| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/03/17 9:13 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
The going to the bathroom thing. Seriously? I'm intentionally sitting, kneeling, or not coming onto the field, for the national anthem, and that's due to a political protest I'm making. And you're saying why aren't people p'd off because people are still not in their seats for the anthem, buying snacks and drinks, or answering to nature's call in the restrooms?
DUDES! WTF?!?! |
But that is exactly my point. It isn't about the "disrespect" it is that he is protesting. There isn't some inherent belief that the flag is sacrosanct, it is simply that they believe the flag/anthem is more important than his issue. 99% of these people would support the protest if the issue hit home with them. If it were the most important issue in their lives, they would suddenly feel that the protest is warranted. Which is why I think it is much more intellectually honest for someone to say they don't support his action because they disagree with his position, than to use a canard like "disrespecting dead veterans."
I'll point it out one more time...how many of these people would take issue if the kneeler were protesting the US government outright banning Christianity? It's about the issue, not the flag.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/03/17 11:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
OMG, so you’re saying, too, that all these people aren’t actually riled up about the flag and anthem? That their outrage is not based on an indoctrinated patriotism that binds all of these things like the flag, the anthem, service members, wars, sacrifices made together for them into one huge thing called America that must, at all times, be defended? And that it’s all just a canard that these intellectually dishonest people called Americans are hiding behind?
I don’t even know what to say to that. This is really the mistake of the last election, over and over again. Many a mainstream journalist has gone into places like Michigan and Pennsylvania post election and have sat down with Trump voters and found, over and over again, that their preconceived notions about those people were wrong. These people are not a diabolical racist plot. They are real. Many were lifelong Democrats who voted for both Clinton and Obama.
I will sit here one last time and say this in all honesty to you and anyone else who is reading this. A great swath of Americans take the flag and the anthem ritual as being the most sacred expressions of our national identity and as such any deliberate action that demonstrates a sentiment running counter to these things for any reason would and will be taken very badly and responded to very harshly. It’s outrageous that people actually will publically admit that they don’t understand this much about the country they are living in.
Your counter argument that mentions things like the fact that people are going to the bathroom and buying snacks which somehow demonstrates that no, they don’t take it that seriously, is enough of a reason not to take your argument itself seriously. The anthem and all that is a tiresome routine! The key word there being routine. If anything the reverence has been diminished by how routine it is. So sure, many are the functions of the event at hand, even bodily ones, that must and do go on during the national anthem. Americans take a lot for granted. Until you do something that pushes a button like this one.
Look, folks, this in an argument about what something is. We’re stuck there. I’m blown away to be among people here who either can’t see or refuse to admit that these people have real and true feelings and objections to anything that touches on the flag or anthem. It’s as if there’s two opposing sides politically, and people here are like, I can’t be on that side so I’m going to join the effort to undermine and diminish and cast aspersions on everyone who is on the other side. It saddens me to say this, but I think that’s who some of you guys are.
Lastly, bigly,  , you’re also putting out there the idea that these same people would feel much different about anthem protests if the United States government, or whatever nightmarish factions would be holding power at that time, were to ban Christianity. In a country that heretofore guarantees religious freedom. If the right to worship their god was taken away from them?
Well, I have to say, I agree with you there.  I would suggest it’s not a remotely compelling argument. It does prove that you do have the capacity to predict the honest gut felt response of the American people when you actually want to.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/03/17 11:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Yes, pilight-san. That’s why I said these protest images CHANGED hearts and minds in 1960s.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 4:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Lastly, bigly, , you’re also putting out there the idea that these same people would feel much different about anthem protests if the United States government, or whatever nightmarish factions would be holding power at that time, were to ban Christianity. In a country that heretofore guarantees religious freedom. If the right to worship their god was taken away from them?
Well, I have to say, I agree with you there. I would suggest it’s not a remotely compelling argument. It does prove that you do have the capacity to predict the honest gut felt response of the American people when you actually want to. |
How is it not a compelling argument? It is the cornerstone of this concept. If there is a reason in which these people would ever accept a person kneeling for the anthem, then their problem isn't the kneeling, it is what the kneeling is protesting.
