Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 437

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

I believe the overwhelming majority in most countries refuse to burn their nation’s flag. I sure haven’t been witness to the maple leaf going up in flames.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

I got a question. Do they play an anthem at UK sporting events?

Yes, at English FA Cup Finals and England international soccer games, as well as other sporting events.

(God Save The Queen is usually played when Great Britain is being represented too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen)
 

Soctland and Wales have recently been playing their own anthems on occasion.

Scotland is usually ‘Flower Of Scotland’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anthem_of_Scotland

Wales is usually ‘Land Of My Fathers’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Wlad_Fy_Nhadau

Northern Ireland occasionally plays ‘Londenderry Air’ when it is representing itself - http://www.nationalanthems.info/nie.htm

Ireland (when playing as a united Ireland) - usually plays ‘Ireland’s Call’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland’s_Call

Weirdly, England doesn’t have a national anthem - though we just play ‘God Save The Queen’

 

Personally God Save The Queen is a shite outdated anthem and would be better replaced by something more inclusive such as Jerusalem, but am sure not everyone in the UK agrees 😉

 

Bet you’re glad you asked now mate? 😃


Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

I believe the overwhelming majority in most countries refuse to burn their nation’s flag. I sure haven’t been witness to the maple leaf going up in flames.

I am sure most people do not burn the flag of their own country, but don’t think it is thought of as being so disrespectful as it is here.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

I think it’s kind of dumb we play the national anthem at sporting events anyway. Why don’t we do it in movie theaters before the trailers or in restaurants before we eat?

I look forward to the day where we all sing the anthem at Golden Carrol.

Author
Time

oojason said:

SilverWook said:

I got a question. Do they play an anthem at UK sporting events?

Yes, at English FA Cup Finals and England international soccer games, as well as other sporting events.

(God Save The Queen is usually played when Great Britain is being represented too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen)
 

Soctland and Wales have recently been playing their own anthems on occasion.

Scotland is usually ‘Flower Of Scotland’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anthem_of_Scotland

Wales is usually ‘Land Of My Fathers’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Wlad_Fy_Nhadau

Northern Ireland occasionally plays ‘Londenderry Air’ when it is representing itself - http://www.nationalanthems.info/nie.htm

Ireland (when playing as a united Ireland) - usually plays ‘Ireland’s Call’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland’s_Call

Weirdly, England doesn’t have a national anthem - though we just play ‘God Save The Queen’

 

Personally God Save The Queen is a shite outdated anthem and would be better replaced by something more inclusive such as Jerusalem, but am sure not everyone in the UK agrees 😉

 

Bet you’re glad you asked now mate? 😃

maybe something different like “Jerusalem” should be used for Great Britain, but I think God Save The King/Queen should still be used for England itself.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Others, especially those around the world (that are allowed to do so) have no qualms protesting against symbols of their own Govt or country when it is failing it’s citizens, or there is an inequality perceived to be taking place with no-little appetite for change.

The raising of awareness for a cause is one of the first and most important steps in the long, slow and difficult road to implementing change. Media suppression or censorship certainly does not help that.

raising awareness in such a shitty way does not inspire me to help them.

People raising awareness in a manner deemed undesirable to you takes prevalence over the cause itself?

…something you hold to be sacred…

But why?

Author
Time

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

I think it’s kind of dumb we play the national anthem at sporting events anyway. Why don’t we do it in movie theaters before the trailers or in restaurants before we eat?

I look forward to the day where we all sing the anthem at Golden Carol.

The best part is how we’ll all sing it at different times. Kind of like this.

https://youtu.be/UclxYOXDgSM?t=29

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I think it’s kind of dumb we play the national anthem at sporting events anyway. Why don’t we do it in movie theaters before the trailers or in restaurants before we eat?

It is just what we do. Somehow, I see a difference between a sporting event and the beginning a movie. Playing it in restaurants before we eat would get ridiculous

You could even argue it’s disrespectful to the anthem to play it before a meaningless sporting event.

I don’t see how.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Special Edition, not southeast.

?

Duracell made a Special Edition joke - USA SE. You know, like Star Wars SE. xyhw misread it as “southeast USA.”

