NFL enacts ban on kneeling during Anthem

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

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.

Stop saying you are not a Trump supporter, because you keep supporting him, even on something you are trying to portray as minor and unimportant, you defend Trump.

It is hypocritical to criticize people for 'politicizing' this while claiming THE PRESIDENT OF THE US is not doing that when he clearly and blatantly did that.

Saelune:
Stop saying you are not a Trump supporter, because you keep supporting him, even on something you are trying to portray as minor and unimportant, you defend Trump.

It is hypocritical to criticize people for 'politicizing' this while claiming THE PRESIDENT OF THE US is not doing that when he clearly and blatantly did that.

He's an idiot and a boor, and I don't particularly care for his rhetoric on this.

But my statements remain true.

1) He did not politicise this, it was inherently political before he weighed in.
2) Professional sportsmen are professionals. It's a legitimate expectation for them to keep politics and work separate.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Stop saying you are not a Trump supporter, because you keep supporting him, even on something you are trying to portray as minor and unimportant, you defend Trump.

It is hypocritical to criticize people for 'politicizing' this while claiming THE PRESIDENT OF THE US is not doing that when he clearly and blatantly did that.

He's an idiot and a boor, and I don't particularly care for his rhetoric on this.

But my statements remain true.

1) He did not politicise this, it was inherently political before he weighed in.
2) Professional sportsmen are professionals. It's a legitimate expectation for them to keep politics and work separate.

He is an idiot and a boor that you painstakingly defend time and time again then. Just because Trump holds a rainbow flag, it means shit when he constantly appoints anti-LGBT people and defends anti-LGBT people and supports anti-LGBT stances and laws.

Your comment about him being a boor is your Trump holding a rainbow flag.

He did politicize this. He is THE PRESIDENT, a thing you also keep trying to downplay. You consistently try to argue that we should not treat him like the President, which trust me, I would LOVE, but he IS the President, and what he says carries POLITICAL WEIGHT, which is why when he tweets shit, laywers flip out, White House people flip out, and foreign leaders flip out.

There is nothing more political than the actions and words of World Leaders!

Presidents are Presidents, it is a legitimate expectation for them to act like it!

You literally hold American athletes to higher standards than American Presidents.

Catnip1024:
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.

Symbols and gestures change over time through how they're used, and quite frankly, I don't see many people wearing black armbands after someone dies. Wearing black, sure, but not specifically a black armband. I've seen some armbands for people working out, but it's just part of their workout outfit.

Whatever meaning the black armband may have had in the past would change the moment it starts being worn specifically for the purpose of calling attention to the shootings. But as I said in my last post, wearing an armband can be easily dismissed by viewers or outright overlooked. The entire point of kneeling was that it was an extremely visible display that actively brought attention to the people kneeling. If your form of protest isn't something that draws people to actually look at you and ask you why you're doing what you're doing - therefore giving you a chance to spread your message - then it's a failure of a protest.

Dr. Thrax:
Symbols and gestures change over time through how they're used, and quite frankly, I don't see many people wearing black armbands after someone dies. Wearing black, sure, but not specifically a black armband. I've seen some armbands for people working out, but it's just part of their workout outfit.

In sport it is a massive thing. People do it all the time.

Catnip1024:
In sport it is a massive thing. People do it all the time.

Then how would that be an effective alternative to kneeling? If people do it "all the time" then other people are going to just dismiss it or not be able to acknowledge the reason for it, it's a failed protest. The entire point of kneeling was that it was visible and drew attention to those kneeling. That's the entire point of protest. If you fail to draw attention to yourself and your cause you have failed to protest.

You also haven't been able to clearly separate how the black armbands would be an exception to "sports should be apolitical" when the issue at hand is political.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Stop saying you are not a Trump supporter, because you keep supporting him, even on something you are trying to portray as minor and unimportant, you defend Trump.

It is hypocritical to criticize people for 'politicizing' this while claiming THE PRESIDENT OF THE US is not doing that when he clearly and blatantly did that.

He's an idiot and a boor, and I don't particularly care for his rhetoric on this.

But my statements remain true.

1) He did not politicise this, it was inherently political before he weighed in.
2) Professional sportsmen are professionals. It's a legitimate expectation for them to keep politics and work separate.

