NFL enacts ban on kneeling during Anthem

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

EquestrianGeneral:
Capitalism gives those under it the choice to sell their labor if they believe that that is what they are capable of or if it is simply what they choose to do.

CAPATALISM

*clap emoji*

ISN'T

*clap emoji*

VOLUNTARY

*clap emoji*

BreakfastMan:

EquestrianGeneral:
Capitalism gives those under it the choice to sell their labor if they believe that that is what they are capable of or if it is simply what they choose to do.

CAPATALISM

*clap emoji*

ISN'T

*clap emoji*

VOLUNTARY

*clap emoji*

1. That's a good thing, considering the alternatives.

2. No economic system is voluntary in the world today--wherever you live is the economic system that you live under.

bastardofmelbourne:
Snip.

First off, give me three examples of Trump infringing on the public's freedom of speech if they're so rampant.

Second, the NFL's viewership has been dropping worryingly quickly in the past three years. It is entirely reasonable that the executives saw this and began to attempt to fix it; I think it's reasonable to say that the majority of the NFL's audience were not impressed by the protesting, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume that the execs began to view these protests as bad for business. Which do you think is more likely--that the President of the United States personally "convinced" the NFL to do this, or that they simply saw the possible business ramifications of letting their players bring unwanted politics into the games?

You're entirely right; people are definitely less likely to defend the First Amendment when people are saying things that they don't like. See numerous actions taken by both left-wing social and political figures. I am not trying to say that the right is exempt from this, but to be totally honest, saying/implying that the Right is the primary offender of this given the political goings-on of recent years is honestly rather funny. I don't see how that was ever the point of this thread; this thread was just Saelune calling Trump a Nazi for the 4,305 time on the grounds of him agreeing with what the NFL did. I hope that's a meaningful enough observation for you.

Police brutality exists, racism exists, gun violence exists. I'm not denying any of this; what I am denying is the narrative that police officers were/are hunting down minorities for sport. There are always going to be those within the police force who abuse their power or just make poor decisions/judgement calls in the heat of the moment. Police officers are also people who have both a natural and drilled survival instinct, which is something that I almost never see anyone address. There is absolutely not reason to believe that the entirety of any given police force, or even a majority of it, is racist or abusing power or any of that bullshit simply because the media made a big fuss about a couple of tragic cases of police abuse or misconduct.

Yup, black people live in low-income areas because of "economic reasons." That might be the single most insightful statement I've ever heard in my life, and I thank you for bestowing your infinite wisdom upon me.

Kneeling is disrespectful? Why? It's generally considered an expression of submission and reverence.

Let me just remind everyone that you should be respectful to one another. Alright? Good.

EquestrianGeneral:
As an initial point, CEO's (at least of large companies) and people who "own the means of production" usually have to put in large amounts of work to actually properly run them.

CEOs are salaried workers. They may also be stock owners, but they don't have to be. They're in the same pool as other highly paid professionals, being culturally bourgeois but not capitalists.

The people who own the means of production very seldom have to put any work in. They can and often do for the same reason most people would continue to work even if they didn't have to, because working provides structure and meaning to life and helps people to feel rewarded. But if you had a few million dollars, which is not big money in rich people terms, you could just put it in a bank account and live on the interest without having to work or even take any risk.

Once you get up to a billion dollars, an amount of money so impossibly massive it's hard to even express, then you can do the same thing and buy yourself 20 mansions (or a hundred sports cars, or a private jet) every year on the interest.

Or you could just set up a business and pay someone to run it, or buy a whole load of properties and rent them out through an agency, or put it all in a managed fund and let someone else manage it for you. The risk is negligable when you're that rich, and the returns are massive.

Capitalism is not a meritocratic system. It doesn't reward labour, in fact it disproportionately devalues labour. It rewards capital, hence why it's called capitalism.

EquestrianGeneral:
This isn't a problem that's inherent to Capitalism; if everyone stopped working in a Socialist/Communist society, the same thing would happen. Hell, even in a complete anarchy, if no one is producing food for themselves (or others), then no one eats.