It would be saying "Kneeling is wrong, except when it is my life and religion that the government is fucking with. Then I would support it, because the government has gone too far." But don't you see? For the people kneeling right now, this issue is that big. They see the government which is supposed to be guaranteeing equality instead allowing the state sanctioned murder of their children. So while you accept the premise of my argument, you are subjectively giving more weight to a ban on Christianity even though that is not a universal standard. And that is what is happening out there. For the anti-kneeling crowd, the issue being protested is not important enough for them to accept any slight on the patriotic symbols.
And ultimately, that is why it is an intellectually dishonest argument. Of someone would, under some exteme circumstance, accept a kneeling protest, then one cannot argue "it is never okay to disrespect the flag or our anthem". What they are actually arguing is that this issue is not important enough to warrant the disrespect. Or in other words, to them: God>Flag and Anthem>Black Issues.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 7:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Yes, pilight-san. That’s why I said these protest images CHANGED hearts and minds in 1960s. |
You don't think Kaepernick and company are changing hearts and minds today?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18030
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 8:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Yes, pilight-san. That’s why I said these protest images CHANGED hearts and minds in 1960s. |
You don't think Kaepernick and company are changing hearts and minds today? |
The argument jammer seems to be making, intentionally or not, implies that the ~audacity~ of them ~daring~ to protest during a patriotic spectacle (that players have only been a part of for a few years) is changing hearts and minds for the negative.
(did I use the sarcasm tildes correctly?)
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5361
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 9:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
You want attention? Or postitive results?
You want negative attention that garners resentment and division? You got it. Because there's a formula for that in America. Fuck with the flag or the national anthem. You're toast. Next!
So 'someone' always finds fault with any and every form of protest by black people and you are with that attempting to support your assertion that there has never been a form of protest by POC that has been 'deemed acceptable', I'm going to assume you mean by white people?
Yes. There are and always will be racists out there. So you seem to be using those racists to characterize all white people. Incredibly.  So let me marry your position in helping to provide you with an answer to your question of me. Name one, you say? How about scores? On the nightly news in the 1960s we saw scores of incidents of peaceful protest by black civil rights leaders who were set upon by police. THAT, I would suggest, changed hearts and minds in America. There was the March on Washington. MLK's speech. There was Muhammad Ali's stance on the war and civil rights: the use of his charisma, rhetorical and oratorical talents, and his personal integrity and self-sacrifice. There are and would be many other examples and stances taken by entertainers and educator, etc.
So what could have been done that would have been better than taking a knee during the national anthem?
How about a Colin Kaepernick summit? Like Jim Brown organized the Ali summit. Why not have the biggest names in American sports, Lebron, etc. convene a Kaepernick summit where they all get together, as I've suggested, and put their names and their star power behind both the reason for Kaep's actions and the man himself?
Honestly. I don't think many of you guys, especially you, hyperetic, are limited in terms of your imagination and creativity. I'm sure you could come up with more and better tactics yourselves. |
Woooow...
Of course the dissenters of the protests are either racist, misinformed or really don't give a damn.
Newsflash: there were a helluva a lot of dissent to ALL the peaceful protests by King and others. From all levels of society at the time. Governors, congresspeople, clergy, men, women, and children, young and old. Yes, they were white. Racism played a part in it for many. Some just went along with the crowd that looked like them. Some were caught up in racist rhetoric to stupid to think for themselves. So, you say its a GOOD thing for protesters to sit peacefully or stand peacefully while not SEEMINGLY disrespecting the flag while getting harassed, beaten, maimed, and in some cases killed while not fighting back?!!!! SERIOUSLY?!!!! King's and Malcolm's work only came to fruition because those that were willing to do more than the peaceful. Without that threat, there would have been no reason for the other side to seek compromise. Does a bully stop beating you because you peacefully refuse to fight back? None I've ever seen. Summits are wonderful things. They garner attention from the persecuted and ones from the other side that are willing to recognize their plight. It does not garner the kind of attention Kap's protest has gotten. Realize that you are essentially telling us, "Yeah there's a problem but we don't like the way you express it so that invalidates your issue. If you want me to listen, do it quieter and more respectful. Suffer in silence til I finally get the point." The only limitations we have is people telling us that all our ways to protest are wrong or invalid no matter how peaceful they are. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 9:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Yes, pilight-san. That’s why I said these protest images CHANGED hearts and minds in 1960s. |
You don't think Kaepernick and company are changing hearts and minds today? |
The argument jammer seems to be making, intentionally or not, implies that the ~audacity~ of them ~daring~ to protest during a patriotic spectacle (that players have only been a part of for a few years) is changing hearts and minds for the negative.
