This user has been banned.
Dammit I swore I wasn’t going to stay involved in this Groundhog Day’s argument. No more.
Maybe we have to repeat the Groundhog Day’s argument, until we come to an understanding and then we will be allowed to move onto the next day.
I reworded my post while you were posting that.
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.
We’re talking about it though, I’d say they were pretty successful.
We’re talking about him sitting. We’re not talking much about police brutality. Case in point.
I talked about it. It’s you guys (mostly Warb) who would rather complain about someone sitting down during a song.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When he tries to get attention for his cause by doing something shitty, it is not going to make me care much for his cause. Besides, I am not the one they are trying to reach. I am just me. I have no power. I have no authority over the cops. Most of the time I vote more liberal anyway.
and you know it is not just a “*song*”.
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.
It is ineffectual at helping the cause. If someone sees him sit, they don’t consider the legitimacy of why or make any appreciable change on his behalf. They argue about whether he should be allowed to sit, effectively bringing attention to only himself and not why he sat.
yep.
So people should ignore him and make his decision ineffective at drawing attention. Then, he either can keep sitting but no one knows so no one cares; do something that actually helps the cause; or quit bothering altogether. Albeit given that two of those options would have the same effect since no one is paying attention to him.
I know one thing Kaepernick could do to help his cause that he didn’t do in 2016: vote in elections.
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?
His argument is that if people and the media stop making a big deal out of it, they will eventually stop protesting the anthem and move on to some other sort of protest.
Now’s your time to do the right thing, guys.
I’m afraid neither of them would know the right thing if it came up and bit them on the ass.
And I’m hoping it does.
I’m not sure about Priebus, but I’m afraid the only think Spicer knows how to do is tell alternative facts.
again, same is true for those protesting funerals, yet people still made big deal about that.
The people protesting funerals hate gay people. The people protesting the anthem want equal treatment. Huge difference.
Actually, if you think about it, it isn’t. The issue with protesting funerals isn’t about the subject being protested. It’s about the method of protest. The protested subject matter at issue is really irrelevant.
exactly.
again, same is true for those protesting funerals, yet people still made big deal about that.
The people protesting funerals hate gay people. The people protesting the anthem want equal treatment. Huge difference.
That is irrelevant to point that was being made by chyron8472.
This sounds a lot like Trump’s many sides comments. You’re equivocating two wildly different groups.
You must have missed this:
(note: I am not saying the people protesting the anthem are as bad as those that protest funerals).
Please go back and reread the relevant posts between myself and chyron8472.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
No, it insults you. You are not the country.
You are not the country either.
I’m not insulted, so your response makes no sense.
Actually, it does.
How I interpret it is this: There is a difference between an insult to the country as an entity and an insult to the collective citizens of the country.
Warbler might himself be offended, yes, but he feels offended on behalf of the country as an entity, as though the dignity of that entity is something that should be protected and/or respected.
He’s not saying that man is insulting everyone and their dog who collectively live in the country. And by his saying that you, Frink, are not the country, he’s saying that you can’t speak directly for the entity that is the country when you say you’re not offended because your personal dignity is not akin to that of respecting the country itself.
Ok well then he can’t speak for the entity that is the country either. His belief that it insults the country is only one interpretation of the action, and in my opinion a very closed-minded interpretation. He doesn’t seem to understand that these people aren’t protesting the anthem, they’re protesting the treatment of black people by the institutions that are part of the country.
I don’t think he doesn’t understand that. I think he just thinks their method of protest is inappropriate. Legal, yes, but inappropriate.
exactly.
again, same is true for those protesting funerals, yet people still made big deal about that.
The people protesting funerals hate gay people. The people protesting the anthem want equal treatment. Huge difference.
That is irrelevant to point that was being made by chyron8472.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
No, it insults you. You are not the country.
You are not the country either.
I’m not insulted, so your response makes no sense.
Actually, it does.
How I interpret it is this: There is a difference between an insult to the country as an entity and an insult to the collective citizens of the country.
Warbler might himself be offended, yes, but he feels offended on behalf of the country as an entity, as though the dignity of that entity is something that should be protected and/or respected.
