when the concepts they represent are more important. For example, Hitler was one of the strongest nationalist advocates in history, but none of us here are going to say that what he did was right. But "Germany" or "the German people" became perverted abstracts of anything good they might have represented in his narrative. But he preyed upon that nationalism. So it's a hedge against that kind of slippery slope, which we do see in the modern day, albeit on smaller levels.
Do you disagree? Would you love "America" regardless of what it becomes? I suspect we're not too different here; you're just getting caught up on the semantics of it.
You know whats crazy Digi, how easily people use Germany and Hitler as comparisons and examples right now to America, only because Trump, and using the slippery slope lane.
But when I bring up relevant issues like people trying to tear down our history, remove statues, go after the anthem, the flag, even the founding fathers now, its viewed as crazy talk and the "slippery slope" is ignored and laughed at.
Last edited by Sable on Sep 27th, 2017 at 03:05 PM
So its really odd how people fear we are heading down the path of Germany. When we are not, but won't accept the real fact, we are heading down a path to replacing our culture and history with identity politics controlled by the far left psychopaths.
I actually wasn't comparing Hitler to current America. Elements of slippery slope nationalism have existed in every major country in history, but there's no comparison to be made in terms of scope and severity. It's just that he's a great example to use to show why it's important to separate the State from your (and hopefully the State's) core values.
Try not to get bogged down by one name or line that incites your anger. My point was about love of ideals/value/principles, not of the state itself. That's where I doubt we disagree much; and, frankly, where I doubt you disagree with many NFL players. Symbols and words can mean different things to different people, but everyone in this entire debate believes and loves freedom and equality. Everyone. It's important to remember that.
Each topic must be viewed on its own, so I won't disagree with you on the other instances you mention; some may have merit, others may have nuance that makes the case different. But it's not me accusing you of crazy talk or trying to ignore your points. You are remarkably adept at diverting the points of others to ones you can feel indignant about, though, so my main criticism is with the tone of your arguments and how quickly you veer off-topic by misconstruing - deliberately or otherwise - the intents of others.
Fair enough, so back to your main point. it would take me quite a long time to not love America, things would drastically have to make a change for the worse. That for me would be far to the left, I am fine with staying in the center.
The problem I have with the players and football is it's the one place you could turn it off, meaning the politics, noise and political animus. Now it's infiltrated the game. The protests have now turned into Anti Trump protests, instead of "racial injustice."
Like I said, and we agreed on Dallas nailed it as far as the right and respectful time to protest. Some people will think "hey they have the right to do it whenever." But there is always a proper right time and place for things.
Like at a wedding, you would not turn on your phone and start talking loudly while the ceremony is going on. Or if you were in your bosses office, you prolly would not kick your fett up on his desk. It's the do's and dont's things we know are disrespectful, regardless we have the freedom to do those things but we don't.
It's not the race, I do not feel any race is superior to another. It is the culture, and yes: it's the black culture here. It might not be comfortable to acknowledge, but it is the truth. I have been to these communities, they are like DMZ's. That is only a slight exaggeration too btw.
We have mexican gangs too you know, especially in Chicago. The majority of murders here still come from another community though and it is not the hispanic community. Because of the culture you end up with over 50% of homicides being committed by a group that makes up like 13% of our population(Those stats are from the FBI, taken from the 1970s until about 2008 I think). There is death EVERY DAY! Kids set on fire and then shot and killed. We have had shootings at funerals for people who died in shootings. More than one, in the span of like a year. That is utterly insane.
Maybe others can ignore it, but I see it in my city, I see it on the news. It's a specific group doing it, not because of their race but because of their culture here. I won't hold my tongue on it, I can't. I'm so sick of it. I want these players to drive through some of these neighborhoods and then go and say it's the cops they need to worry about. 70% of murders unsolved here too btw, so the "they are only mad no justice was done" excuse goes too, there has been no justice for so many murders. So many black on black murders. Sometimes they happen in broad daylight and nobody comes forward, they blame the cops but no people are scared of the thugs, not the cops.
This is a topic that yes does trigger me. I hate the crime, I hate how it's largely ignored. I hate that we blame it only on poverty and ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to culture.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
Last edited by Surtur on Sep 27th, 2017 at 04:11 PM
In the sense that protests are supposed to be a bit uncomfortable, I think the anthem is a better time than many realize. But from a perspective of having their actual message received, rather than being misinterpreted as it so often has been, yes, timing is very important. Balancing the spotlight and the message is sometimes impossible, but the Cowboys came the closest so far. We agree there.
Kaepernick started it in response to racial injustice. You're right again that it's become less about that, and more about unity and anti-Trump sentiment. But I'd also argue that there isn't a bad reason to peacefully protest if you're passionate enough about it. So saying that the intent behind it has changed is true, but imo isn't a valid enough criticism to call for them to end. I'd say instead that without a unifying message for the protests, they risk being ineffectual. We'll have to wait to see.
And I'm similarly annoyed that football isn't the escape it once was. But I'm also ready to concede that my annoyance isn't reason enough that it should revert to what it was. Sports has - for a long, long time - been a venue for symbolically representing larger issues. The first game in New Orleans after Katrina. Pretty much every sporting event after 9/11. Jackie Robinson trotting out to take his first major league at-bat, to both cheers and boos. Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics. The list could go on. To deny it its place in the public consciousness for more than just the sporting spectacle is to ignore its history. There are other diversions if we need them. Sports may not be among them for some time, and that may not be a bad thing for the country long-term if it forces certain issues into the spotlight for those who would have otherwise buried their heads in the sand watching grown men give each other concussions for entertainment.