Author Topic: NFL fines for disrespect  (Read 2349 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
NFL fines for disrespect
« on: May 23, 2018, 01:35:18 PM »
Quote
The NFL also vowed to "impose appropriate discipline on league personnel who do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem."​

Hmm, does that include chewing gum, rocking from side to side, pilates, and unnumbered other disrepects that have been a staple of athletes during the anthem - or does it only apply to political protest?

They certainly have every right to do that.... ish. I smell a court battle when Chik-fil-A tries to make their employees stand and salute the flag.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2018, 01:46:06 PM »
Well if campaign contributions can be speech then I don't see why silence can't be speech. 

Maybe draft picks will have to go through confirmation hearings so owners can determine if they are going to cost the team in fines, and factor that into their contracts... 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2018, 04:11:34 PM »
Hmmm... since when did kneeling down in front of something become a sign of disrespect?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2018, 05:07:19 PM »
Wow, that was about as intently obtuse as it gets.   ::)

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2018, 05:27:42 PM »
You think so only because you don't listen to what those kneeling have been saying.  You have a misguided feeling of what you want them to be saying, but that's not the same thing.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2018, 06:15:12 PM »
Hmmm... since when did kneeling down in front of something become a sign of disrespect?

I've been sitting here for awhile trying to figure out how to respond to this, other than rolling the eyes and calling it obtuse.  Because I really can't believe anybody could actually think or write this.  So I'm trying to figure out if it is satire, or ironic, or some other form of joke. 

It's pretty well known that you're supposed to stand for the National Anthem when it is played at public events.  Every kid in America already knows this.  They even tell you before playing the Anthem.  "Please rise for the National Anthem".  To publicly make a statement by not rising IS in fact a kind of disrespect.  It would basically like deciding to stand during the Eucharistic prayer at a Catholic Mass or remaining seated during the Pledge of Allegiance at school.  You're basically doing something contrary to what is expected and asked of you, because whatever.  I don't think that you're really disrespecting the flag.  You're probably simply disrespecting yourself and society at large. 

I've heard the whole story about how the kneeling thing started, which was supposed to be some sort of compromise suggested by a prior service member as opposed to staying seated.  I think it was a poor call on the part of the service member.  I also think it has been an extremely poor call as to how the response has been broadcast across the entire universe and how it has been handled. 

Speaking of staying seated during the Pledge.  In high school we had our own group of outcasts.  I suppose most places have them.  We had anarchists.
 But they were not outcasts because they were made to be outcasts.  I mean, they probably were not going to be accepted as friends with certain cliques, but then that's not particularly special.  They actually chose to put themselves apart in many cases, not wanting to be a part of the bourgeois or posh.  Their primary way of setting themselves outside of the student body was to protest the government of the United States, which they being anarchists, did not believe in, by refusing to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance every morning. 

Now, I'm not questioning their beliefs, or their reasons for not standing for the pledge.  I mean, I do question how normally smart kids (because these were all smart kids) decided that anarchy was the preferable sort of society.  But I suppose if you really believe that anarchy is the way to go, that you would not pledge allegiance to the United States. 

The point of this story isn't about the weirdos, though.  It's about the way the school handled it.  They let them.  They made no big deal about it.  It was invisible.  Nobody needed to reinforce to the rest of us what was the proper way to handle the Pledge of Allegiance.  We all stood up.  Whatever differences or cliques or other political nonsense that the student body dealt with, it was in this way that the anarchists set themselves apart from everyone else.  They isolated themselves.  It seemed to be their goal.  So let them.

The whole Colin Kaepernick phenomenon should have been handled the same way.  It should have been largely ignored.  Instead, it was used to fuel the fires of division through outrage.  People started losing their *censored*, because the flag was being disrespected, or whatever.  Then they started throwing dead veterans into the mix, talking about how men and women had DIED FOR THE FLAG, etc etc.   As a veteran, let me assure all of you, that none of us ever fought and died because of a damn flag.  90% of us fought, and some died, because that was our job, our duty, and we didn't want to let down our buddies.  Most of us who joined up did so because we believed in the ideal of America, and believed it was something worth fighting for.  Some have fought and died for the ideals that we have come to see the flag as representing.  I can assure you that not standing up for the National Anthem doesn't disrespect me or them in any way at all.  The only person you are disrespecting is yourself, and you're placing yourself outside your community, just like the weirdos in high school did. 

One of the first lessons of modern politics that everyone should know is that outrage doesn't really solve anything, except create more division and polarization.  So when the certain set became outraged, it was natural for another set to come out and defend the freedom of protest, speech, etc etc.  From there, it just got worse, particularly when the Queens Genius got involved.  There is no more polarizing person in the United States now than the President.  Yay.  So when Donald Trump comes out and says that eating pop rocks and RC cola, then jumping up and down, is a stupid idea and that people who do it should be fired or prosecuted, then of course a huge amount of people are going to support eating pop rocks and drinking RC cola and jumping up and down just because he is against it. 

All of this is coming out to ruin the NFL.  Of this I am quite agnostic.  I have no dog in this hunt.  I would be quite happy to see the NFL fall apart, or cut salary of players and coaches, and begin to crumble into nothingness, just to teach everybody a good lesson.  I'm sure Kaepernick and every other millionaire in the NFL will do just fine on the outside.  We will all be better off without American Football.  I won't have to deal with the Alabama vs LSU BS every year. 

That being said, I really see no problem with an employer telling their employees that they have to stand for the National Anthem, any more than I would have difficulty with an employer telling an employee that she has to wear a bra, because despite it being an oppressive tool of the patriarchy, when she stopped wearing her bra, all the ladies in the town forbade their husbands and sons to come shop at the store.  Business is business.  Your right to protest and freedom of speech doesn't always apply in the workplace without consequences from your employer.  Of course, there really shouldn't have been this huge problem in business in the first place, but what should happen rarely does.  You should have the ability to speak your mind.  People should accept that you have a right and not loose their minds when you do.  But it does nobody any good when the store closes down. 

Despite my tolerance of civil disobedience, I really can't support this actual form, for many of the reasons others have already mentioned.  It achieves nothing.  It doesn't win the support of anyone who wasn't with you in the first place.  As a form of argument, it's futile.  I would call it masturbation, but at least masturbation will achieve pleasure as a side effect, whereas I don't think that anyone has been pleased by these protests.  It's only caused more outrage and polarization. 

Successful protesters and social movers have made gains by appealing to similarities and evoking shared values, rather than driving a wedge and creating more outrage and polarization.  At it height, the Civil Rights movement appealed to American values of equality and fairness through protest and speech and argument.  This protest seems to have done little of that.  It's not entirely the fault of the protest itself, but it if your methods are not achieving results, you need to change methods.  You cannot appeal to the ideals and values of America while simultaneously choosing as your target the very symbol of those ideals and values.  Instead of masturbation, it's more like shooting yourself in the foot.  After all, Colin Kaepernick, and all the people who support his protest, are Americans too.  And the values and ideals they seem to want to fight for are American ideals.  The flag and the anthem represent them too.  So as I said, they seem to only be disrespecting themselves and cutting themselves off from the very same people whose help they need to achieve what they want. 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2018, 06:20:23 PM »
You think so only because you don't listen to what those kneeling have been saying.  You have a misguided feeling of what you want them to be saying, but that's not the same thing.
Uh, no. It’s because it’s deliberately obtuse. It’s not about “feelings” or what’s been said. It’s about you being obtuse.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 06:28:56 PM »
You think so only because you don't listen to what those kneeling have been saying.  You have a misguided feeling of what you want them to be saying, but that's not the same thing.

Peeing on a police officer's cruiser is probably not the best way to get the mayor to increase spending on the police department because their cruisers are old and busted. 

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2018, 08:18:12 PM »
Maybe I'm obtuse as well, but I fail to see how a non-disruptive, peaceful form of protest, suggesting to a wide audience that we, as a people can do better, is in any way, NOT patriotic, or is somehow unamerican, or is disrespectful to anyone but those who abuse authority.

Society expects people to stand and pay respect to the flag.  By not doing so, you get their attention.  They wonder why, they debate if breaking this social norm / taboo is justified.  I can think of few more effective ways a prominent athlete could get their message out to a wide audience who doesn't want to think about, let alone discuss the thing they are protesting.

If you accept that there will always be "bad apples" in law enforcement and this protest upsets you, good.  Complain.  Loudly if you would.

If you agree that law enforcement officers abusing their power need to be dealt with, but this is not the way, good.  Complain.  Come up with more/better methods, and tell people, loudly.

If you support those who take a knee in protest, voice that support.