(did I use the sarcasm tildes correctly?) |
Jammer is in his usual vein: Everything 60's is good, everything modern is bad
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 1:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There was a false narrative about rust belt voters voting for Trump due economic realities "Clinton/Dems just didn't understand". Post-election research indicates voters w/ such concerns actually supported Clinton. It was rust belt voters who had "cultural concerns" who voted Trump.
I suspect there's a similar vein to the protest of the protest. That is, "we're really all patriots and it has nothing to do with the protesters' skin color".
Doubtful.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 1:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Lastly, bigly, , you’re also putting out there the idea that these same people would feel much different about anthem protests if the United States government, or whatever nightmarish factions would be holding power at that time, were to ban Christianity. In a country that heretofore guarantees religious freedom. If the right to worship their god was taken away from them?
Well, I have to say, I agree with you there. I would suggest it’s not a remotely compelling argument. It does prove that you do have the capacity to predict the honest gut felt response of the American people when you actually want to. |
How is it not a compelling argument? It is the cornerstone of this concept. If there is a reason in which these people would ever accept a person kneeling for the anthem, then their problem isn't the kneeling, it is what the kneeling is protesting. |
Really? A question of degrees and circumstances has no bearing, according to you? You’re making a classic classroom argument. The kind that is intended to get students to think. Real life is always a mix of issues. Things are weighed and measured.
If you think that an action taken by athletes to refuse to take part in the national anthem pre-game ritual because of a stand taken over the controversial issue of excessive force by the police, a pillar institution in America, is the same thing as whatever might happen in the United States of America should the government up and someday ban the practice of one of the world’s predominant religions, without question our predominant religion, the worshipping of the God of both blacks and whites in the US (talk about a unifying issue) in the country that was founded on the basis of religious freedom, if you think that the examination or predicted results of the one thing reveals something nefarious about the other, then I just think there’s a problem here of intellectual range.
Probably not actually, but, as I said, if you see things as there being two sides here, and you’ve decided that you can’t be on the one side, then you apparently must take part in the undermining of the position, at any cost, of the other side.
I’ve already said, or alluded to, in my overly wordy way, that many of the people in those stands and who form the NFL fan base aren’t particularly down with this issue on its merits. That doesn’t mean that, in your all-or-nothing scenario, some binary truth is revealed by the fact that something else could trigger in them a anthem protest of their own. The banning by the US government of Christianity would simply be another thing entirely. I really don’t like these kinds of arguments. I think they are ridiculous because they don’t take into account the incredible amount of variables that are naturally occurring in the real world. You can pin a student or a classroom of thirty of them down and make them grind through the contradictions and duplicitous moral dilemmas you see in this, but that’s on your time, bub.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 1:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Lastly, bigly, , you’re also putting out there the idea that these same people would feel much different about anthem protests if the United States government, or whatever nightmarish factions would be holding power at that time, were to ban Christianity. In a country that heretofore guarantees religious freedom. If the right to worship their god was taken away from them?
Well, I have to say, I agree with you there. I would suggest it’s not a remotely compelling argument. It does prove that you do have the capacity to predict the honest gut felt response of the American people when you actually want to. |
How is it not a compelling argument? It is the cornerstone of this concept. If there is a reason in which these people would ever accept a person kneeling for the anthem, then their problem isn't the kneeling, it is what the kneeling is protesting. |
Really? A question of degrees and circumstances has no bearing, according to you? You’re making a classic classroom argument. The kind that is intended to get students to think. Real life is always a mix of issues. Things are weighed and measured.
If you think that an action taken by athletes to refuse to take part in the national anthem pre-game ritual because of a stand taken over the controversial issue of excessive force by the police, a pillar institution in America, is the same thing as whatever might happen in the United States of America should the government up and someday ban the practice of one of the world’s predominant religions, without question our predominant religion, the worshipping of the God of both blacks and whites in the US (talk about a unifying issue) in the country that was founded on the basis of religious freedom, if you think that the examination or predicted results of the one thing reveals something nefarious about the other, then I just think there’s a problem here of intellectual range.
Probably not actually, but, as I said, if you see things as there being two sides here, and you’ve decided that you can’t be on the one side, then you apparently must take part in the undermining of the position, at any cost, of the other side.