I'd agree that you aren't a Trump supporter. Just because you agree on some topics doesn't make you a supporter. And no he didn't politicise this.

But keeping politics out of sport (or any work.) Is that stuff written into contracts? Because I would disagree. That fact that you go to work is political - it supports Capitalistic ideals. Drive a car? Walk? Public Transport? Climate Change debate. Get a coffee? Health regulations, "exploitation" of poor countries

It may be an admirable desire but our world doesn't work like that

trunkage:
But keeping politics out of sport (or any work.) Is that stuff written into contracts? Because I would disagree. That fact that you go to work is political - it supports Capitalistic ideals. Drive a car? Walk? Public Transport? Climate Change debate. Get a coffee? Health regulations, "exploitation" of poor countries

See, the problem here is that this attitude takes it to absurd extremes. You end up comparing getting a coffee to turning up to work in an SS uniform.

Clearly, there is a significant difference between overt political symbology in the workplace, and choosing a particular brand of biscuits.

I believe the NFL contracts have terms on branding type / PR behaviours, through which they could probably attempt to enforce this. And there're usually enough generic terms that you're screwed if they really want you to be.

Dr. Thrax:
You also haven't been able to clearly separate how the black armbands would be an exception to "sports should be apolitical" when the issue at hand is political.

Black armbands are a mark of respect for the dead. Beyond that, they carry no inherent message. They aren't implying any form of dissent in the middle of a national anthem, they aren't overtly pushing a particular cause. It's an apolitical approach to a political issue.

I do want to point out one thing. This is not the first time a country has essentially mandated a sports team to be patriotic, or suffer the consequences.

Yeah, I'm invoking Godwin's Law. I don't care, it seems to fit the scenario.

Catnip1024:
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.

Yeah, these guys are professionals. They're professional entertainers. Sports is fundamentally entertainment. These guys aren't playing football to fulfill some urgent practical demand, like legal representation or medical care or utilities maintenance. They're playing football because people like watching them play football. That means there's no meaningful difference between an athlete making a gesture of protest and an author or comedian putting a similar message into their book or stage act; they're using entertainment as a vehicle to convey political commentary.

No-one can seriously demand that all entertainment needs to be apolitical; politics has intertwined itself into public entertainment since the days of Athenian theatre. The problem isn't the mere presence of politics in entertainment. It's that the politics is uncomfortable. Think about the guys who gripe that their video games or their favourite film franchise is being corrupted by "politics" because Lara Croft had to fight off a rapist or because Shepard revealed he was gay. It's the same shit. Police brutality is an uncomfortable topic that a lot of people - especially conservatives, who venerate law enforcement - don't like to think about.

So when it gets put in front of their face, they get upset and angry. Doesn't matter if it's a guy kneeling for the anthem at a sports game or a TV show doing an episode about a police shooting or a production of Hamilton that directly addresses the vice-president. But what's the proper purpose of that anger? Do you direct it at the message, or at the problem that the message is trying to draw your attention to? Every political protest is fundamentally a message trying to draw attention to a problem. Getting angry at the messenger instead of addressing the problem is cowardly; you're just refusing to face the facts. To avoid looking at an uncomfortable topic, you construct a reality where the real reason these people are interrupting your entertainment to draw your attention to police brutality is because they just wanted to ruin your day. You turn them into the villains, because otherwise you might have to acknowledge that your complacency has made you complicit in a great injustice.

Think about the suffragettes marching in the streets to demand the right to vote a hundred years back. If you were one of the gentlemen at a cafe whose afternoon was disturbed by such a march, what is the proper response? To say "God, can't these bitches tell that I'm just trying to enjoy a coffee and read my newspaper in peace?" Or to say "Hey, why can't women vote? We oughta fix that."

Catnip1024:
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.

How the hell is that supposed to excuse Trump?

Trump (a politician) is claiming to say "don't make our entertainment political" by taking time out at a political rally to make a political criticism of his entertainment. It's not some chicken-and-the-egg scenario where we try and figure out who make it political first. The point is that he's a hypocrite. He politicises shit all the time. He thrives off of it.