If you don't care...  Then,



Then nothing.  Nobody's forcing you or fining you.  I expect a lot, if not most of us even, don't even have a flag pole at our place of work; let alone start the work day off with the national anthem.  Nobody's going to penalize you  for not professing your love of country.  It's likely only slightly less important to your coworkers than what you thought of the last episode of their favorite TV show. 

But these athletes are our heroes, or at least, we envy those fat pay checks they get.  So they don't have any right to complain...  Or, well technically they have the right to complain, but we're cool with that costing them money for having the audacity of reminding us that there's still room for improvement in this great country.  Jerks!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 08:20:43 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2018, 10:00:38 PM »
I'm of the arcane belief that anytime a person isn't permitted to express their true views but must be a puppet mouthpiece for a company that it's a bad situation. Encouraging or requiring people to state what they think on behalf of someone else is simply dishonest, good/bad business notwithstanding. Ever try to speak to someone in a store about a product or service, and ask them "Ok, but what do you really think?" We all immediately trust the person willing to give us the skivvy and dispense with the corporate BS.

As a matter of how to run a company I do think an employer should be allowed to set the tone of the business, the decorum, and so forth. But on the other hand if this includes requiring employees to put on a display that they honestly object to, I have a problem with that. I'm not sure what the solution is. It would probably begin with dispensing with the idea that a company can have beliefs or opinions.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2018, 10:18:33 PM »
What’s happened here is the decline in nfl viewers has freaked out team owners.

Quote
Money talks. Muh principles and muh outrage walk.

Exactly.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2018, 01:24:18 AM »
If there is a principle that players are forbidden from silent protests of policy while the national anthem is being played because anything other than standing is disrespectful, what about people in the stands? Can they go to the bathroom or buy hot dogs during the national anthem? 

 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2018, 08:02:15 AM »
If there is a principle that players are forbidden from silent protests of policy while the national anthem is being played because anything other than standing is disrespectful, what about people in the stands? Can they go to the bathroom or buy hot dogs during the national anthem?
Of course there is, I’m sure you already knew:
Quote
Employers have wide discretion when it comes to limiting the political expression of employees in the workplace

The employer has less influence over the customers but can, just as obviously, ask them to leave if their behavior is deemed inappropriate.

What’s up with your obtuseness?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2018, 08:17:11 AM »
Maybe I'm obtuse as well, but I fail to see how a non-disruptive, peaceful form of protest, suggesting to a wide audience that we, as a people can do better, is in any way, NOT patriotic, or is somehow unamerican, or is disrespectful to anyone but those who abuse authority.

Society expects people to stand and pay respect to the flag.  By not doing so, you get their attention.  They wonder why, they debate if breaking this social norm / taboo is justified.  I can think of few more effective ways a prominent athlete could get their message out to a wide audience who doesn't want to think about, let alone discuss the thing they are protestin.
But it is disruptive. That’s why we’re talking about it.

For every customer facing meeting at work, at the very beginning, go to a corner of the room and kneel in protest. Make sure your company’s customers are seeing you do this. What do you think, any potential pushback and is it an abuse of power?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2018, 09:37:55 AM »
What about if your company opened every employee meeting with a prayer?  Then you went into a corner and knelt quietly.  You wouldn't be stealing time, or holding up the meeting.  You wouldn't be disrespecting their decision to pray.  You don't even require any special considerations by your employer to accommodate your beliefs.  Just a corner to stand in.

Though I guess you could also wait out in the hall, and let them all brand you an enemy of their religion and someone they should view with suspicion and contempt.  How about having the head of the company mentioning loudly, so the office can overhear, that those who don't join in with the prayer maybe shouldn't work here.

YOU are the disruption.  You and others who decide to take offence; who threaten to tune out or boycott.  These people are kneeling quietly while others are standing quietly.  That's it.  If you believe that is disruptive, then what type of protest IS acceptable? 

They aren't blocking up the roads.  They aren't shouting and making people nervous.  They aren't shouting "Down with America!"  I really don't get the backlash against these protesters. 

Is it seriously THAT disruptive to know an athlete has political views and wants to express them?  That they would do anything BUT perform for our entertainment, and be grateful for the opportunity to do so, is apparently outrageous to viewers?

I tell you what, it bothers me a lot more when our laws are applied unequally or people are killed because of racial bias and stereotypes.  I know for damn sure which is a larger threat to our country and to society.  It sure isn't an athlete taking a knee.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 09:42:07 AM by D.W. »

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2018, 10:30:06 AM »
Maybe I'm obtuse as well, but I fail to see how a non-disruptive, peaceful form of protest, suggesting to a wide audience that we, as a people can do better, is in any way, NOT patriotic, or is somehow unamerican, or is disrespectful to anyone but those who abuse authority.

Society expects people to stand and pay respect to the flag.  By not doing so, you get their attention.  They wonder why, they debate if breaking this social norm / taboo is justified.  I can think of few more effective ways a prominent athlete could get their message out to a wide audience who doesn't want to think about, let alone discuss the thing they are protesting.

I can't really tell if you're being obtuse or not.  It basically comes down to what you mean when you say "I fail to see".  It could mean that you fail to believe that the arguments that not standing for the national anthem are valid vs the counter-argument, in which case you are not being obtuse, you just don't believe the argument carries.  It could also mean that you don't understand the actual argument in the first place.  In which case you cannot in good conscience dismiss the argument because you don't understand it and cannot repeat/regurgitate/comprehend the beliefs that anchor the argument in the first place.  The second case is of course the worst case, since lack of understanding the other side leaves you incapable of making a reasonable decision. You are incapable from passing the Ideological Turing Test, which relegates you to pure partisanship. 

Whether this makes you obtuse depends on the ability of the other side to make their arguments/beliefs clear, and your willingness to attempt in good faith to understand them and debate them utilizing common rules of rhetoric.  Imagine the argument being a ball that the other side is attempting to throw to you in order for you to catch.  If the ball is being thrown Ricky Vaughn, or Tim Wakefield style, and you are making every attempt to catch the ball, you are of course not being obtuse.  If you are deliberately not making any effort to catch the ball, and simply saying "you can't pitch for *censored*", then you are indeed being obtuse. 

The problem at hand is a Question of Value as it is known in argumentation.  It means it has a basis in ethics and values, which of course makes it especially difficult, because everyone has different value systems and the study of ethics is basically decayed to the point that we are basically in a Tower of Babel situation.  To be specific, we are arguing what is respectful and what is not, and respect's place in value hierarchy. 

The chief methods of deciding whether an act is "good" or not are several.  There is looking at the result or effect, ie consequentialism.  There is looking at the intent of the act, which has it's roots in virtue ethics and deontological ethics.  Then there is their is looking at the nature of the act in and of itself, bereft of intent or consequences, which also has roots in deontological ethics, but is also rooted in theological ethics. 

 To break down your counter-argument, you fail to see how and action that is:
1. Peaceful
2. Non-disruptive
3. Suggestive of a better way of doing things

Can be:

1. Unpatriotic
2. Unamerican
3. Disrespectful

This breakdown perfectly illustrates why you are having a hard time understanding the argument because you are focusing on certain attributes of the action, in reference to consequence or intent, while failing to think about the nature of the action itself.  At prima facie, you have a strong counter, because most people would agree that nothing about being peaceful (consequence) or non-disruptive (consequence), or suggesting a better way of doing things (intent) is in any way unpatriotic (value), unamerican (value), or disrespectful (value).  What the counter fails to accomplish, though, is actually addressing the argument in the first place, making it invalid.  This of course might not be your fault.  I have no doubt that most of the arguments for calling kneeling or remaining seated for the national anthem as being disrespectful or unamerican or unpatriotic actually address the criteria they are utilizing for concluding that such an action is disrespectful or unpatriotic or unamerican.  That's because most people have no idea how to make good arguments, and are basically chimps playing with machine guns.  You often have to read between the lines and ask good questions in order to clarify why people believe what they believe in questions of value. 

For instance, by reading your counter carefully, I can conclude that you find freedom, and not harming people, to be important, if not premier values, and that these premier values both evaluate the consequences of actions, and find freedom to be a good in and of itself. 

I attempted to illustrate the futility, and the main thrust of the argument earlier when I spoke of the lack of wisdom in peeing on a cop car in order to protest lack of police funding.  I will chalk that up to throwing a very wild knuckleball, which was incapable of even caught even by Doug Mirabelli, bless his soul.  In an attempt to throw a better pitch, I will try and illustrate a better example. 

Let's say you are a Catholic guest at a Catholic wedding.  During the mass, the priest requests everyone stand up and hold hands to say the Our Father, or applaud the bride and groom, or kneel for the Eucharistic Prayer.  In a protest against Catholic handling of child molestation scandals, you decide to not do any of the above.  You remain seated, or remain standing, or whatever. 