Since when did Lucas cgi America? I don’t get it.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I think it’s kind of dumb we play the national anthem at sporting events anyway. Why don’t we do it in movie theaters before the trailers or in restaurants before we eat?

It is just what we do.

This continues to be a ridiculous defense. Slavery is also used to be “just what we do.”

You could even argue it’s disrespectful to the anthem to play it before a meaningless sporting event.

I don’t see how.

It trivializes something as important as the anthem with something as meaningless and hollow as a baseball game.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Special Edition, not southeast.

?

Duracell made a Special Edition joke - USA SE. You know, like Star Wars SE. xyhw misread it as “southeast USA.”

Since when did Lucas cgi America? I don’t get it.

Go back and read Duracell’s post again. He made a joke. I can’t explain it beyond that.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Others, especially those around the world (that are allowed to do so) have no qualms protesting against symbols of their own Govt or country when it is failing it’s citizens, or there is an inequality perceived to be taking place with no-little appetite for change.

The raising of awareness for a cause is one of the first and most important steps in the long, slow and difficult road to implementing change. Media suppression or censorship certainly does not help that.

raising awareness in such a shitty way does not inspire me to help them.

People raising awareness in a manner deemed undesirable to you takes prevalence over the cause itself?

…something you hold to be sacred…

But why?

I don’t know how to explain to you why I hold to be sacred what I hold to be sacred.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

oojason said:

SilverWook said:

I got a question. Do they play an anthem at UK sporting events?

Yes, at English FA Cup Finals and England international soccer games, as well as other sporting events.

(God Save The Queen is usually played when Great Britain is being represented too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen)
 

Soctland and Wales have recently been playing their own anthems on occasion.

Scotland is usually ‘Flower Of Scotland’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anthem_of_Scotland

Wales is usually ‘Land Of My Fathers’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Wlad_Fy_Nhadau

Northern Ireland occasionally plays ‘Londenderry Air’ when it is representing itself - http://www.nationalanthems.info/nie.htm

Ireland (when playing as a united Ireland) - usually plays ‘Ireland’s Call’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland’s_Call

Weirdly, England doesn’t have a national anthem - though we just play ‘God Save The Queen’

 

Personally God Save The Queen is a shite outdated anthem and would be better replaced by something more inclusive such as Jerusalem, but am sure not everyone in the UK agrees 😉

 

Bet you’re glad you asked now mate? 😃

Delighted! 😃

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one so far, but I think I can translate. I think he’s saying it’s ineffectual in that it doesn’t communicate the message you’re trying to send, not that it doesn’t successfully grab media attention. i.e. the media ruckus becomes about sitting and flags and whatnot, and not about your actual grievances, therefore it’s ineffectual.

I haven’t actually formed an opinion on the concept of media grabbing yet. It does seem to be central to the “Stay Woke” thesis – that unless your reminders that racism and brutality exists are adequately loud and outrageous, your protests will eventually turn into background noise and the media (and therefore the majority) will tune them out, fall back into a slumber, and think everything must be fine now. BLM has embraced this and while they’ve clearly gotten some backlash, the media’s focus on police racism and brutality has definitely been longer and more critical recently than during any recent prior protest movement, and I’d say police racism and brutality is actually much less prevalent today than in the years past when it was barely covered at all. So did BLM succeed with confrontational protest tactics? Or is it the fact that almost every citizen carries around a video camera these days and stuff can’t be explained away as easily as it used to? Or a combination. I really don’t know.

The thing I can’t stand about BLM is how the facts don’t seem to matter. They hear about a white cop shooting a black person, and automatically assume it must be racism and the shooting must be unjustified. No looking at the facts, no reasonable doubt. The cop is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes.

There’s seemingly a fair few assumptions from yourself there (unless you have facts for these claims?).

Just what I see on the news. I see them protesting police shootings all the time and not giving a damn about the evidence. Just take a look at Ferguson. The witnesses conflict with each other and the physical evidence at the scene is inconclusive, yet they still want to crucify Darren Wilson because they are so sure he shot Micheal Brown while he had his hands in the air surrendering.