I’ve already said, or alluded to, in my overly wordy way, that many of the people in those stands and who form the NFL fan base aren’t particularly down with this issue on its merits. That doesn’t mean that, in your all-or-nothing scenario, some binary truth is revealed by the fact that something else could trigger in them a anthem protest of their own. The banning by the US government of Christianity would simply be another thing entirely. I really don’t like these kinds of arguments. I think they are ridiculous because they don’t take into account the incredible amount of variables that are naturally occurring in the real world. You can pin a student or a classroom of thirty of them down and make them grind through the contradictions and duplicitous moral dilemmas you see in this, but that’s on your time, bub. |
You are adding words to weight on thing heavier than other. This is a subjective weight. Police violence is "controversial" while banning Christianity is beyond the pale. All other concerns of patriotism and propriety can fall aside because banning Christianity is a Big Deal. So as long as the issue is what you or other white people think is an acceptable Big Deal the protests are acceptable. The fact that this is just as Big of a Deal to the African-Americans who have a true and honest belief that the country is complicit in the murder of their friends and family is irrelevant because it doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold dictated by the Powers that Be. Because it is "controversial" amongst White People.
The fact that what the person is protesting influences whether or not this exact same protest would be acceptable means that the issue being protested is the variable. By definition this means that the reason for the vitriol is the issue at hand. It is really that simple.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
stever
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6918
Location: https://womensbasketballdaily.net
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 3:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/colin-kaepernick/541845/
| Quote: |
Whatever symbols they embraced, civil-rights activists—much like black activists today—never successfully connected with the hearts of the majority of adults of their own day. The process was neither neat nor particular unifying. In fact, it destroyed the Democratic Party of Roosevelt and Truman. But the activists did sketch a theater of violence, with men like Bull Connor in starring roles, that shamed and embarrassed the country. And aided by an intemperate radicalism within and the Cold War threat without, the activists were able to use that shame to affect meaningful change.
Perhaps most importantly they affected the attitudes of the children of those white Americans who scorned them. This points to the true target, in terms of white people, of Kaepernick’s protest. The point is not to convince people who boo even when a team kneels before the anthem is sung. The point is to reach the children of those people. The point is the future. |
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 3:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
You want attention? Or postitive results?
You want negative attention that garners resentment and division? You got it. Because there's a formula for that in America. Fuck with the flag or the national anthem. You're toast. Next!
So 'someone' always finds fault with any and every form of protest by black people and you are with that attempting to support your assertion that there has never been a form of protest by POC that has been 'deemed acceptable', I'm going to assume you mean by white people?
Yes. There are and always will be racists out there. So you seem to be using those racists to characterize all white people. Incredibly. So let me marry your position in helping to provide you with an answer to your question of me. Name one, you say? How about scores? On the nightly news in the 1960s we saw scores of incidents of peaceful protest by black civil rights leaders who were set upon by police. THAT, I would suggest, changed hearts and minds in America. There was the March on Washington. MLK's speech. There was Muhammad Ali's stance on the war and civil rights: the use of his charisma, rhetorical and oratorical talents, and his personal integrity and self-sacrifice. There are and would be many other examples and stances taken by entertainers and educator, etc.
So what could have been done that would have been better than taking a knee during the national anthem?
How about a Colin Kaepernick summit? Like Jim Brown organized the Ali summit. Why not have the biggest names in American sports, Lebron, etc. convene a Kaepernick summit where they all get together, as I've suggested, and put their names and their star power behind both the reason for Kaep's actions and the man himself?
Honestly. I don't think many of you guys, especially you, hyperetic, are limited in terms of your imagination and creativity. I'm sure you could come up with more and better tactics yourselves. |
Woooow...
Of course the dissenters of the protests are either racist, misinformed or really don't give a damn.