Now, you have no intent of harming anyone, and you have no intent of being disrespectful.  No one indeed is harmed by your actions, and the wedding is not disrupted.  But did you disrespect the church, the priest, and the bride/groom? 

Respect is a tricky value, because people who value it do it for it's own sake, bereft of consequences or intent, or possibly from a deontological aspect in the idea that if everyone stops showing respect we would have a breakdown of community.  As you have said, society expects people to stand for the anthem.  They have decided that this is a proper show of respect.  It is a cultural sacred cow/taboo.  Thus, not rising for the anthem, regardless of intent or result, is disrespectful.  Disrespect then is the lack of respectful action and nothing more.  If you fail to shake someone's hand, knowing that it is the expected respectful gesture, then irregardless of your intent and the lack of harm or the result, you are being disrespectful.  If you fail to say "thank you" or "your welcome" upon the proper actions, knowing that it is the proper respectful gesture, then you are being disrespectful.  There are of course mitigating circumstances.  If you have no legs or are paralyzed, no one expects you to stand for the anthem.  If you are sick and make this known, no one expects you to shake hands.  If you are mute, no one can expect you to say "thank you".

This is also not to say that despite the idea that a disrespectful action is "bad" in and of itself, that intent and result should not be factored into the final consideration.  Obviously a form of disrespect that has the intent of being disrespectful or harmful is worse than a form of disrespect without those intents.  Thus, a form of disrespect that lacks the intent of disrespect or harmful result is in fact the least "bad" form of disrespect. 


Addressing your second paragraph, you go deeper into the justification for action by looking at both the intent and result of the action.  As you say, the intent is to protest and the best way to do this is to garner attention.  Since the action achieves this intent by drawing attention, you see it as both effective and hence "good".  This counter of course also ignores the argument itself.  It also tends to ignore the basic defense that there are good and bad ways of drawing attention.  Attention seeking behavior is a common enough occurrence in child and adult psychology.  It is common belief that there are both good and bad ways of drawing attention, and that the difference lies in the action itself rather than in the intent or consequences.  I'm not a psychologist, but I am a dad and was a child.  Attention seeking through methods or in venues where inappropriate are seen as bad behavior in children and even worse in adults.  The counter that the intent was to seek attention and the results were achieves ignores the defense that certain methods of seeking attention and in certain venues are deemed inappropriate, and are seen as poor child-like behavior. 

There are many ways that a professional athlete with money can draw attention to whatever cause or protest or idea they wish to convey.  You can simply write a book or an article.  You have interviews and media and resources at your disposal that most people do not.  Knowingly drawing attention by choosing a method that one knows can be construed as disrespectful is basically trolling. 




Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2018, 10:31:28 AM »
What’s happened here is the decline in nfl viewers has freaked out team owners.

Quote
Money talks. Muh principles and muh outrage walk.

Exactly.

Apparently there is at least one other factor in play regarding this decision.

Quote
Our league is f-----g terrified of Trump. We're scared of him.

Or as Trump himself said:

Quote
"I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good,” Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in an exclusive interview. “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem. You shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the country.”

Of course, don't think this is the end of this.  The NFL Players Association has promised to challenge this decision in court.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2018, 10:41:43 AM »
If there is a principle that players are forbidden from silent protests of policy while the national anthem is being played because anything other than standing is disrespectful, what about people in the stands? Can they go to the bathroom or buy hot dogs during the national anthem?

I think this ignores both the quality of the kneeling itself, and the actual reasoning behind making it against the rules. 

Obviously going to the bathroom or buying hot dogs during the anthem is indeed disrespectful.  However, there are several mitigating circumstances that the casual bystander has no idea of knowing.  Obviously peeing yourself during the anthem is worse than not standing for it.  There is no idea of the level of ignorance the individual possesses. 

Finally, the actual cause of the rule is nothing more than to staunch the loss of revenue due to counter-protest of the protest.  It's not really the most moral of reasoning, but as I mentioned before, the owners of the NFL are about making money, not making political statements.  If your political statement loses them money, they're going to forbid it, regardless of the value of freedom or tolerance.  It perhaps should not be this way, but your valuation of freedom needs to be higher than your valuation of money, and it's easy to take a stand when you have nothing to lose.  This was some of the same reasoning behind the firing of Eich and Damore.  I don't think you can be for the rights of employers in one case and be against it in another.  I'm going to say again that I think it's the wrong way to handle the situation, but it's within their rights. 

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2018, 10:48:01 AM »

Our league is f-----g terrified of Trump. We're scared of him.

Awesome.  We're quoting unnamed sources to Bleacher Report via Fox News.  In the sense that His Mightyness is going to use the protest as a bullet in the culture war, they are of course correct.  They're also correct in saying that His Mightyness has more influence with a certain set of NFL watcher than Colin Kaepernick and his supporters.  The bottom line is $ and will remain $. 

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2018, 10:54:05 AM »
What about if your company opened every employee meeting with a prayer?  Then you went into a corner and knelt quietly.  You wouldn't be stealing time, or holding up the meeting.  You wouldn't be disrespecting their decision to pray.  You don't even require any special considerations by your employer to accommodate your beliefs.  Just a corner to stand in.

The difference here, as you pointed out before, is intent.  You're not kneeling in the corner to make a statement or gather attention for that statement.  And nobody expects an atheist, or a member of a different religion to be a part of a prayer.  Everyone expects, as you pointed out, that an American stand for the national anthem.  This then becomes a straw man.  Nobody is arguing that employees at Hobby Lobby should be forced to join in a prayer, or quietly excuse themselves from one. 

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2018, 11:17:16 AM »
It's obvious that employers can require things of their employees although I think there's some potential for further development here because there's a free speech issue. Free speech is not an absolute right but limits on it need to be examined.

I think it's pretty clear that Donald's point was that the NFL was pretending not to understand the players motivation for their protest. It's been a common theme. Instead of trusting Kaepernick and others to say why they're protesting and what they want, it gets reframed as some sort of disrespect for the military or other completely distorted versions of what they're doing.

Personally I don't give a crap about the NFL, but I'm even more unlikely to start giving a crap now. I think they are caving to nationalistic demagoguery on the part of politicians.


DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2018, 11:34:34 AM »
In what other context has kneeling in front of something not been seen as either showing respect for or deference to that thing?

To make kneeling mean disrespect, you have to completely redefine what kneeling has meant historically; much like Grant has done above by stating that standing is the only way to show respect for the anthem, because, well, in stadiums, and other places where kneeling is completely impractical, people are invited to stand for the anthem - so traditional invitations to stand therefore must mean that kneeling is actually an insult.

As for the peeing on the cop car thing - aside from the fact (yes, I'm going with 'fact') that peeing on something is inherently disrespectful, it is also in some cases either a misdemeanor or a felony.  It's a really weird metaphor to use in this case, since kneeling is purely non-aggressive, and inherently respectful - the complete opposite of peeing on something in public in so many ways.

The non sequitur is strong in this one.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2018, 11:45:15 AM »
Maybe one or both of us are not expressing ourselves well here.
Quote
It could mean that you fail to believe that the arguments that not standing for the national anthem are valid vs the counter-argument, in which case you are not being obtuse, you just don't believe the argument carries.
I don’t even SEE an argument.  I see an opinion.  A belief.  It’s ritual.  It’s symbolic. 

I believe a good person does not needlessly insult others for taking part these things.  I even accept that questioning these things is “bad form” because a lot of people don’t even give a thought as to why they do these things.  It makes them feel a part of a group, they can take pride in something. 

I even understand how it can seem hurtful when someone demonstrates that they do not feel they are an equal member of that group.  I understand how jarring it can be for someone to see another, willingly set themselves apart, making it even harder to be included, in order to demonstrate they feel excluded.

So you are correct.  I don’t understand “the argument”.  It’s actually more than that.  I believe that those arguing don’t even understand themselves.  Or even the things they supposedly paying respect to.  We are not pledging blind obedience to the state.  We are not proclaiming belief the state can do no wrong. 

So what IS “the argument”.  What is represented by the flag, the anthem and other rituals and symbols of patriotism that are damaged by such a protest?  If you feel compelled to shout down those who dare to suggest things are not perfect, that we can still improve, then you are a victim of propaganda.  Not a patriot.
I do feel that I’m becoming increasingly partisan lately.  I frequently see and hear hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty or outright lies when people attempt to articulate views contrary to mine.  I’m not going to lie, it bothers me.  I don’t want to think badly of people just because they believe in a different path to make us safe, and prosperous, healthy and happy.  I just find it increasingly hard to believe I can take what they say at face value.  I’m almost always looking for “the real motive” behind their actions and words. 
It’s exhausting, and sad.