Okay, so on a very technical level that's true. However, it's less true than it has ever been in the past. Modern agribusiness is incredibly labour efficient, requiring only a handful of people doing relatively easy work to produce what used to require army of peasants. Nowadays of course mechanisation of low skilled jobs is pretty slow, and it's actually primarily middle class jobs which are being automated and deskilled. Accountancy used to be a highly paid professional career, now for the most part it's just glorified data entry.

But let's move on to the real thing. You're saying that if people weren't forced to work they wouldn't work, but you're also saying that capitalism is about freedom. Both can't be true, can they? If people need to be forced to work by the threat of poverty, then they aren't selling their labour at the price it's actually worth, right? They're bargaining from a position of desperation.

So in order to persuade people to do them, maybe those difficult or unpleasant jobs you need people to do would have to be actually rewarding to persuade people to voluntarily sell their labour if they had an alternative choice. But why is that a problem? Is that not simply the restoration of freedom and fairness to a coercive system? Besides, most people actually want to work. Not working is boring and socially alienating for most people. Sure, there will be people who would be perfectly content to sit around and play video games all day living on a basic income (and a universal basic income is a real possibility in some countries) but there is far more to the desire to work than the simple avoidance of poverty.

EquestrianGeneral:
Theoretically, anyone can invest the time, money, and other resources to attempt to start a business or invest in stocks; none of these are guaranteed to succeed, and not many people truly have it in them to run successful businesses.

They don't need it, it's literally unnecessary.

All you need is money. If you have money, you can buy the expertise needed to do the rest.

Self-appointed defenders of capitalism love to lionise small owner-managed businesses as some kind of heroic forging ground of capitalist heroes and self-made men, while ignoring the fact that as we speak modern neoliberal capitalism is systematically destroying those businesses while the right looks on and applauds to see the glorious free market in action. Capitalism, left unchecked, universally trends towards economic centralisation, not the distribution of wealth to "deserving" or "hardworking" people.

Saelune:

jademunky:
To be honest, the whole idea of a national anthem at a sporting event is insane to begin with. Even as a kid, I found it strange that we were attaching something so important to something so trivial.

But anyway, private club and all that, their own rules. If the National-throwey-ball-league wants to act like racist dicks, it will not affect me in any way since I think I would rather spend the 3 hours up to my armpits in sheep manure than actually watch a football game.

I do not care for sports at all, but a large, probably majority of Americans do, and a major portion of those, enjoy football. It is a major platform. Even I know many athletes names.

It is an important hill to die on for the sake of public tolerance and protesting.

Oh I know BLM is certainly an important issue.

I just find it funny, "Gee, you think that organization of white owners that trades black people freely between each other and uses them to beat the living crap out of each other for the amusement of other whites might just have a bit of a race problem? Ya don't say?"

EquestrianGeneral:
First off, give me three examples of Trump infringing on the public's freedom of speech if they're so rampant.

Well, there's this scenario with the NFL, but I assume you're asking for three other examples, so...

- He forces current and departing White House staffers to sign an indefinite and blanket non-disclosure agreement, which is almost certainly illegal insofar as it blocks the dissemination of information that has not been classified. As an aside, he also characterised the publication of unclassified personal memos by James Comey as a criminal offence, which it is not.
- He has threatened to use his position to try and "open up" libel laws, which would have the effect of making it easier for him personally to sue people for saying bad things about him.
- He has - on more occasions than I can reasonably list - advocated and directly encouraged violence at his rallies in order to suppress the speech of protesters. He has additionally stated that he thinks it should be illegal to burn an American flag in protest, a prohibition that the Supreme Court considers unlawful.

And this one probably isn't what you were expecting, but a federal judge recently ruled that it is unconstitutional for Trump to block people on Twitter.

EquestrianGeneral:
Which do you think is more likely--that the President of the United States personally "convinced" the NFL to do this, or that they simply saw the possible business ramifications of letting their players bring unwanted politics into the games?