Newsflash: there were a helluva a lot of dissent to ALL the peaceful protests by King and others. From all levels of society at the time. Governors, congresspeople, clergy, men, women, and children, young and old. Yes, they were white. Racism played a part in it for many. Some just went along with the crowd that looked like them. Some were caught up in racist rhetoric to stupid to think for themselves. So, you say its a GOOD thing for protesters to sit peacefully or stand peacefully while not SEEMINGLY disrespecting the flag while getting harassed, beaten, maimed, and in some cases killed while not fighting back?!!!! SERIOUSLY?!!!! King's and Malcolm's work only came to fruition because those that were willing to do more than the peaceful. Without that threat, there would have been no reason for the other side to seek compromise. Does a bully stop beating you because you peacefully refuse to fight back? None I've ever seen. Summits are wonderful things. They garner attention from the persecuted and ones from the other side that are willing to recognize their plight. It does not garner the kind of attention Kap's protest has gotten. Realize that you are essentially telling us, "Yeah there's a problem but we don't like the way you express it so that invalidates your issue. If you want me to listen, do it quieter and more respectful. Suffer in silence til I finally get the point." The only limitations we have is people telling us that all our ways to protest are wrong or invalid no matter how peaceful they are. |
Of course they’re racists. Not socialized to be hyper-patriotic. Of course. Hasn’t happened to brilliant me so how could these middle class and working class Americans ever be actually that patriotic. Forget that many are veterans or have veterans in their familes. It’s just hard to proceed with a conversation when ‘of course they’re racists’ is truly your starting point.
Regarding the 60s and resistance to the civil rights movement by a truly racist portion of America in a truly different time and place in the history of this country. Blacks were denied basic civil rights. That’s what the movement was about. The images of the beating back of that movement by some of the most straight-out-of-central-casting racist icons of the 50s and 60s that were broadcast into living rooms around the country created an amazing transformation on the part of the rest of white America towards a sympathetic assessment of the realities of the lives of black people in America. It was a miraculous and painful time in this country.
Two landmark civil rights legislations were passed to correct much of the evils that existed by 1965. That was as a result of the nonviolent resistance movement and it was before this threat of violence on the part of blacks that you credit with not changing hearts and minds in America but holding a gun to its racist head and demanding change. The voting rights act was signed into law a week before the Watts riots. Imagine how long before that civil unrest this lpiece of legislation had already been working its way through committees etc.
So both you and pilight seem to be putting some kind of significance or relevance behind this idea that protests by blacks were unpopular in the 60s and thus the protests of today are to be taken as being essentially the same thing and demonstrating or revealing the same things about white America. These are such different times. These are different, but yes, similar, issues. But these protests are taking a different form, at a different moment, at a different time, are landing with a thud with their intended target for different and varying reasons that have more to do with a primed and ready to fight patriotism that, quite predictably I have suggested, would shut down these protests most everywhere they’re happening.
It’s stunning to me that this (now) group of you, such smart people, can’t even allow that the patriotism that results in people being willing to serve up thier lives for this country, their children’s lives for this country, does not have a deeply rooted, firm, and yes, complicated hold on the national identity of your fellow Americans. You guys are naive about that. I’ll say it again. You seem to not know this country. Your perspective on it is that far off.
I was very much bothered that Colin Kaepernick lost his job as an NFL quarterback for taking a political position. But he’s been blackballed by the NFL because the NFL does understand this country. The spectacle of fans booing their own teams pretty much seals Kaepernick’s situation.
So... this hasn’t turned out like things were turning out in the 1960s. One of the greatest problems with the 1960s is that that decade and struggles and the progress was so revolutionary and now so idealized that people keep trying to emulate to some degree protest actions taken at that time thinking they will work now. And the clothes and look of it all have been so romanticized. Progress was made, there’s no doubt about that. But what every single person who was alive and politically aware then knows, and lives with, is that the results that were hoped for and fought for and protested for have been woefully less than what everyone then would have expected or had desired.
Since you guys love to pose questions to me, let me ask you all a few.
When a soldier puts his or her life on the line in a foreign conflict, when they are hanging in there in the face of making the ultimate sacrifice, is that an act of racism? When a mom or pop, tearfully or gung-ho, acquiesces to the service of their son or daughter in harm’s way overseas, is that an act of racism?
See I don’t think you guys fully appreciate the kind of deep and wide resonance these things make throughout a family, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, throughout networks of friends and associates, communities and how that all impresses itself upon the culture of this country at large. And all of that has, of course, been promulgated and amplified beyond what it ever was before by social media and the internet.