Part of what keeps me coming back here is that people make serious attempts to convey what they mean and what their motivations are.  Less speculation is required when people start supporting their views and statements with chains of thought that got them from A to Z.  You can occasionally see common ground.

Quote
To break down your counter-argument, you fail to see how and action that is:
1. Peaceful
2. Non-disruptive
3. Suggestive of a better way of doing things

Can be:

1. Unpatriotic
2. Unamerican
3. Disrespectful

This breakdown perfectly illustrates why you are having a hard time understanding the argument because you are focusing on certain attributes of the action, in reference to consequence or intent, while failing to think about the nature of the action itself.
It’s not that my list of 3 disqualify the other 3.  It’s that the latter 3 make zero sense to me.  It’s NOT unpatriotic because to me, there are fewer things MORE patriotic than attempting to correct injustice and improve things for your fellow citizens.  There are few things MORE American, than the ability to speak out and suggest that our government is NOT perfect, and to suggest that we as a people can improve things if we take note, and work together.  Choosing to take a knee and wait in silence rather than any number of possible actions is evidence that they DO respect the ritual and symbolism of the flag and anthem.   

All the “complaints”, when taken at face value, are objectively without merit.  Subjectively though, the protesters are breaking a taboo, they are not following ritual, they are forcing one out of a symbolic mindset and into considering the world around them.  They are asking us to take responsibility for our country.  That’s a lot harder than just wrapping yourself in the warm-fuzzies of the collective while we gather to enjoy a game.

Respect is a tricky value.  The reason I find this form of protest so compelling is that it triggers the, “We’ve been disrespected!” response.  I’m sure this is no accident.  However the message, and request to do better is IMO a MORE patriotic act, than JUST standing and saluting a piece of cloth and singing a song.  Others never make it past the programmed response of IF TABOO BROKEN THEN ANGRY RESPONSE 1  Or, as you put it, chimps pulling back the primer on their machine guns.

Quote
It also tends to ignore the basic defense that there are good and bad ways of drawing attention.
Without wasting time on this, what are “good” ways?  I can think of, and have seen MANY ways I consider bad or worse.  In fact, the more common response tend to be A) less effective, and B) more disruptive and sometimes even “worse”.  Is it just that this one is on national TV?  Maybe it’s that I live and work in a place that sees protesting occasionally.  I can’t just “change the channel” and ignore it.  Is the only “good” protest, one you can avoid and ignore? 

Quote
And nobody expects an atheist, or a member of a different religion to be a part of a prayer.
I chose a prayer analogy knowing full well that we have protections against such things.  However, it is the only (or at least most effective) equivalent situation, to patriotic ritual and reverence towards symbols that people can quickly understand.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2018, 11:49:54 AM »
In an attempt to throw a better pitch, I will try and illustrate a better example. 

Let's say you are a Catholic guest at a Catholic wedding.  During the mass, the priest requests everyone stand up and hold hands to say the Our Father, or applaud the bride and groom, or kneel for the Eucharistic Prayer.  In a protest against Catholic handling of child molestation scandals, you decide to not do any of the above.  You remain seated, or remain standing, or whatever. 

Now, you have no intent of harming anyone, and you have no intent of being disrespectful.  No one indeed is harmed by your actions, and the wedding is not disrupted.  But did you disrespect the church, the priest, and the bride/groom? 

Since this was your attempt to throw an 'easy-to-catch' example I'll point out that in  practice what you suggest isn't at all the case in a Catholic church. People are asked to stand or sit at specified times, but that's primarily because many people are bad at knowing the timing for these things. It's a reminder, not a command. And to whit people are never asked to kneel; that's a personal thing. It's true that there are specified times to kneel during a mass however it's not customary to tell anyone to do so. You just do so - if you want to. It's also normal during a mass for people to participate or not to any extent they wish. They can choose not to stand, or not to kneel, and that's totally ok. Not only is it ok, but no one else will probably even notice. Actually, it's almost required that others not notice as it's considered disrespectful to be keeping an eye on what others are doing. There can be many reasons for a person to remain seated for the whole mass, which can include them being a non-religious observer of the ceremony (especially common at Christmas and Easter), being interested but unconvinced, not being comfortable enough yet to follow along, or any number of other reasons. You don't even need a reason, you just participate if you want to. It's no disrespect either way.

Offhand I can't think of anything in a church that would be disrespectful to do by way of declining to do it. There are obviously infinite ways you could actively do something that would be disrespectful, such as making noise, jumping all over the place during communion (although when toddlers do it it's funny), and so forth.

Let's face it: requiring sports players to participate in a ritual (which is what the anthem is) that they potentially object to is equivalent to requiring political/moral speech from your employees on behalf of a company, and I don't particularly find that legitimate. Sure, there's money involved: sports have often had partnerships with the military, and certainly there's a marketing aspect to the sports/patriotism angle. It's understandable to suggest that since it's just a respect thing to stand for the flag you don't need to be expected to actually agree with it to respect the tradition. For instance it's customary to wear a kippah in a synagogue or at a Jewish funeral regardless of whether you're observant or even Jewish. It would irk certain people if you didn't, for sure. If you apply for a job at a synagogue and don't want to wear it you're probably barking up the wrong tree. But what if your company, which isn't a religious organization, decides to have some event take place in a synagogue, and now requires you to wear it? Is it legitimate to ask you to wear it (an analogy to standing for the anthem) simply out of respect even if you don't believe in it? That's where the issue comes in: to what extent is wearing it a 'statement' of some kind, versus just being polite? If the argument can be made that it's a positive statement that you don't believe in then I hesitate to agree that a company can or should have the right to require you - or even ask you - to do it.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2018, 01:32:12 AM »
Here's an interesting argument - if the NFL wants to act like a private corporation instead of a quasi-public institution, then that's fine but then let's eliminate the exemption from taxes and antitrust law

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nfl-can-punish-kneeling-players-because-its-a-private-corporation-lets-start-taxing-it-like-one?source=facebook&via=desktop

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2018, 04:46:47 PM »
In sport players are often asked to ‘Take a Knee’ when the coach has something important to say.
Taking a Knee is, IMO, an effective symbol to remind everyone to be pay attention and perhaps ask themselves if we are living up to the values we say we stand for. 
It is an action that shows great respect to the flag and what it stands for. 
I suspect if a white player had used the same method for some other cause taking a Knee would have been all the rage... but one must be able to see one’s shadow to come to that realization... so not going to happen in the good old USA

That said my opinion is that we should return to the days when they didn’t play the anthem at sporting games and allowed sport to be sport and not political.  No flag, no anthem, no problem.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2018, 06:00:53 PM »
Quote
I don’t even SEE an argument.  I see an opinion.  A belief.  It’s ritual.  It’s symbolic. 

???????
Of course it's an opinion.  Of course it's a belief.  It's a statement of value.  All statements of value are opinions and beliefs.  All ethics are based on opinions and statements of belief.  Of course it's a ritual.  Of course it's symbolic.  Were you looking for a mathematical proof? 

Quote
It’s actually more than that.  I believe that those arguing don’t even understand themselves.  Or even the things they supposedly paying respect to.  We are not pledging blind obedience to the state.  We are not proclaiming belief the state can do no wrong.

I imagine that there are plenty of people who don't support kneeling during the anthem who cannot express why they believe it is wrong.  I don't believe anyone who doesn't support it thinks that it means that the state can do no wrong. 

Quote
What is represented by the flag, the anthem and other rituals and symbols of patriotism that are damaged by such a protest?

I thought I had made it clear that the idea that disrespect was bad had nothing to do with it harming anyone or anything.  If disrespect harms anything, it might harm the person doing the disrespect or harm the community at large, but those are generally ephemeral points that are difficult to quantify or qualify.  People do have value systems beyond "do no harm".  The value of doing no harm is simply one of the chief, if not the sole, value that most liberals share. 

Quote
Choosing to take a knee and wait in silence rather than any number of possible actions is evidence that they DO respect the ritual and symbolism of the flag and anthem.

All the “complaints”, when taken at face value, are objectively without merit.  Subjectively though, the protesters are breaking a taboo, they are not following ritual, they are forcing one out of a symbolic mindset and into considering the world around them.  They are asking us to take responsibility for our country.  That’s a lot harder than just wrapping yourself in the warm-fuzzies of the collective while we gather to enjoy a game.

I don't think that you have addressed the argument that the ritual is in itself meant as a ritual of respect, and that by not taking part it is by it's nature disrespectful. 