He’s not saying that man is insulting everyone and their dog who collectively live in the country. And by his saying that you, Frink, are not the country, he’s saying that you can’t speak directly for the entity that is the country when you say you’re not offended because your personal dignity is not akin to that of respecting the country itself.
Ok well then he can’t speak for the entity that is the country either. His belief that it insults the country is only one interpretation of the action, and in my opinion a very closed-minded interpretation. He doesn’t seem to understand that these people aren’t protesting the anthem, they’re protesting the treatment of black people by the institutions that are part of the country.
and they are doing so by protesting the anthem. We might as well say that Westboro bapists weren’t protesting funerals, they were protesting gay rights.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-hurricane-irma-media-florida-2017-9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=078BGtKNL1o&feature=youtu.be&t=4s
again, same is true for those protesting funerals, yet people still made big deal about that.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
No, it insults you. You are not the country.
You are not the country either.
I’m not insulted, so your response makes no sense.
You claim that I can’t say it insults the country, because I am not the country. Therefore, since you are also not the country, you can not claim it does not insult the country.
Another asshole sits for the anthem. (and yes, I know you all think I’m the asshole)
Another PATRIOT showing us all how great this country really is!
*shrug* I’m… actually on the fence about this issue.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
But I agree with this. However, I think it’s neither as offensive nor as benign as people make it out to be. I think what I find most offensive is that people in either camp make such a big deal out of it. The man sat; let him sit. It might be offensive, but it’s less offensive if people don’t draw big red circles with arrows pointing at the man.
How many times do I have to say that it is legal for them to protest the anthem and that I wouldn’t want it any other way?
It’s like the media feeds off of sensationalism, so who cares if this argument is hurting the country. Let’s argue about it nonstop anyway. The man is allowed to sit, so unless we want to make it illegal for him to do so, just let the man sit as though his voice didn’t matter. To complain about his voice only helps to make it louder.
Sorry when I see something I think worthy of complaint, I complain about it. You could have made the same argument about the Westboro Baptists, yet it stop people complaining about them either(note: I am not saying the people protesting the anthem are as bad as those that protest funerals).
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
No, it insults you. You are not the country.
You are not the country either.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
That seems like overly complicated logic.
Jeebus is absolutely correct the thing that sets our country apart is the fact that it is acceptable, or at least should be acceptable, to protest the government.
It is not complicated at all. What sets our country apart is that it is legal to protest the nation anthem, not that it is acceptable. Of course there are ways to protest the government that are both legal and acceptable. The point, no form of protest needs to be “acceptable”, it just needs to be legal. That is the important thing, and is what sets up apart.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
Another asshole sits for the anthem. (and yes, I know you all think I’m the asshole)
What in hell is that?
but . . . Obama is black! I can not believe a white supremacist would vote for a black person. I just can not believe that.
Most wouldn’t, but I’m pretty sure some would. Again, I don’t know any open white supremacists anymore, so I’m guessing as much as anyone, but I can say that white supremacists have lots of special terms for white people who think other races are their equals. One is “race traitors”.
If that is what it means to them, when you view other races as being equal, I am proud to be a “race traitor” in their eyes.
I know a lot of passively racist idiots, and they don’t vote Democrat, and they definitely didn’t vote for Obama.
Certainly there were lots of reasons Obama voters may have switched to Trump, but…
Using this and other data, political scientists have argued that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of whether voters flipped from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump, and the biggest driver of Trump support among these voters.
Yes, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data.
We all know racists, but it seems at least in this regard that the ones I know were more representative of racists nationally, in that at least some of them will vote for Democrats, even Black Democrats, when the Republican alternatives aren’t racist enough.
I still don’t get that. I mean even if the Republicans aren’t racist enough for you, surely the Dems aren’t going even less racist, especially the black Dems. If I were racist, I doubt I’d be voting for the Dems or black people. If I couldn’t stomach the Republicans, I would probably write-in Hitler or maybe George Wallace or something like that(again, if I were racist). No way I would vote for the Dems or any black person(again, if I were racist).
I read somewhere that Trump’s “drain the swamp” base hates the GOP establishment, and that Trump is actually following his base by not doing them any favors.
really? I thought his base hated the Dems even more.
The meme is already correct by virtue of being a meme. He wants to break it.
*sigh* oh very well. I will no longer try to find the correct pic.