I think the President's very high-profile comments from the bully pulpit almost certainly prompted this decision, and may have been partly responsible for exacerbating a decline audience numbers by encouraging his supporters to boycott it. And I think it's absurd to blame the players for politicising the sport when the President of the United States took time out at one of his rallies to start ranting about it.

It is for exactly this reason that most presidents avoid using the bully pulpit for such controversial topics. When you're the president, your words carry the entire authority of the executive branch, and ill-conceived comments that would go unnoticed in private life suddenly have the potential for tremendous impact. When Trump tweets about Amazon, its stock price drops. Believe it or not, that cause-and-effect chain infringes on Amazon's right to free speech; if the President can punish you for criticising him, he is restricting your ability to give your free and honest opinion of his presidency.

When he say that the NFL ought to fire or otherwise punish players who kneel during the national anthem, and a few months later the NFL announces that it will start fining players if they kneel...there's a strong argument for a causal relationship there.

EquestrianGeneral:
You're entirely right; people are definitely less likely to defend the First Amendment when people are saying things that they don't like. See numerous actions taken by both left-wing social and political figures. I am not trying to say that the right is exempt from this, but to be totally honest, saying/implying that the Right is the primary offender of this given the political goings-on of recent years is honestly rather funny.

I wouldn't have said it was exclusively a right-wing trait. But currently, the White House and both chambers of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, so when it comes to the government suppressing free speech, I would focus on the Republican party simply because they are the government right now. When it comes to the federal government, they're the only ones who can infringe on the First Amendment.

EquestrianGeneral:
Police brutality exists, racism exists, gun violence exists. I'm not denying any of this; what I am denying is the narrative that police officers were/are hunting down minorities for sport. There are always going to be those within the police force who abuse their power or just make poor decisions/judgement calls in the heat of the moment. Police officers are also people who have both a natural and drilled survival instinct, which is something that I almost never see anyone address. There is absolutely not reason to believe that the entirety of any given police force, or even a majority of it, is racist or abusing power or any of that bullshit simply because the media made a big fuss about a couple of tragic cases of police abuse or misconduct.

The pattern of US police using excessive force is not an invention of the media. It's a statistical trend that is extraordinarily difficult to dispute.

And, yes - I would consider it an abuse of power for a cop to shoot a person without justification. Look at the death of Daniel Shaver, who was white, and you can get a clear picture of the problem: cops are not being trained properly, they are far too quick to resort to lethal force, and they are not being held accountable for their errors.

Racism is an important factor in the process, but indirectly. That doesn't mean that race is irrelevant to the problem. Racism is still very relevant; it's just that its effects are less obvious than "hunting black people for sport." A cop is more likely to pull over a black person than a white person. They are more likely to arrest a black person than a white person. They are more likely to use excessive force on a black person than a white person. That doesn't mean the cop himself is personally racist; it means that due to the racist effects of the institutions he is a part of, he finds himself policing and punishing black people disproportionately often. And all of those statistics can be dialed up to 11 if you're talking about Native Americans instead of black people.

The simple fact is that this trend is not normal, nor is it desirable. It's not an acceptable margin of error. It's a sign of a national dysfunction in US law enforcement, one that urgently needs to be addressed.

EquestrianGeneral:
Yup, black people live in low-income areas because of "economic reasons." That might be the single most insightful statement I've ever heard in my life, and I thank you for bestowing your infinite wisdom upon me.

You're welcome. My infinite wisdom is infinite, so I have plenty of it to spread around.

I never watch the sport, but if they were to unite in solidarity and all kneel in an act of defiance from now on, I would totally tune in for that alone. What the fuck can the corporation do? The NFL got all their families held hostage? Fire them all? Don't stand for silencing of peaceful protest.

EquestrianGeneral:

You're making this fucking difficult, dude. Alright, I'm taking your above post seriously I guess. Let's go.

What are you have difficulty with?

As an initial point, CEO's (at least of large companies) and people who "own the means of production" usually have to put in large amounts of work to actually properly run them. Additionally, if you're implying that people can never be successful "selling their labor," regardless of what that is (e.g. doctors, lawyers, etc.), then I don't really know what to say.