Quote
However the message, and request to do better is IMO a MORE patriotic act, than JUST standing and saluting a piece of cloth and singing a song.  Others never make it past the programmed response of IF TABOO BROKEN THEN ANGRY RESPONSE 1  Or, as you put it, chimps pulling back the primer on their machine guns.

I honestly think this is your best riposte.  You waive the argument that the action is disrespectful, possibly granting it, while making the counter that there are greater values than respect for a symbol of the community/nation.  You are basically saying that Justice is more important than respecting a ritual of respect/unity to the national community.  That being said, as I mentioned earlier, you generally are more successful when you stress unity and respect rather than de-stress it. 

Quote
Without wasting time on this, what are “good” ways?  I can think of, and have seen MANY ways I consider bad or worse.  In fact, the more common response tend to be A) less effective, and B) more disruptive and sometimes even “worse”.  Is it just that this one is on national TV?  Maybe it’s that I live and work in a place that sees protesting occasionally.  I can’t just “change the channel” and ignore it.  Is the only “good” protest, one you can avoid and ignore? 

I'm probably the last person who you should ask because I'm not a real fan of protest in the first place.  That being said, "good ways" of drawing attention could probably be summed up as 1)Right venue, 2)right time, 3)right method.  For examples, I'd point to the ones I already made.  An interview on ESPN or to any newspaper/magazine/television show.  A written article in any kind of journal.  Organize a march or a rally at the right venue using the right method.  Tweet.  Post on Facebook.  Take part in internet forums.  Donate to political causes.  And finally, vote or run for office. 

Quote
I chose a prayer analogy knowing full well that we have protections against such things.  However, it is the only (or at least most effective) equivalent situation, to patriotic ritual and reverence towards symbols that people can quickly understand.

I thought it was a great analogy, but you got the circumstances wrong.  In this case, the person is not simply refusing to pray.  They are doing it AT the location of prayer and WITH an audience.  A better analogy of a situation no one would have a problem with would be in the person just stayed out in the hall, as you mentioned.  Instead, the individual goes into the place of prayer and physically makes a point of not taking part, in front of an audience, in order to garner attention, during a ritual whose purpose is not to draw attention to personal political statements. 


Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2018, 06:38:42 PM »
Quote
Since this was your attempt to throw an 'easy-to-catch' example I'll point out that in  practice what you suggest isn't at all the case in a Catholic church. People are asked to stand or sit at specified times, but that's primarily because many people are bad at knowing the timing for these things. It's a reminder, not a command. And to whit people are never asked to kneel; that's a personal thing. It's true that there are specified times to kneel during a mass however it's not customary to tell anyone to do so. You just do so - if you want to. It's also normal during a mass for people to participate or not to any extent they wish. They can choose not to stand, or not to kneel, and that's totally ok.

I think you and I must go to very different Catholic Churches.  And probably had very different introductions to the Catechism.  I had Nuns.  I don't remember that the time to kneel was a suggestion, or that it was a personal thing.  It's not for my children either.  I expect them to act appropriately.  I was brought up the same way. 

It's true, as you point out, that often times people choose not to stand or kneel or bow or speak.  It's usually ok because there are usually obvious reasons for the non-participation.  Usually age (young or old).  It could be that they are simply guests and that they are unbelievers, which is why people typically do not make a big deal about it, because it's impossible to know if they are or not, and you usually won't ask.  But if an altar server suddenly stopped kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer as a way of gaining attention for a political statement, they'd probably get rid of them. 

Quote
Let's face it: requiring sports players to participate in a ritual (which is what the anthem is) that they potentially object to is equivalent to requiring political/moral speech from your employees on behalf of a company, and I don't particularly find that legitimate.]

I generally agree with you on this point, though I'd say that in this certain case this argument really doesn't apply since as of yet, the NFL is not forcing players to take part in the anthem.  They are free to stay in the locker room if they wish.  They are just forbidden from not taking part when they are at the point of the ritual as a means of gaining attention.  That said I'd point out that some managers in MLB demand that their players take part in the anthem rather than staying in the clubhouse.  This is even done when playing in Toronto, and is seen as a sign of respect for hosts, as should be done as good guests.  It's forced participation in a political ritual, but I'm having a hard time finding a serious problem with it.  That being said, most players who were not showing up were probably doing so because they were lazy or didn't care. 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 06:41:30 PM by Grant »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2018, 04:41:38 PM »
Quote
Were you looking for a mathematical proof?
I believe it is wrong to kneel durring the anthem because ______.  That's what I was looking for.  If the answer is, "because it's disrespectful" or, "Because it bothers me." then the follow up is, "Why is it disprespectufl?  What about it bothers you?" 

Quote
I don't believe anyone who doesn't support it thinks that it means that the state can do no wrong.
And I don't believe they have a reason beyond, it making them uncomfortable to think about the issues being protested.  They aren't being forced to do something they don't want.  They aren't even being inconvenienced, cornered and asked for support.  They are complaining because someone is making them think.  The only one who has a reason to be offended, is one who believes the protester's position is wrong or harmful and they are expressing a counter view.  Such as, the state can do no wrong.  Or, I don't want the status quo to be disrupted. 

Both dissapointing views, but I get that people could hold them.  I don't buy letting slide, "I'm offended!" comments without asking someone to look at why they feel that way.

Quote
If disrespect harms anything, it might harm the person doing the disrespect or harm the community at large, but those are generally ephemeral points that are difficult to quantify or qualify.  People do have value systems beyond "do no harm".  The value of doing no harm is simply one of the chief, if not the sole, value that most liberals share.
And sometimes, healing wounds hurts.  Something being discomforted or pained is not the same as being harmed for harm's sake.  If the person doing the "disrespecting" is the one suffering more, then I'm even more proud of them.

Quote
I don't think that you have addressed the argument that the ritual is in itself meant as a ritual of respect, and that by not taking part it is by it's nature disrespectful.
Respect for what?  That's the important part.  Without knowing what you are showing respect to, I cannot address that argument.  I thought that I did address several possible things that are being shown respect.  And of those, the act of protest seems to celebrate those things and embody them in a far more profound manner than standing instead of kneeling durring the anthem. 

It's "walking the walk" instead of just "talking the talk" in my opinion.  So the discomfort people are experiencing is NOT the result of being disrespected.  It's shame.

Quote
You are basically saying that Justice is more important than respecting a ritual of respect/unity to the national community.
  If we were truly unified, and respected equally, then there would be nothing to protest.  So I'll take Justice over ignorance yes.  The question of if I would sacrifice true unity and mutual respect for the sake of Justice is an interesting (though not relevent) question.  I probably would side with Justice, knowing that I'm a bit outside of the mainstream with that priority.

Quote
1)Right venue, 2)right time, 3)right method.
Such as a venue with a large audiance.  At a moment people are least distracted.  Using a method to send a message that embodies the very traits being celebrated at that place at that time?  I'm sorry but it's hard to look at the attention this is getting and come to the conclusion that those tried and true methods are "right".  Though I will grant that voting or running for office is IMO the most likely path to actual change.  That doesn't mean you should give everyone already in office a pass.

It's not like they tried this at NASCAR or anything... It's American football we're talking about.  :P
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 04:44:06 PM by D.W. »

Mynnion

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2018, 07:29:38 AM »
I find it a little humerus that individuals who make a habit of calling "Liberals" Snowflakes because they find the disrespect of others offensive are set on being offended by a player kneeling.  Who is actually being disrespected here?  The military?  There are certainly those who were upset but there were many including my father (WW2 and Korea) who completely supported the players.  The flag?  The National Anthem?  Maybe those who feel that an African American should know his place and keep their mouth shut?  It certainly not the Constitution or the principles this nation was built on.
a
Of course the NFL is interested in the financials.  People are fond of saying respect has to be earned.  The real question I see is what needs to change for those kneeling players to feel they can stand?  As long as their message is ignored things are unlikely to change.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2018, 03:28:52 PM »
So if they kneel in the locker room where they can't hear the anthem and livestream it on social media, everybody's happy right? If they take their knee at the postgame press conference, we're all good right?  8)

I think little of this has ever been about the anthem, the flag, protocol, or respect. It think a lot of it has been about how you shouldn't criticize America, because it is such a great country.

If an athlete goes on Twitter and criticizes police, the same usual suspects are going to weep and gnash their teeth about highly paid black people who should just be grateful to live in a country that has treated them so well.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2018, 05:49:08 PM »
Quote
I think little of this has ever been about the anthem, the flag, protocol, or respect. It think a lot of it has been about how you shouldn't criticize America, because it is such a great country.