Anyway.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 3:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Justin. Get it straight! God, Country, Family, Football. In that order until otherwise notified and God above all and I say that as an atheist. Even I know and can admit that much about my fellow Americans. Priorities. People actually have them and a hierarchy of the things they hold near and dear. And yeah, it can all be messy and chaotic with opinions varying and shooting off in all directions. You’re demanding something from other free people that meets your criteria and when you don’t get it, when the cultural complexity and the deep roots networking beneath the surface of things and outside your immediate vision elude you, you blame a boogie man. Racism.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 5:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
You just detailed out my point exactly:
| Quote: |
| God, Country, Family, Football |
This is the "acceptable order" for much of White America. As long as people toe the line to their arbitrary standard, protests are acceptable. God is allowed by these people to be placed above country, but state-complicit murder of black people is not. Who decides these things? Ultimately it doesn't matter since for there to be a pecking order the simple fact remains that the issue is the variable. As long as the issue is before "country" on your continuum, then protesting the anthem is okay. So as I've said ad nauseam now, for these people the issue is not a big enough one to supersede "country".
By the way, if these people actually agreed with the belief of the protesters and felt that the government was complicit in the murder of American people, you don't think that would also go before country? If White People felt through and through that the police were out there murdering their friends and families, they wouldn't accept this sort of protest? Of course they would. The heart of the matter is that they don't want this going on because they think that the protesters are wrong about the issue. Or at least don't really care about the issue. But once again, we come back to it being all about the issue.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 5:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Lastly, bigly, , you’re also putting out there the idea that these same people would feel much different about anthem protests if the United States government, or whatever nightmarish factions would be holding power at that time, were to ban Christianity. In a country that heretofore guarantees religious freedom. If the right to worship their god was taken away from them?
Well, I have to say, I agree with you there. I would suggest it’s not a remotely compelling argument. It does prove that you do have the capacity to predict the honest gut felt response of the American people when you actually want to. |
How is it not a compelling argument? It is the cornerstone of this concept. If there is a reason in which these people would ever accept a person kneeling for the anthem, then their problem isn't the kneeling, it is what the kneeling is protesting. |
Really? A question of degrees and circumstances has no bearing, according to you? You’re making a classic classroom argument. The kind that is intended to get students to think. Real life is always a mix of issues. Things are weighed and measured.
If you think that an action taken by athletes to refuse to take part in the national anthem pre-game ritual because of a stand taken over the controversial issue of excessive force by the police, a pillar institution in America, is the same thing as whatever might happen in the United States of America should the government up and someday ban the practice of one of the world’s predominant religions, without question our predominant religion, the worshipping of the God of both blacks and whites in the US (talk about a unifying issue) in the country that was founded on the basis of religious freedom, if you think that the examination or predicted results of the one thing reveals something nefarious about the other, then I just think there’s a problem here of intellectual range.
Probably not actually, but, as I said, if you see things as there being two sides here, and you’ve decided that you can’t be on the one side, then you apparently must take part in the undermining of the position, at any cost, of the other side.
I’ve already said, or alluded to, in my overly wordy way, that many of the people in those stands and who form the NFL fan base aren’t particularly down with this issue on its merits. That doesn’t mean that, in your all-or-nothing scenario, some binary truth is revealed by the fact that something else could trigger in them a anthem protest of their own. The banning by the US government of Christianity would simply be another thing entirely. I really don’t like these kinds of arguments. I think they are ridiculous because they don’t take into account the incredible amount of variables that are naturally occurring in the real world. You can pin a student or a classroom of thirty of them down and make them grind through the contradictions and duplicitous moral dilemmas you see in this, but that’s on your time, bub. |
You are adding words to weight on thing heavier than other. This is a subjective weight. Police violence is "controversial" while banning Christianity is beyond the pale. All other concerns of patriotism and propriety can fall aside because banning Christianity is a Big Deal. So as long as the issue is what you or other white people think is an acceptable Big Deal the protests are acceptable. The fact that this is just as Big of a Deal to the African-Americans who have a true and honest belief that the country is complicit in the murder of their friends and family is irrelevant because it doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold dictated by the Powers that Be. Because it is "controversial" amongst White People.
The fact that what the person is protesting influences whether or not this exact same protest would be acceptable means that the issue being protested is the variable. By definition this means that the reason for the vitriol is the issue at hand. It is really that simple. |
One last thing and I am DONE with y'all for the rest of the day.
THE variable? As you say. There are two usages of the word variable in our last exchange. One defines a variable in the context of a controlled experiment. Variables are introduced into the experiment or the calculation, one at a time, in order to study the impact of individual variables on the outcome of the experiment.