CEOs are corporate officers. They (in theory and praxis) can face shareholder wrath in a publicly traded company. CEOs (in spirit) serve the shareholders' interests principally in the pursuit of maximising value and market share of the firm.

Your entire post was just a long, winding, impenetrable rant about

Five sentences are impenetrable?

Capitalism doesn't work if everyone plays the role of the bourgeoisie and owns businesses and means of production--no society functions if there isn't a fundamental underlying group or class of people who sell their labor to produce using the fucking means of production. This isn't a problem that's inherent to Capitalism; if everyone stopped working in a Socialist/Communist society, the same thing would happen. Hell, even in a complete anarchy, if no one is producing food for themselves (or others), then no one eats.

And? Where exactly did I argue against basic ideas of supply?

You were talking about ranting before?

If that was the entire point of that post, then I regret to inform you that it was pointless.

I don't know, seems to have pissed you off something fierce.

Get off of your high horse. No one cares about your stock investments, and no one cares about how Capitalism is evil because it allows people to earn money aside from selling their labor.

Apparently you do.

But here's a pointer, why exactly is it unmerited to bring up my critique? After all, the whole point of my post was about how weird the dialogue is about what is essentially economic refugees.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
He did not just highlight the issue, he put pressure on them to do so and called on others to put pressure on them to do so but hey, he has no problem using his position in government to impact his businesses and others.

He's perfectly free to have opinions on things, and to make those known. God forbid that an elected representative does some lobbying rather than big businesses, for a change.

And again, it's not a Trump issue. It's an NFL issue.

No, it is indeed a Trump issue. The NFL didn't have anything to say about it and it was a " non issue" until Trump made a stink about it and made it about him. In fact the NFL initially responded positively to the kneeling with numerous teams, owners, coaches even kneeling as well. It wasn't until Trump pushed his narrative, which in fact was a pushing a false narrative of the protest even though numerous US military knelt as well, and he then pressured the NFL to push his narrative as well going as far as to say that kneeling players should be fired, that they shouldn't even be in the country. Seriously the President of the United States is wanting to throw citizens out of their own country because he doesn't like that they knelt down in distress over people being killed. This is the president doing this, not some random schmuck. The President has the power to cause the people great harm, he should not be saying such threatening things to peaceful citizens.

NFL owners have expressed their concerns about Trump:

more concerned with the image of the league and the impact of criticism from the White House

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/25/donald-trump-nfl-owners-kneeling-anthem-protest-kaepernick-kraft/550209002/

Prior to Trump interjecting himself in this, it was about people showing they just wanted help to stop people being killed. After Trump interjected himself he made it about reality vs his narrative and If you support the President than you have to be against these players who are just trying to stop people being killed. He took that and made it about him so that if you kneel then you have to be against him now. He made it about him because he tries to make everything about him, completely clouding the actual issues involved.

Chimpzy:
Kneeling is disrespectful? Why? It's generally considered an expression of submission and reverence.

That is exactly it. It isn't disrespectful. Trump pushed a false narrative to make it about him instead about the reason why they were actually kneeling.

Zontar:
snip

Their protests are about police brutality against black people. That isn't hating their country; that's wanting their coutry to get better.

Wintermute:

Hey stop shitting on Brazil... we won the World Cup 5 times (this is about football, right?).

Well, they have their fails. I haven't ever seen Brazil getting owned so hard in a single match before the World Cup 2014. 1-7? There wasn't enough popcorn in the world!

erttheking:
When the President of The fucking United States spends months throwing a shit fit about something, you can?t just divorce him from it.

Also we?ve got people who think if you don?t mindlessly rise for forced and regulated patriotism, you hate America. Because some people think you can only pick one of two options. Hate or mindless worship. What? Are nuisanced opinions cultural Marxist plots?

They have the option not to come onto the pitch.

Customs are a thing. If you want to go against customs, that is fine, but a reaction should be expected. Especially in something as traditional as sport.