I don't think it's about criticizing America etc.. I also don't think it's about patriotism. Rightly or wrongly, BLM is a left wing cause associated with left wing Liberal values. It is a sign post for a whole set of values that the typical NFL.fan detests. It isn't hard to understand the NFL's caving on this. The players might as well be waving a rainbow LGBT flag with the insignia of the DNC on it while praising Allah.

Kneeling is a symbol alright, but it means two different things to different audiences.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2018, 09:42:09 PM »
Quote
BLM is a left wing cause associated with left wing Liberal values.
I can only hope you've terribly misjudged people on the right.  If your suspicion / theory is correct, we're in a far worse place than I thought.   :(

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2018, 11:58:35 AM »
Quote
BLM is a left wing cause associated with left wing Liberal values.
I can only hope you've terribly misjudged people on the right.  If your suspicion / theory is correct, we're in a far worse place than I thought.   :(

In Toronto BLM staged a blockade of the gay pride parade (after being invited as an "homoured group) refusing to allow the parade to proceed until its organizers signed a list of demands, including the organization apologizing for its "marginalization" of various identity groups, extra funding, and banning police floats from the parade.

The head of the local BLM chapter and ring leader sounded like she was drinking the marxist intersectional "studies" koolaid since in utero. The lady was so left Chairman Mao would have rolled his eyes at her.

Now maybe Toronto's chapter is an outlier, but if this is remotely representative, then I stand by my point. Whether the core message is about police brutality or not, the messenger would be abhorrent to any right leaning person. They could be demanding flowers for war widows and the message would be lost the instant the messenger opened his mouth.

Causes are like brands. Scratch that, they ARE brands. If your social movement has high profile neo Nazis running the show, don't expect a warm welcome from B'nai Brith. BLM is a hard left "brand". Zero chance that a right wing audience will see it with anything but hostility.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2018, 01:13:40 PM »
BLM is a hard left "brand". Zero chance that a right wing audience will see it with anything but hostility.

I like your framing of the issue. And I don't think it just happens to be the case that this brand is anathema to the right. I think it may have as part of its design intent to be anathema to the right. Some argue that a lot of activism is meant to raise awareness, but the hidden clause there is that they want to raise awareness of people who would already agree with them if they'd thought about these issues but haven't given it the time. They don't care to raise awareness of those who disagree, and very often we can observe that people who disagree are not at all welcome to participate in the "conversation".

In the case of BLM, how much of their rhetoric and presentation is about rallying their base, and how much is designed to rile up people that, having been riled up, can stand for 'the enemy' to prove to everyone that BLM is right? The racism argument frequently involves employing the Kafkatrap of "if you don't agree with us it proves you're part of the problem", otherwise known as "you're guilty, and claims of innocence are proof of guilt" (which is the fundamental form of the trap). This trap isn't designed to convince but rather to create the image of an opponent who needs to be stopped. So if a certain rhetoric and manner of arguing is guaranteed to upset certain people (let's call them right-wingers, although I think this is a simplification), the fact of them being upset will stand as 'proof' that there are racists all around who value their privilege over the rights of black people. Because their thesis is viewed as beyond reproach (who, after all, could argue with the thesis that racism is bad) they can then frame disagreement as proof that racism abounds and that the enemy is all around us. It's an old trick, but people these days have poor schooling in things that were common knowledge in the past. People today have a hard time defining what a racket is, for instance, whereas in the 30's everyone knew what sorts of things could be structured like a racket. That's just one example, but basically people seem to have lost the skill for clearly identifying what a thing is. A Kafkatrap, for instance, will pass under the radar for many/most people and won't even set off a red flag as a bad and dangerous argument. The post-truth age, and so on, I guess.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2018, 01:44:22 PM »
Couldn't you also fit flat-earthers into the kafkatrap formula? 

The only argument made to oppose an anti-racism cause, seems to be, that denying  'them' (the left?) a win, is more important than stopping racism.

Or at least the only argument that is not inherently racist.  Maybe I missed the point and like flat-earthers, there is a counter belief that racism is a legitimate world view?   :o

In case that was too much a case of, "See that's the trap!" my point is sometimes, it's not a baited trap.  Some times a thing just exists in nature as toxic and should be avoided.  No nefarious actors required who are out to get you.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 01:46:59 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2018, 01:52:19 PM »
The only argument made to oppose an anti-racism cause, seems to be, that denying  'them' (the left?) a win, is more important than stopping racism.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, you're asking how to disagree without endorsing an actually racist agenda? This is about branding, as jasonr mentioned. If you claim to be the only game in town for anti-racism then what you're trying to do is frame the situation as you representing that entire view, therefore anyone against you is a racist. Well that's basically propaganda, because there can be many different kinds of groups that dislike racism that dislike each other as well. The idea that if you don't join BLM you're a racist is the narrative they push (or at least that I've seen pushed frequently), which is just a marketing point if you will. It's equivalent to trying to have a brand monopoly. But people who are sane know that you can be against racism and also oppose BLM. It's just all too easy to fall into the mind-trap of believing their premise and being boxed in to thinking you have to choose between BLM and the racists.

The way to actually have a 'win' is to stop left-politics turning into a game of cannibalism where the different factions are trying to eat each other and be the only game in town. Turning a forum for a diversity of ideas into "you're either with us or against us" is the surest way to make sure the 'other side' thinks you're all nuts and will never take dialogue with you seriously. At present I actually think that's the objective a lot of the time - to drive away the other side and worsen partisan politics. That's what the money interests want, and the groups gleefully play along and think they're rebelling against something.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2018, 02:04:24 PM »
Yes, that was my question.
Quote
The idea that if you don't join BLM you're a racist is the narrative they push (or at least that I've seen pushed frequently), which is just a marketing point if you will.
That "they" right in there, that's my problem.  That "brand" is being developed by (at least) two sides. 

Hypothetical person:  "I don't like everything BLM says or does, there for, I am not able to agree with any of their points, lest I inadvertently be seen as endorsing ALL they say or do."

That person has helped shape the "brand" as an inherently leftist message/group.  They have given themselves permission to dismiss the core message of that group.

To me, it's just like watching or listening to the news, or even participating in political discussions here.  There is always a large amount of chaff, misdirection, framing of an issue or outright lies you need to sort through and discard to find actual opinions or goals. 

I can do it with fringe groups on the left and typically see the point they are attempting to convey.  I can see it in mainstream media even when the reporting is biased.  I can typically dig and find it in partisan reporting on the right as well.  Anything that seems "too outrageous" still raises red flags to me as something best not believed at face value.

But this topic has got me stumped. 
Quote
But people who are sane know that you can be against racism and also oppose BLM
Maybe I'm too deep in the trap to see my way out.  Maybe my sanity has been worn down.  Maybe I'm use to not thinking in a binary fashion.  Maybe my brain (sane or not) automatically filters for underlying message/intent.  Maybe I just get confused when there is none, or only one so alien that my brain settles on the familiar, no matter how ugly.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 02:06:29 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2018, 02:19:25 PM »
Hypothetical person:  "I don't like everything BLM says or does, there for, I am not able to agree with any of their points, lest I inadvertently be seen as endorsing ALL they say or do."

That person has helped shape the "brand" as an inherently leftist message/group.  They have given themselves permission to dismiss the core message of that group.

This is the problem. An idea is no one's property. But the branding acts as if an idea belongs to a group. So people are given this sense that if they oppose the group they're opposing some of the ideas put forward by the group. But that's not true. And in the other direction, it's true that technically you can support the group even if you don't agree with every single thing they say - although people may suppose you do, which is a pickle to explain.

But the real trick is when they've gotten you to believe that if you reject them you're rejected all of their arguments, which is also false. Basically you owe them nothing and they don't have to mean anything. You can oppose BLM and join some other anti-racism group. Or start your own. Or just believe what you believe and not subscribe to any group.

Imagine if some gang with spray paint in hand and knives appeared and told you "We're the group that fights for women's rights! Are you with us, or with the sexist patriarchs?" In such an absurd situation I doubt you'd feel trapped between the dilemma of having to side with this unruly bunch of having to be a sexist. More likely, you'd feel literally trapped because you're being confronted by a gang. Their message would probably be less relevant in context than their knives would. And that's what I think happens with groups trying to monopolize ideological branding; they try to trap people, using moral threats instead of knives. If I (hypothetically) think that BLM is like a gang, I can surely want to have nothing to do with them regardless of what they claim their message is. I can just say I don't like them and be done with it. I'm not choosing sides, rejecting or accepting anything, or anything else they say I'm doing. I basically have no use for them.

Quote
Quote
But people who are sane know that you can be against racism and also oppose BLM
Maybe I'm too deep in the trap to see my way out.  Maybe my sanity has been worn down.  Maybe I'm use to not thinking in a binary fashion.  Maybe my brain (sane or not) automatically filters for underlying message/intent.  Maybe I just get confused when there is none, or only one so alien that my brain settles on the familiar, no matter how ugly.