And that's not even getting into the double standard. The only reason Trump's arbitrarily decided that this instance of politicising entertainment is intolerable is because the political topic in question is one that his party's voters find uncomfortable. He wouldn't give a shit if it was Kanye West making a song about his best bro the Trumpster. We wouldn't see Laura Ingraham go on Fox to demand that West "shut up and sing." People don't have an issue with politics in entertainment; they have an issue with politics they don't like in entertainment. Because regularly confronting contradictory opinions or pointed criticism is difficult, painful, and absolutely fucking vital for developing one's political views in a democratic society.

So you'll just have to forgive me when I say that I think your position on political speech is a load of fucking horse crap. I can't find a more polite way to describe it.

bastardofmelbourne:
That means there's no meaningful difference between an athlete making a gesture of protest and an author or comedian putting a similar message into their book or stage act; they're using entertainment as a vehicle to convey political commentary.

There are two fundamental differences.

The first is, professional sportsmen play for clubs. The clubs, particularly in US sports, are incredibly conscious of branding and use every opportunity to make money. A player doing something controversial will directly impact a club in a way that a comedian going rogue wouldn't impact their employer (albeit noting that certain comedians have been dropped for being overtly controversial).

The second is, authors and comedians are paid to produce words. People want to hear their thoughts and opinions. It's a fundamental part of their role. American football players are paid to fulfil the role of human crash dummies.

How the hell is that supposed to excuse Trump?

It isn't. He's been a prick about the whole thing. But he's not making the NFL political, because it already is. I don't get your obsession with Trump over this. As with everything else, he has been reactive rather than proactive.

So you'll just have to forgive me when I say that I think your position on political speech is a load of fucking horse crap. I can't find a more polite way to describe it.

I think you need to look at a dictionary, then.

I mean, seriously, a bit of civility isn't much to ask for. I hold a different position. I remember when people could do that without resorting to shitty dismissals and bad attitude.

Catnip1024:
But my statements remain true.

Mm. We'll see.

1) He did not politicise this, it was inherently political before he weighed in.

Okay, but he was counter-productive. By commenting he greatly raises the political stakes, and makes the politicisation worse.

2) Professional sportsmen are professionals. It's a legitimate expectation for them to keep politics and work separate.

No, it doesn't. Professionalism may be determined by agreed ethical standards instituted across the profession, and then also by contractual agreement between employer and employee.

Many public employees (especially civil servants), for instance, can have restrictions on political engagement because they may be required to serve governments of different political stripes. Most professions, however, don't. That then means that if sports employers don't want their athletes to be political, it needs to be in their contract.

Catnip1024:
The first is, professional sportsmen play for clubs. The clubs, particularly in US sports, are incredibly conscious of branding and use every opportunity to make money. A player doing something controversial will directly impact a club in a way that a comedian going rogue wouldn't impact their employer (albeit noting that certain comedians have been dropped for being overtly controversial).

There is no relevant distinction between a player doing something controversial and a comedian doing something controversial. These people have structures around them designed to monetise their talent, and if they become politically radioactive, that negatively impacts the careers of everybody involved in the structure. Doesn't matter whether it's a football club or a comedy club.

I have no problem with members of the NFL audience saying that they stopped watching NFL because of the guys kneeling. That's a private citizen exercising the strength of their wallet. I disagree with their decision, but they have a right to make it. I have a problem with the President saying that people ought to stop watching the NFL because of the guys kneeling, because he is the President, and he has tremendously more influence and power than a single person with their wallet. He is also constitutionally prohibited from using his power to influence people's speech, especially the political speech of a protester critical of his administration's policies.

Catnip1024:
The second is, authors and comedians are paid to produce words. People want to hear their thoughts and opinions. It's a fundamental part of their role. American football players are paid to fulfil the role of human crash dummies.

This is a distinction without a difference.

I've seen people complain that Jimmy Kimmel shouldn't be talking about healthcare on his late show because he's a comedian and should stick to jokes. I've seen people complain that Mass Effect or Dragon Age or what-have-you has sold out to the SJWs because they added a male homosexual romance or a transgender character, and people say they don't want that in their fantasy/sci-fi RPGs. I've seen people complain that Star Wars has been taken over by feminists because of Rey or Jyn Erso or that admiral chick from the last one, and that they don't want that in their Star Wars.