And again, it comes back to the idea that sport should be free from political causes. You can argue the toss over whether or not an anthem should fall under that, but that's my default position.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
When the President of The fucking United States spends months throwing a shit fit about something, you can?t just divorce him from it.

Also we?ve got people who think if you don?t mindlessly rise for forced and regulated patriotism, you hate America. Because some people think you can only pick one of two options. Hate or mindless worship. What? Are nuisanced opinions cultural Marxist plots?

They have the option not to come onto the pitch.

Customs are a thing. If you want to go against customs, that is fine, but a reaction should be expected. Especially in something as traditional as sport.

And again, it comes back to the idea that sport should be free from political causes. You can argue the toss over whether or not an anthem should fall under that, but that's my default position.

This particular "custom" didn't exist until this millennium, and was bought and paid for by the military as deliberate political propaganda.

altnameJag:

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
When the President of The fucking United States spends months throwing a shit fit about something, you can?t just divorce him from it.

Also we?ve got people who think if you don?t mindlessly rise for forced and regulated patriotism, you hate America. Because some people think you can only pick one of two options. Hate or mindless worship. What? Are nuisanced opinions cultural Marxist plots?

They have the option not to come onto the pitch.

Customs are a thing. If you want to go against customs, that is fine, but a reaction should be expected. Especially in something as traditional as sport.

And again, it comes back to the idea that sport should be free from political causes. You can argue the toss over whether or not an anthem should fall under that, but that's my default position.

This particular "custom" didn't exist until this millennium, and was bought and paid for by the military as deliberate political propaganda.

Exactly. The playing of the anthem at sports events, and making the athletes all stand for it itself a political invention, and a somewhat recent-ish one.

So you know what, I agree with catnip, let's de-politicize sports! Remove the anthem from the game entirely, as its intent there is itself political.

CaitSeith:

Zontar:
snip

Their protests are about police brutality against black people. That isn't hating their country; that's wanting their coutry to get better.

To paraphrase Al Franken (sidenote: I do not support his extramarital activities, find them deplorable, and feel he was if anything let off light by "only" resigning as Senator): "Republicans love their country in the same way a four year old loves their mommy, where anything Mommy says is right and anyone who disagrees with her is a meany, while Democrats love their country like a grown-up, taking the good with the bad and encouraging her to change for the better."

I couldn't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist of it. It's from his book Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
When the President of The fucking United States spends months throwing a shit fit about something, you can?t just divorce him from it.

Also we?ve got people who think if you don?t mindlessly rise for forced and regulated patriotism, you hate America. Because some people think you can only pick one of two options. Hate or mindless worship. What? Are nuisanced opinions cultural Marxist plots?

They have the option not to come onto the pitch.

Customs are a thing. If you want to go against customs, that is fine, but a reaction should be expected. Especially in something as traditional as sport.

And again, it comes back to the idea that sport should be free from political causes. You can argue the toss over whether or not an anthem should fall under that, but that's my default position.

I think everyone else has replied to you better than I ever could.

erttheking:
I think everyone else has replied to you better than I ever could.

And yet you still do.

altnameJag:
This particular "custom" didn't exist until this millennium, and was bought and paid for by the military as deliberate political propaganda.

Like I said, you can argue the toss on an anthem - it's not inherently pushing a particular agenda at least - but sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted.

Black armbands, that'd be different IMO. And would probably be a far more effective means of protest.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
I think everyone else has replied to you better than I ever could.

And yet you still do.

altnameJag:
This particular "custom" didn't exist until this millennium, and was bought and paid for by the military as deliberate political propaganda.

Like I said, you can argue the toss on an anthem - it's not inherently pushing a particular agenda at least - but sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted.

Black armbands, that'd be different IMO. And would probably be a far more effective means of protest.

But the "Must sing the Anthem" is pushing an Agenda, that is part of the issue. It is pushing the Pro Military, Pro war, American exceptionalism Nationalist Agenda. They are using it to manipulate the masses into an " Us vs the rest of the world" mentality that has allowed for the US to Bomb and invade whoever they wish at will. When you look at where this Agenda has lead us repeatedly, you would understand it is not just a matter of being Patriotic.