It's important to realize the ways in which we're not 'sane'. Meaning, we believe things that are delusions, or fake realities that we've bought into. You don't have to pick sides in some games; in fact you don't even have to play. But the fact of "if you're not with us you're against us" being something people often accept means they're not only accepting a position on one side or the other, but they're also accepting that they are sides, or that there's even a fight in the first place, or that they have to reduce their life's beliefs to a simple slogan, etc etc. These are all loaded into "pick us or them". I'd call belief in all of that a kind of insanity, yeah, meaning a belief in structures that don't actually exist.


TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #39 on: May 30, 2018, 02:43:04 PM »
Quote
Imagine if some gang with spray paint in hand and knives appeared and told you "We're the group that fights for women's rights! Are you with us, or with the sexist patriarchs?" In such an absurd situation I doubt you'd feel trapped between the dilemma of having to side with this unruly bunch of having to be a sexist. More likely, you'd feel literally trapped because you're being confronted by a gang.

But some of them are very fine people, just like those folks that got to rallies alongside white nationalists. There are many such dichotomies, like supporting Irish independence but abhorring the IRA. In such a case, you simply say "Yes the cause they are fighting for is an important one, but I don't condone their actions." Much as the left does with Antifa, for the most part, or any violent protests. I don't hear that often in commentary though. I don't hear many saying "We really need to do something about police brutality and racism, but BLM really shouldn't block roads". The general reaction is usually more like "Those people are crazy or stupid, and they should find a more appropriate and less inconvenient way to express their bullsiht."

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2018, 02:53:17 PM »
Quote
This is the problem. An idea is no one's property. But the branding acts as if an idea belongs to a group.
You missed my point.  I'm suggesting that the branding is an act of those attempting to discredit the thing being protested. 

Spray paint and knives?  Even softening this to metaphorical equivalents seems ridiculous when we were talking about silent protest during the anthem. 

If anything these protesters are doing their part to "improve the brand".  That's if you insist that their message MUST be part of some brand's agenda to begin with. 

Something I don't.

Quote
You don't have to pick sides in some games; in fact you don't even have to play.
Very true, but in some games, refusing to pick a side still impacts the outcome.

I know that sounds WAY preachy, and I am not one to go out and protest.  My "activism" amounts to casting my vote during elections and a little arguing on the internet.  When I see someone protesting peacefully for a universal good, it's probably the closest I get to the feeling people describe/claim about pride in our flag/anthem.


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2018, 02:56:53 PM »
But some of them are very fine people, just like those folks that got to rallies alongside white nationalists. There are many

Sure, it was just an example. However I don't even think it's necessary to get to know each member to be able to say "I'm not down with that group. I'll just move on, thank you." There is no necessity to interact with or have anything to do with a group, even one fighting for things you theoretically believe in. No group 'speaks for me' or does anything I even need to comment on since I never signed up for them. Now, if I was an avowed member of the Democratic party (or GOP) and my party did something disreputable *then* I'd feel the need to explain that while I don't agree with this action I still support their cause. But for some group that sprang up somewhere? They may claim to speak for a cause but they don't; they only speak for themselves. The rest is PR and marketing.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2018, 03:03:57 PM »
Quote
This is the problem. An idea is no one's property. But the branding acts as if an idea belongs to a group.
You missed my point.  I'm suggesting that the branding is an act of those attempting to discredit the thing being protested.

You're right, I didn't address this part of your message head-on. Basically what I mean is that while both sides are creating the brand (by pidgeonholing themselves, or each other) everyone involved seems to be of the belief that an idea gets stuck to a group, and you either support the group AND the idea or you don't. I'm not really addressing how accurately this is done, or whether the branding always ends up exactly how the group wanted it to be for themselves. But they definitely wanted to self-brand; it's just that others add on their baggage to it as well and for better or worse the entire ideological package ends up tacked onto that group - take it or leave it. And that entire exercise is what I'm saying is nonsense. 

Quote
Spray paint and knives?  Even softening this to metaphorical equivalents seems ridiculous when we were talking about silent protest during the anthem. 

I created a no-brainer image to suggest a scenario where you feel threatened in order to suggest that many people may feel viscerally threatened by certain groups. I know people who *definitely* feel threatened by the idea of the GOP, even to the point where it's as strong a reaction as they'd have to a gang with spray paint. Actually they'd have less animus towards the gang, although perhaps be more immediately fearful. The image was supposed to suggest that psychic threats are very real (believe this or you are a bad person) and people react to them in compliance just as they would to knives. I don't think the image is particularly over-the-top. But no, I wasn't directly trying to say that kneeling during the anthem is like wielding knives in the particular. It was more of a general comment.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2018, 03:32:59 PM »
Quote
everyone involved seems to be of the belief that an idea gets stuck to a group, and you either support the group AND the idea or you don't.
Got to disagree with this one.  TheDrake pointed out a few examples of how this is false.  Or at least not something “everyone involved” believes.  Now maybe I’m a bit blind to this line of reasoning.  It’s one of those things where the opposite is a pretty fundamental characteristic of how I see the world.  As such, I’m sure I do a fair bit of, “everyone must see things like I do”. 

Someone shoots at a cop and claims to be, or is labeled as a member of BLM?  Doesn’t make me ignore what others using that label have said.  It doesn’t suddenly make racial bias or excessive force or unjustified lethal force more excusable against minorities. 

Quote
But they definitely wanted to self-brand
I can’t argue that point.  I’ve yet to come to grips with the whole hashtag mechanic / social media firestorms as they exists today.  I guess the appeal of instant metrics is too powerful to ignore.  Are we getting the message out?  Yes, we are!  Is someone polluting the message?  Yes, right here.  We can denounce them in real time!  Do it! 

Goes right along with opposition groups looking for the aberrations which they can use to pry at fault lines.  This is trending very fast, we must attempt to control the narrative.  Is our counter working?  Yes it is!  And the conflict spirals from there.

I don’t know how to stop that.  I don’t know if the toxic feedback loops this system generates is an acceptable cost for the power granted to individuals who otherwise feel powerless.  It’s a hot mess to be sure.

All you can do, or at least all I choose to do, is scrape away as much of the BS as possible, and see what is really being said, or what are they attempting to achieve.  This isn’t just an exercise in empathy, it’s inoculation against being manipulated by others.

Quote
The image was supposed to suggest that psychic threats are very real (believe this or you are a bad person) and people react to them in compliance just as they would to knives.
The difference is nobody is asking you to pick up the knife and hunt racists.  Nobody is insisting you spray paint KKK on someone’s car or home.  If you don’t “believe this” you ARE a bad person.  That doesn’t however mean that you must “join the gang.”  Just as belief in the thing does not mean people would assume you are part of the gang. 

I would argue that only “bad people” are afraid.  They need others to shield them.  Not from knife blows, or vandalism, but from irrelevance and ostracization until such a time they are willing to stop being “bad people.”  They need to brand those attempting to shame them and identify their bad behavior.  They need people to fight their fight for them, because their positions are indefensible, and their numbers (I hope...) are too weak.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 03:39:23 PM by D.W. »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2018, 03:42:34 PM »
Occupy is a good example of a brand that formed, wandered, and dissipated. Consequence of being a consensus leaderless collective.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2018, 04:02:33 PM »
Occupy is also an excellent example of good ideas, and legitimate grievances, sabotaged by asking individuals often enough, what they stood for, and insisting that without framing themselves as a unified collective, with clearly defined spokespersons, without any flaws, people were justified in ignoring or deriding their ideas and grievances. 

It only took a handful of people interviewed making outrageous suggestions or demands to paint the whole group a either a disorganized mess, or fringe wackos.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #46 on: May 30, 2018, 04:35:42 PM »
Quote
everyone involved seems to be of the belief that an idea gets stuck to a group, and you either support the group AND the idea or you don't.
Got to disagree with this one.  TheDrake pointed out a few examples of how this is false.  Or at least not something “everyone involved” believes.  Now maybe I’m a bit blind to this line of reasoning.  It’s one of those things where the opposite is a pretty fundamental characteristic of how I see the world.  As such, I’m sure I do a fair bit of, “everyone must see things like I do”. 

I would have thought you'd agree with my point, and so your disagreement is a signal to me that I probably worded it badly. Maybe the problem was the phrase "everyone involved" as you point out. What I meant was "everyone involved in the partisan battlefield", which of course doesn't mean "everyone at all". What I mean to say is that the partisan ethos is to convince you to attach a tribal group to an idea so that if you believe in the idea you feel you have to join up with the group. You don't actually have to, of course, but they would like you to believe you do. And as you say, this doesn't only come from one side of the issue.