So a few honest questions as someone who is new to this - in a bid to establish some facts…

Do the people in the BLM think and speak with one voice?

I don’t think they are fully unified under one voice, but there is a loose group.

Are BLM often factually incorrect (if thinking and speaking with one voice)?

not exactly. But I do believe many join these protests without having a firm understands of the facts of the cases they are protesting.

Would it not hurt their own campaign for change if they did not look at the facts (or facts known) beforehand?

it would, but they don’t seem too worried about that.

and then later were proved incorrect, and then repeatedly so - as to do so would surely take away the credibility of the organisation if it were continually proven incorrect, no?

the media doesn’t seem to care too much about proving them incorrect. The media seems to care more about sensationalizing these cases.

Does the BLM have a policy of automatically assuming ‘the cop is guilty until proven innocent’ - and if so where is this policy?

I think they have policy of using any shooting they can use to forward their agenda.

All this is not to say that there isn’t a problem of police brutality and with the how they interact with black people. There well might be. But none of these problems excuse presuming any cop guilty until proven innocent.

Ok, nice one - thank you for your replies.


Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I think it’s kind of dumb we play the national anthem at sporting events anyway. Why don’t we do it in movie theaters before the trailers or in restaurants before we eat?

It is just what we do.

This continues to be a ridiculous defense. Slavery is also used to be “just what we do.”

You could even argue it’s disrespectful to the anthem to play it before a meaningless sporting event.

I don’t see how.

It trivializes something as important as the anthem with something as meaningless and hollow as a baseball game.

I don’t see how it trivialized the Anthem, especially when people give it the proper respect when played(removing caps if worn and putting hand on heart and standing at attention.

btw, was game 7 of the World Series last year meaningless and hollow to you?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one so far, but I think I can translate. I think he’s saying it’s ineffectual in that it doesn’t communicate the message you’re trying to send, not that it doesn’t successfully grab media attention. i.e. the media ruckus becomes about sitting and flags and whatnot, and not about your actual grievances, therefore it’s ineffectual.

I haven’t actually formed an opinion on the concept of media grabbing yet. It does seem to be central to the “Stay Woke” thesis – that unless your reminders that racism and brutality exists are adequately loud and outrageous, your protests will eventually turn into background noise and the media (and therefore the majority) will tune them out, fall back into a slumber, and think everything must be fine now. BLM has embraced this and while they’ve clearly gotten some backlash, the media’s focus on police racism and brutality has definitely been longer and more critical recently than during any recent prior protest movement, and I’d say police racism and brutality is actually much less prevalent today than in the years past when it was barely covered at all. So did BLM succeed with confrontational protest tactics? Or is it the fact that almost every citizen carries around a video camera these days and stuff can’t be explained away as easily as it used to? Or a combination. I really don’t know.

The thing I can’t stand about BLM is how the facts don’t seem to matter. They hear about a white cop shooting a black person, and automatically assume it must be racism and the shooting must be unjustified. No looking at the facts, no reasonable doubt. The cop is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes.

There’s seemingly a fair few assumptions from yourself there (unless you have facts for these claims?).

Just what I see on the news. I see them protesting police shootings all the time and not giving a damn about the evidence. Just take a look at Ferguson. The witnesses conflict with each other and the physical evidence at the scene is inconclusive, yet they still want to crucify Darren Wilson because they are so sure he shot Micheal Brown while he had his hands in the air surrendering.

So a few honest questions as someone who is new to this - in a bid to establish some facts…

Do the people in the BLM think and speak with one voice?

I don’t think they are fully unified under one voice, but there is a loose group.

Are BLM often factually incorrect (if thinking and speaking with one voice)?

not exactly. But I do believe many join these protests without having a firm understands of the facts of the cases they are protesting.

Would it not hurt their own campaign for change if they did not look at the facts (or facts known) beforehand?

it would, but they don’t seem too worried about that.

and then later were proved incorrect, and then repeatedly so - as to do so would surely take away the credibility of the organisation if it were continually proven incorrect, no?

the media doesn’t seem to care too much about proving them incorrect. The media seems to care more about sensationalizing these cases.