Catnip1024:
Like I said, you can argue the toss on an anthem - it's not inherently pushing a particular agenda at least

Playing the anthem is more about showboating patriotism and that in itself is political. It may not be pushing a particular agenda - though that can be debated with how it was implemented into our sports culture - but it's still political.

but sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted.

Black armbands, that'd be different IMO. And would probably be a far more effective means of protest.

But how would you permit black armbands when they then take on a political symbol/meaning? It's self-contradictory with the goal of making sports apolitical but allowing this one specific thing which becomes a symbol for a political belief/ideology.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
I think everyone else has replied to you better than I ever could.

And yet you still do.

To let you know that their views reflected mine and because I feel like it would've been rude to not reply at all, so lose the attitude.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
I think everyone else has replied to you better than I ever could.

And yet you still do.

altnameJag:
This particular "custom" didn't exist until this millennium, and was bought and paid for by the military as deliberate political propaganda.

Like I said, you can argue the toss on an anthem - it's not inherently pushing a particular agenda at least - but sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted.

Black armbands, that'd be different IMO. And would probably be a far more effective means of protest.

If they did not want to be political, they should not have banned kneeling. You should be mad at the NFL for politicizing themselves.

You should also be mad at Trump for politicizing the NFL.

You aren't though, are you?

Dr. Thrax:
But how would you permit black armbands when they then take on a political symbol/meaning? It's self-contradictory with the goal of making sports apolitical but allowing this one specific thing which becomes a symbol for a political belief/ideology.

Black armbands aren't inherently political, they are inherently about respect for the dead. Taking an armband after a police shooting isn't pushing an agenda, per say, so much as highlighting that it happened. Much harder to criticise, much more likely to be allowed.

Saelune:
You should also be mad at Trump for politicizing the NFL.

You aren't though, are you?

I don't watch American sports, so it ain't the sort of thing I'd be getting emotional about.

But... Trump did not politicise the sport. His actions were in response to the political demonstration undertaken by the players. You could then go back the additional step and point to the national anthem if you're feeling that way inclined, but the point it - Trump didn't cause the issue so much as come in and throw some papers around and make a mess.

The United States is probably the only Western "Democracy" that plays the national anthem at its own domestic games. International games I could understand, playing both anthems before the match, but that aspect of US culture is pretty disturbing.

It's like the country is running on Fascism Lite* at all times.

Abomination:
The United States is probably the only Western "Democracy" that plays the national anthem at its own domestic games. International games I could understand, playing both anthems before the match, but that aspect of US culture is pretty disturbing.

It's like the country is running on Fascism Lite* at all times.

The US responded to 9/11 with a surge of patriotism that I think no other country has seen the like of. I wouldn't call it Fascism Lite, though. However, as many people in this thread have discussed, there's an unsettling trend in the US to demand that people perform these gestures of patriotism all the time and branding anyone who dissents as an unpatriotic traitor. It is a weird sort of tribalism that demands everyone gets involved in the rituals of patriotism, while giving huge slack to people that are obviously hurting the US but put up a facade of patriotism (think corporations outsourcing while proudly branding their products as "Genuine American").

Gethsemani:

Abomination:
The United States is probably the only Western "Democracy" that plays the national anthem at its own domestic games. International games I could understand, playing both anthems before the match, but that aspect of US culture is pretty disturbing.

It's like the country is running on Fascism Lite* at all times.

The US responded to 9/11 with a surge of patriotism that I think no other country has seen the like of. I wouldn't call it Fascism Lite, though. However, as many people in this thread have discussed, there's an unsettling trend in the US to demand that people perform these gestures of patriotism all the time and branding anyone who dissents as an unpatriotic traitor. It is a weird sort of tribalism that demands everyone gets involved in the rituals of patriotism, while giving huge slack to people that are obviously hurting the US but put up a facade of patriotism (think corporations outsourcing while proudly branding their products as "Genuine American").