As an experiment, I'd like you to tell me how many people you can find in your actual life who believe in Freedom to Choose, affirmative action, women's rights, and welfare, and also want nothing to do with the Democratic Party. I don't think you'll find many, because in the realm of politics virtually everyone seems to have bought the idea that you have to pick the party closest to your views. In the realm of social activism not nearly as many people accept this as fact, but many still do. My point wasn't that every person is drinking the Kool-Aid, but rather that the Kool-Aid is being served out actively.

Quote
Quote
The image was supposed to suggest that psychic threats are very real (believe this or you are a bad person) and people react to them in compliance just as they would to knives.
The difference is nobody is asking you to pick up the knife and hunt racists.  Nobody is insisting you spray paint KKK on someone’s car or home.

Are you sure about that? Let's try to stick to the analogy to keep things on even footing. I'm making comparison between a gang with literal knives and people who prick you with a psychic message that "agree with me or you are bad", so in the social activism sphere the "asking people to knife someone" equates to telling others that they're bad people if they don't agree. You're telling me this doesn't happen? I can say that it's probably one of the most regularly displayed behaviors on my Facebook feed.

I know a guy who's very liberal in his thinking (uses all the social activism buzz words) and routinely observes, of others who don't conform to his version of correct behavior, "That's a really horrible person." That seems to be one of the new popular monikers, "terrible person" or "horrible person". I see it all over the place. I can tell you that he would go to great lengths to make sure he isn't seen as a "horrible person" and will make sure to check off all necessary boxes to ensure he can protect himself from any such accusation. Ironically, the #metoo movement has caused many such people to take the initiative and accuse themselves in public, thereby inoculating themselves against any potential accusation of hypocrisy. Actually I think making sure everyone knows we aren't perfect is a good move so I don't begrudge them that, but functionally it ends up being license to declare others as "terrible" (such as when they ask a girl out, and persist when she isn't initially interested) without being seen as holier-than-thou.

I think people bend under unseen social pressure very easily in general, and will go to great lengths to avoid that finger of accusation pointing towards them. "Terrible person" is enough of a threat to avoid disavowing any activist group. You'll even see liberal people have difficulty dissociating themselves from Antifa, using equivocation like "Well, maybe they aren't the best, but they DO fight for the right thing, and really the racists start most of the problems anyhow, so..." Something along those lines. Check out all the people posting "anyone who supports x UNFRIEND ME" on FB, which admittedly I don't see much these days because I think that meme has sailed. That x included things like "voted for Trump", "doesn't support women's rights", and even (amazingly) "believes in slavery". That's right - I actually saw a post stating that anyone who supports slavery should unfriend that person post haste. These people who make these posts have certainly been tacitly asked to go around and 'knife' people in the metaphoric sense. It's about putting on the pressure to get compliance, along with a healthy dose of virtue-signalling.

The one thing we can sure of, anyhow, is that this is all a real mess and it's hard to make sense of it all.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 04:37:57 PM by Fenring »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2018, 04:52:37 PM »
They absolutely were a disorganized mess, it wasn't some kind of media conspiracy. The only thing anyone agreed on was that they were mad about the 1%, which Bernie later shaped into the Billionaire Class.

Just one random report listed the following from a group of about 50 participants:

Quote
To repeal the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (through a constitutional amendment)

To remove the bull sculpture from Wall Street (as suggested to us by a man who walked by dressed as a banker but wearing a noose instead of a tie)

Some form of debt cancellation (either for everyone or just for students)

Pay-as-you-go military intervention (so that wars could not be waged without Congress agreeing to finance them immediately)

Taxes on small financial transactions (one version of this is known as a Tobin tax)

Full employment

A social wage or guaranteed income (also described as a negative income tax)

Universal care centers (for children and the elderly)

Reinstating the Glass-Steagall act (a banking reform passed in 1933 and partially repealed in 1980)

Paid sick leave for all working Americans

Greater political transparency in general

It is a giant laundry list of political corruption, healthcare, financial policy, foreign policy, and anti-poverty.

Compare this to movements with staying power.

Tea Party: reduce government
Vietnam: end the war
Civil Rights: end segregation
Abolition: end slavery
Temperance: ban alcohol

Simple concise messages, some had charismatic leaders, some were more organic. BLM will likely have staying power, because they have a simple and concise message - end police violence. You ask anyone in those movements what they were fighting for, I think you'd get a clear answer.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2018, 05:36:28 PM »
Quote
What I mean to say is that the partisan ethos is to convince you to attach a tribal group to an idea so that if you believe in the idea you feel you have to join up with the group.
OK, that I do agree with.  There are most certainly people/groups on both sides attempting that.  I expect there are many today, who honestly believe that to be the only possible way forward; and many more attempting to make others believe that, as a leaver to get at their actual goals.

I like to believe that most people see through this.  I’ll grant that a large number of those approaching things with their eyes open may even fly the colors of a particular group from time to time.  They know that at least some of it is BS.  They just sacrifice ideological/political purity in exchange for… a bit more oomph.  For sheer numbers.

Quote
in the realm of politics virtually everyone seems to have bought the idea that you have to pick the party closest to your views.
I’d tweak this a bit.  You have to pick the party that has the most overlap with your biggest priorities.  I think that’s besides your point though.  What I think you are talking about is coalitions and alliances are somehow a delegitimizing force.  Not sure I agree, but trading purity of message for a larger megaphone is not without its perils.   

Quote
"asking people to knife someone" equates to telling others that they're bad people if they don't agree. You're telling me this doesn't happen? I can say that it's probably one of the most regularly displayed behaviors on my Facebook feed.
To the extent I’ve tried to behave myself on this topic, I’ve got no way to dance around this one.  Racism is objectively bad.  Someone can be an otherwise “good person” as long as their racism is irrelevant to the interactions you have with them.  While calling racists “bad people”, is a gross over simplification, if one interprets this as “your belief about X is bad.”, or “your actions towards X is bad.” They are factual statements. Not opinions not views.

If someone feels attacked because they “do not agree”, it is because society is informing you, “somehow, somewhere along the line, you learned a BAD thing.  You have a chance to change your behavior.  Failure to do so makes you unsuitable for civilized society.”, and that is never going to feel like anything but an attack.  If you make a conscious choice to continue to speak and act in a racist manner, after being informed that it is a choice, you are, in fact, a “bad person”.  It specifically makes you unsuitable to have a badge and makes you a “bad cop”.   

Quote
These people who make these posts have certainly been tacitly asked to go around and 'knife' people in the metaphoric sense. It's about putting on the pressure to get compliance, along with a healthy dose of virtue-signalling.
These are all fantastic points in the abstract.  However, this exact argument is a frequent tool used to discredit specific things.  Such as racism.  It is (or at least I see it as) a means of deflection as, or even more, often, as it is worth pointing out as a legitimate issue.

  • This isn’t the time or place
  • This method is disrespectful
  • You’ve allied yourself with X and I can’t be a part of that
  • I don’t support ALL the things you talk about, there for I will not discuss even the things we may have common ground on

Quote
You ask anyone in those movements what they were fighting for, I think you'd get a clear answer.
Add “Too ambitious” to the list then.
Because what else can you say?  “I’m comfortable the way things are and don’t care about you or your problems, can’t you just keep quiet over there and let me continue to ignore YOUR problems?  I’m not responsible for YOU.  Can’t you fix YOUR problems and just leave me out of it?” 

And certainly not, “I don’t like your kind and you deserve what you get.  In fact, I think you already have more than you deserve and are taking away from those who DO deserve more, like me and mine.”

I mean, what do we expect people to do when faced with difficult problems or worse, their own *censored*ty behavior?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2018, 06:13:56 PM »
Quote
Add “Too ambitious” to the list then.
Because what else can you say?  “I’m comfortable the way things are and don’t care about you or your problems, can’t you just keep quiet over there and let me continue to ignore YOUR problems?  I’m not responsible for YOU.  Can’t you fix YOUR problems and just leave me out of it?” 

Not so much that. It is more like a revolutionary manifesto than a poltical movement. It reads more like the Declaration of Indpendence.

Taxes, Trade, Criminal Justice, Property, Migration, Government Structure, and so on.

They just didn't call it that. Antifa makes no bones about it, they reject the legitimacy of political, economic, and legal norms. Many of those were probably involved in Occupy as a precursor. They want to tear the whole system down, erase it, and reform it with some kind of bottom-up collective decision making and property ownership. In short, a form of anarcho-communism. They couldn't propose any solutions to fix the system, because the very existence of the system was/is their beef.