Does the BLM have a policy of automatically assuming ‘the cop is guilty until proven innocent’ - and if so where is this policy?

I think they have policy of using any shooting they can use to forward their agenda.

All this is not to say that there isn’t a problem of police brutality and with the how they interact with black people. There well might be. But none of these problems excuse presuming any cop guilty until proven innocent.

Ok, nice one - thank you for your replies.

YOU DON’T WIN ARGUMENTS BY BEING POLITE YOU WIN BY YELLING

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I think it’s kind of dumb we play the national anthem at sporting events anyway. Why don’t we do it in movie theaters before the trailers or in restaurants before we eat?

It is just what we do.

This continues to be a ridiculous defense. Slavery is also used to be “just what we do.”

You could even argue it’s disrespectful to the anthem to play it before a meaningless sporting event.

I don’t see how.

It trivializes something as important as the anthem with something as meaningless and hollow as a baseball game.

I don’t see how it trivialized the Anthem, especially when people give it the proper respect when played(removing caps if worn and putting hand on heart and standing at attention.

btw, was game 7 of the World Series last year meaningless and hollow to you?

No, but that’s because I’m irrational about sports, baseball, and the Cubs. Logically I know that sports are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one so far, but I think I can translate. I think he’s saying it’s ineffectual in that it doesn’t communicate the message you’re trying to send, not that it doesn’t successfully grab media attention. i.e. the media ruckus becomes about sitting and flags and whatnot, and not about your actual grievances, therefore it’s ineffectual.

I haven’t actually formed an opinion on the concept of media grabbing yet. It does seem to be central to the “Stay Woke” thesis – that unless your reminders that racism and brutality exists are adequately loud and outrageous, your protests will eventually turn into background noise and the media (and therefore the majority) will tune them out, fall back into a slumber, and think everything must be fine now. BLM has embraced this and while they’ve clearly gotten some backlash, the media’s focus on police racism and brutality has definitely been longer and more critical recently than during any recent prior protest movement, and I’d say police racism and brutality is actually much less prevalent today than in the years past when it was barely covered at all. So did BLM succeed with confrontational protest tactics? Or is it the fact that almost every citizen carries around a video camera these days and stuff can’t be explained away as easily as it used to? Or a combination. I really don’t know.

The thing I can’t stand about BLM is how the facts don’t seem to matter. They hear about a white cop shooting a black person, and automatically assume it must be racism and the shooting must be unjustified. No looking at the facts, no reasonable doubt. The cop is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes.

There’s seemingly a fair few assumptions from yourself there (unless you have facts for these claims?).

Just what I see on the news. I see them protesting police shootings all the time and not giving a damn about the evidence. Just take a look at Ferguson. The witnesses conflict with each other and the physical evidence at the scene is inconclusive, yet they still want to crucify Darren Wilson because they are so sure he shot Micheal Brown while he had his hands in the air surrendering.

So a few honest questions as someone who is new to this - in a bid to establish some facts…

Do the people in the BLM think and speak with one voice?

I don’t think they are fully unified under one voice, but there is a loose group.

Are BLM often factually incorrect (if thinking and speaking with one voice)?

not exactly. But I do believe many join these protests without having a firm understands of the facts of the cases they are protesting.

Would it not hurt their own campaign for change if they did not look at the facts (or facts known) beforehand?

it would, but they don’t seem too worried about that.

and then later were proved incorrect, and then repeatedly so - as to do so would surely take away the credibility of the organisation if it were continually proven incorrect, no?

the media doesn’t seem to care too much about proving them incorrect. The media seems to care more about sensationalizing these cases.

Does the BLM have a policy of automatically assuming ‘the cop is guilty until proven innocent’ - and if so where is this policy?

I think they have policy of using any shooting they can use to forward their agenda.

All this is not to say that there isn’t a problem of police brutality and with the how they interact with black people. There well might be. But none of these problems excuse presuming any cop guilty until proven innocent.

Ok, nice one - thank you for your replies.

YOU DON’T WIN ARGUMENTS BY BEING POLITE YOU WIN BY YELLING

No, you win by yelling “WRONG” and “NO PUPPET.”