Patriotism is being proud of your country - it's a personal thing, Nationalism is "encouraging" pride in your country - it's a political thing.

The United States is bending farther and father towards Nationalism on a cultural level. This is very concerning.

Catnip1024:
Black armbands aren't inherently political, they are inherently about respect for the dead. Taking an armband after a police shooting isn't pushing an agenda, per say, so much as highlighting that it happened. Much harder to criticise, much more likely to be allowed.

Except it would've only been used after the high profile shootings of unarmed black people, the very same reason that Kaepernick started kneeling. It would - by default - have a political agenda because of what it's supposed to represent.

Why're you wearing that black armband? Respect for the dead.
Who died? (List of various victims)
Well, how'd they die? They were shot by a cop.
Why'd they get shot by a cop? No reasonable answer exists, unarmed black people are being shot and killed while the police department "investigates" itself and finds no wrong-doing and/or the DA just "decides" to not prosecute and usually the offending officer gets administrative leave with no pay or maybe "resigns" and the incident is quickly swept under the rug while POC continue to get angry at the lack of action being taken to prevent things like this from happening and the failure of the justice system to commit to justice.
Oh.

You cannot divorce "respect for the dead" from the rest of this issue because of the entire reason for there being deceased to "respect" in the first place! Not only that, but a black armband is easy to miss, the entire point of kneeling on the field was that it was a very visible - but silent - display, and when they inevitably asked "Why'd you kneel?" Kaepernick was able to give his reason.

Catnip1024:
Like I said, you can argue the toss on an anthem - it's not inherently pushing a particular agenda at least - but sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted.

I take tremendous issue with this statement. Particularly the last line. (Should not be permitted? Seriously?)

Catnip1024:
But... Trump did not politicise the sport. His actions were in response to the political demonstration undertaken by the players. You could then go back the additional step and point to the national anthem if you're feeling that way inclined, but the point it - Trump didn't cause the issue so much as come in and throw some papers around and make a mess.

Oh, for Christ's sake. He's the President. He's the most powerful political actor in the country. He makes things political just by talking about them, because his opinions are, by default, the opinions of the most powerful political actor in the country.

It's fucking absurd to sit there and pretend like Trump is some apolitical everyman calling into a radio show to gripe about football. The guy could tweet his top 5 best/worst Hot Pocket flavours, and that would politicise Hot Pockets. He bitches about LaVar Ball on Twitter, and suddenly LaVar Ball becomes political. He tweets about a soldier's widow, and that soldier's death is now political. That is how being President works. It means that your opinions are now the opinions of the President.

Abomination:

Gethsemani:

Abomination:
The United States is probably the only Western "Democracy" that plays the national anthem at its own domestic games. International games I could understand, playing both anthems before the match, but that aspect of US culture is pretty disturbing.

It's like the country is running on Fascism Lite* at all times.

The US responded to 9/11 with a surge of patriotism that I think no other country has seen the like of. I wouldn't call it Fascism Lite, though. However, as many people in this thread have discussed, there's an unsettling trend in the US to demand that people perform these gestures of patriotism all the time and branding anyone who dissents as an unpatriotic traitor. It is a weird sort of tribalism that demands everyone gets involved in the rituals of patriotism, while giving huge slack to people that are obviously hurting the US but put up a facade of patriotism (think corporations outsourcing while proudly branding their products as "Genuine American").

Patriotism is being proud of your country - it's a personal thing, Nationalism is "encouraging" pride in your country - it's a political thing.

The United States is bending farther and father towards Nationalism on a cultural level. This is very concerning.

It's bent farther than most realize. The issue is the amount of political power the Nationalists hold is disproportionate to the actual population in regards to how the rural vs city value of individual votes due to how the electoral system is set up. The Nationalists are given much more power than the rest of the population since the nationalists thrive in the rural populations and suburbs. One person one vote does not apply in the US, instead city dwellers votes are diminished and rural votes are amplified. This allows for Nationalists to get footing in rural areas and have disproportionate representation. The US house of representatives is overrun with Nationalists already.