When I said variables I was referring to those that exist in the real world, where there are an infinite number of variables in play all at once, variables that are based on so many other things in the realm of human thought and behavior like, for instance, emotions, of which there are many. Peer influences. Self-image. Etc.
Those are the variables that I am suggesting are relevant in this real life scenario that at the very least overwhelm a simple binary perspective that cannot allow for any but one reason for these counter-protestations. It seems fairly clear to me that you are insisting on looking at this as a thought-experiment wherein you've isolated a single variable and simply because it exists you assert the effect it must be having, according to you, on the outcome.
But you're ignoring the other variables that aren't occurring in a thought-experiment at all but in the real life social and cultural and political upheaval that has surrounded this issue.
Just going to jump quickly to the Ta-Nehisi Coates thing. One thing MLK said that I disagree with and that Ta-Nehisi Coates is kind of alluding to or suggesting that is summed up in that quote by MLK is that, and you've all heard it before, that the arc of history tilts toward justice. Something like that. I think that's wishful thinking. And I think that, other than the basic happiness and contentment of the massive whatever that means and how much of it that there is or isn't, it's a really small sliver of humanity that would make that argument. There's no doubt that any liberal or progressive American with any sort of education would make that argument. You guys here will. Luuuc will! But I think it's already long been proven to be a manifestation of a human need to try to maintain an attitude of hope. Not reality based. IMO.
So the idea that successive generations will see that we were right, etc. and move us towards a better tomorrow? Sorry. I'd argue against that. Successive generations will be as violent and divided and, unless we ever conquer the root causes of the racial divisions in this country, economic inequality as well as inequality in the area of opportunity, the idea that people can lead fulfilling lives, then the age old social problems, the divisions, the racism, etc. it all just continues on.
You'll see. Ta-Nehisi Coates will see. Things in so many ways are actually getting worse.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 5:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
You just detailed out my point exactly:
| Quote: |
| God, Country, Family, Football |
This is the "acceptable order" for much of White America. As long as people toe the line to their arbitrary standard, protests are acceptable. God is allowed by these people to be placed above country, but state-complicit murder of black people is not. Who decides these things? Ultimately it doesn't matter since for there to be a pecking order the simple fact remains that the issue is the variable. As long as the issue is before "country" on your continuum, then protesting the anthem is okay. So as I've said ad nauseam now, for these people the issue is not a big enough one to supersede "country".
By the way, if these people actually agreed with the belief of the protesters and felt that the government was complicit in the murder of American people, you don't think that would also go before country? If White People felt through and through that the police were out there murdering their friends and families, they wouldn't accept this sort of protest? Of course they would. The heart of the matter is that they don't want this going on because they think that the protesters are wrong about the issue. Or at least don't really care about the issue. But once again, we come back to it being all about the issue. |
Look at us. I didn't SAY that the issue (content) of this wasn't a factor. I never denied that. I said it was in the mix. How is it that YOU can't allow that pure unbridled patriotism and love of country is ALSO in the mix?
It's ALL ABOUT THE ISSUE! lol. Such a rigid ideology has infected your brain.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 5:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Here's what's REALLY happening here. You guys on this board see an issue and cast members that have combined to create a moment in America that recalls the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And we all know what the right side of that struggle was and you all certainly must get on the right side of this one. And here you all are taking your lap.
State-complicit murder. Did you actually write that? What exact percentage of the instances of cops killing blacks would constitute as murder in your book?
How many murders of blacks to cops prevent? Risk and even lose their
lives in the process of preventing the murders of blacks?
You ask in terms of the hierarchy God, Country, etc. who gets to decide these things? Really? That's exasperation on your part. Because everyone gets to decide those things for themselves. No single group gets to decide them for others. The NFL fan base are consumers of the NFL product. They are who they are and they will decide for themselves in this case. The next case? Different circumstances and issues? Life is a very liquid situation. Who knows how any of that might effect an issue or even the God, country, etc. hierarchy.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 7:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
State-complicit murder. Did you actually write that? |
And that is exactly how the people protesting see the issue. Why is the only side that perception matters upon in this debate is the side of the anti-kneeling crowd. Why does the perception of the protesters take a back seat to that?
As for the issue and patriotism mixing in this, or course that is the case. It gets me back to what I was saying before. My whole point was that it was intellectually dishonest to argue that it is never okay to disrespect the flag. The arguement being made is not that it is wrong to disrespect the flag, it is that it is wrong to disrespect the flag over this issue.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 7:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| State-complicit murder. Did you actually write that? What exact percentage of the instances of cops killing blacks would constitute as murder in your book? |
What percentage do you find acceptable?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 8:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Justin. Get it straight! God, Country, Family, Football. |
Honestly, I think this is the problem in a nutshell.
"God, Country, Family, Football." That's the culture for parts of America. The part of America that you seem to have the most sympathy for.
That's not the culture of all of America, and it's not the culture for most of America any longer. This is literally the Sarah Palin "real Americans" argument. It's bullshit.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 9:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Justin. Get it straight! God, Country, Family, Football. |
Honestly, I think this is the problem in a nutshell.
"God, Country, Family, Football." That's the culture for parts of America. The part of America that you seem to have the most sympathy for.
That's not the culture of all of America, and it's not the culture for most of America any longer. This is literally the Sarah Palin "real Americans" argument. It's bullshit. |
You guys are amazing. You sound like a baby there. Someone presents this information to you, which so many of you apprerently had not allowed for in your thinking, and you attack that person? When I say patriotism is real, it’s powerful, it’s a driving consideration in the response to the kneelers, I’m challenged to support that (to you glazed-eyed lefties) notion with more detail and explanation, perfectly understandable, by the way, then the pushbacks take a more personal tone.
It sucks, folks. You will hold that anyone who doesn’t support the anthem protests are and absolutely must be a dwindling, dying-off, Sarah Palin caricature of America.
This is a liberal misreading, misunderstanding, and miscalculation of where America is right now. And yes, racism is mighty big issue in America. I’ve said before things like, this is what the beginnings of a race war look like. You can bet it won’t be neat and tidy and clean on at least one side. But you all here are insistently downplaying the role he form of these protests are taking. Well, all but pilight who also pointed out how they would fail and why. That was before he decided it would be more fun to revert back to his like 18 years of trolling me.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 9:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Justin. Get it straight! God, Country, Family, Football. |
Honestly, I think this is the problem in a nutshell.
"God, Country, Family, Football." That's the culture for parts of America. The part of America that you seem to have the most sympathy for.
That's not the culture of all of America, and it's not the culture for most of America any longer. This is literally the Sarah Palin "real Americans" argument. It's bullshit. |
You guys are amazing. You sound like a baby there. Someone presents this information to you, which so many of you apprerently had not allowed for in your thinking, and you attack that person? When I say patriotism is real, it’s powerful, it’s a driving consideration in the response to the kneelers, I’m challenged to support that (to you glazed-eyed lefties) notion with more detail and explanation, perfectly understandable, by the way, then the pushbacks take a more personal tone. |
You have LITERALLY spent the past two years going on and on about this particular group of people. This demographic.
Yes. They did decide 2016. Because they have more political power than they should.
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
It sucks, folks. You will hold that anyone who doesn’t support the anthem protests are and absolutely must be a dwindling, dying-off, Sarah Palin caricature of America. |
No. Some people are just uneducated. Some people have no idea what Kaep's message was, and listened to facebook.
And no one said this section of America is dying off. Simply that it isn't the only culture, and not even the biggest culture, in America. And that, for some fucking reason..it's the only culture that ever matters.
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
This is a liberal misreading, misunderstanding, and miscalculation of where America is right now. And yes, racism is mighty big issue in America. I’ve said before things like, this is what the beginnings of a race war look like. You can bet it won’t be neat and tidy and clean on at least one side. But you all here are insistently downplaying the role he form of these protests are taking. Well, all but pilight who also pointed out how they would fail and why. That was before he decided it would be more fun to revert back to his like 18 years of trolling me. |
You're pushing a false narrative that is easily refuted with real world examples and data evidence (as has been shown to you multiple times).
Yes. I know..we all fucking know....that a significant portion of white america has twisted (some, without even knowing they did so) Kaep's protest (which he was clear as fucking day about ) into something about disrespecting vets.
Kaep didn't actually disrespect vets.
Kaep's issue is completely legitimate.
That's not glazed eyed liberal nonsense. It's what actually happened. Yeah, we know White Middle America doesn't fucking like it. White Americans never like civil rights protests.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
|
|