There is a huge anti globalists and "US vs everyone else" (including our allies) sentiment that has been growing since the 80's and there isn't much being done to curb it honestly. This is primarily what has been fueling the "anti establishment" or "anti globalists" sentiment. They are attacking the establishment because they see the US selling out to Europe and putting other nations interest before their own. People really need to understand that when they are discussing "anti establishment", this is directly what they are attacking. They have been discussing everything from having the nations children have to "earn their citizenship" by working for the government and removing citizenship for people they perceive as non patriots to trying to charge allies for cooperating with them. This is why Trump making such comments as saying that protesters should leave the country so dangerous, is THIS is part of the propaganda they have already been pushing for some time. He is directly catering to that and encouraging more of it.

I honestly do not think people understand how far this has spread or the degree of it here.

Catnip1024:
Black armbands aren't inherently political, they are inherently about respect for the dead. Taking an armband after a police shooting isn't pushing an agenda, per say, so much as highlighting that it happened. Much harder to criticise, much more likely to be allowed.

Dr. Thrax already pointed out how the second anyone asks what the black armband is for, it becomes political.

So I'll just point out that after Treyvon martin got shot, the hoodie got politicized. It's literally just a cozy outfit, and yet prominent newspeople stood up and declared it "the uniform of thugs and criminals" and intimated that if he wasn't wearing a hoodie, he wouldn't have died.

The second anything is remotely visible and attached to a cause, it WILL get politicized.

bastardofmelbourne:
I take tremendous issue with this statement. Particularly the last line. (Should not be permitted? Seriously?)

I don't see the issue. Sport is professional. Professionals are paid employees. Professionals are often expected to meet certain standards. For instance, I'm fairly certain that overtly political clothing would result in me getting disciplined if I wore it to work.

Oh, for Christ's sake. He's the President. He's the most powerful political actor in the country. He makes things political just by talking about them, because his opinions are, by default, the opinions of the most powerful political actor in the country.

You are missing the point. It was political before Trump was involved. It is a political gesture he weighed in on. The comment I responded to was talking about Trump making things political. My dispute is that they were already, inherently.

aegix drakan:
Dr. Thrax already pointed out how the second anyone asks what the black armband is for, it becomes political.

So I'll just point out that after Treyvon martin got shot, the hoodie got politicized. It's literally just a cozy outfit, and yet prominent newspeople stood up and declared it "the uniform of thugs and criminals" and intimated that if he wasn't wearing a hoodie, he wouldn't have died.

The second anything is remotely visible and attached to a cause, it WILL get politicized.

The difference is, a black armband is a gesture with a far greater substance behind it than a political cause can corrupt (subvert? something like that). It's not a gesture unique to that particular purpose. Hence more acceptable.

Hoody's didn't become political, they just became the latest victim of stereotyping. And the hoody has been lambasted by certain types for as long as I can remember hearing about them.

Catnip1024:
Like I said, you can argue the toss on an anthem - it's not inherently pushing a particular agenda at least - but sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted.

Honestly, I cannot think of a single compelling reason that this should be the case.

I can think of reasons why various people do not want politics impinging on sport, but these amount to personal preferences, not a meaningful societal rule. A lot of fans want to enjoy the sport for itself, and not be caught up in or distracted by other issues, and I sympathise. But they hardly have a right to that. A lot of club owners and leagues don't want it, because it creates forms of divisiveness that may detract from their income the spectacle. One might also note that a lot of owners are politically active (with money they are earning from the sport), give free tickets to politicians, etc. That's hardly consistent, and it also puts them on dubious territory to then complain about political statements from their players.

We also have to stop to consider that fans, clubs and leagues have looked at politics to solve problems with the sport when it has suited them; consider for instance the concerns over clubs being bought with huge debts (e.g. Liverpool, Man U), or Millwall's run in with a dodgy local council land grab. Like any business would, the US NFL has been busy lobbying politicians for decades to help them get their way - tax subsidies, laws, etc.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here