People will always demand that other people keep their politics out of their entertainment whenever the politics in question is difficult for them to deal with. Sometimes, that demand is understandable; I may not necessarily want to boot up an episode of Adventure Time and receive a lecture on the merits of anarcho-primitivism. But often, the demand is unreasonable, because it's a blanket demand that "these people" - the entertainers - stop mixing politics and entertainment.

But no-one can mandate a separation between politics and entertainment. There does exist such a thing as apolitical entertainment - hey there, Sesame Street - but what it is will vary depending on your political views. Elements that we consider innocuous would be considered scandalous for someone with radically different political views - imagine taking a show about an unmarried couple living together under the same roof and showing that to someone from the Edwardian era. So the demand is never "stop mixing politics and entertainment;" it is "stop mixing politics I find objectionable and entertainment."

Even if you could accomplish such a unworkably broad demand and avoid the yawning pitfall of simply censoring entertainment according to your personal political preferences rather than the preferences of all people equally, all you'll end up doing is isolating those people from any opinion that could be uncomfortable or thought-provoking. It's the safe space bullshit all over again.

Catnip1024:
It isn't. He's been a prick about the whole thing. But he's not making the NFL political, because it already is. I don't get your obsession with Trump over this. As with everything else, he has been reactive rather than proactive.

It's less of an obsession and more an observation that Trump - who took time out at a rally in Alabama to rile everyone up by saying that the NFL ought to fire black players for kneeling - has very likely overstepped his constitutional bounds by using his position to pressure the NFL into regulating the speech of its players.

Usually, when people point out a violation of free speech, it's a private organisation regulating people's speech. A university expels someone for doing a Nazi salute, or a forum bans someone because they said the n-word. But in this case, one can make a very strong argument that the private organisation (the NFL) is only restricting the free speech of its players because the President repeatedly and publicly pressured them to do so. That goes beyond a private organisation regulating the speech of its customers or employees; it becomes the President exploiting his authority to curtail political speech that he disapproves of.

This is why most presidents don't get involved in this culture war bullshit. If Trump had never mentioned the NFL at all, and they announced this new ban, I'd shrug and say "eh, they're a private organisation, not the government." But Trump got himself involved. Worse, he actively agitated for one side of the debate - and then the NFL caved into that side's demands. That's a bad look, to say the least.

Catnip1024:
I mean, seriously, a bit of civility isn't much to ask for. I hold a different position. I remember when people could do that without resorting to shitty dismissals and bad attitude.

I've devoted multiple lengthy posts to addressing your argument in good faith. I just capped those arguments with my statement that I believe your position - that anyone involved in entertainment should not be permitted to engage in political speech as part of providing that entertainment - to be complete fucking horseshit. It is a horseshit policy. It is such horseshit that I am actually surprised you subscribe to it. I'm wondering whether you are really listening to what you are saying, or whether you have fully considered all the implications of what you are saying.

That's not an indictment of you, except maybe to say that I'm glad you're not the head chief in charge of deciding what people are allowed to say or not say.

Catnip1024:
Black armbands are a mark of respect for the dead. Beyond that, they carry no inherent message. They aren't implying any form of dissent in the middle of a national anthem, they aren't overtly pushing a particular cause. It's an apolitical approach to a political issue.

No it's not, and I've already explained why.
Symbols change meaning with how they're used, and the moment black armbands become associated with respecting these specific individuals they will take on a new, political meaning. Players typically wear black armbands on the field for deceased teammates, not other people. Any display meant to draw attention to these specific people turns any supposed "apolitical approach" into a political one because the issue is one of politics and you cannot simply separate "respecting the dead" from the issue at hand because of why there are dead to need to respect in the first place.

bastardofmelbourne:
This is a distinction without a difference.

To you, apparently.

I believe your position - that anyone involved in entertainment should not be permitted to engage in political speech as part of providing that entertainment - to be complete fucking horseshit. It is a horseshit policy. It is such horseshit that I am actually surprised you subscribe to it. I'm wondering whether you are really listening to what you are saying, or whether you have fully considered all the implications of what you are saying.

That's not an indictment of you, except maybe to say that I'm glad you're not the head chief in charge of deciding what people are allowed to say or not say.

Well, first, I'm distinguishing between sportsmen and comedians / authors. Because despite your comment above, that is a significant difference.

Second, the insistency on calling anything you disagree with "horseshit" is rather unbecoming.

Dr. Thrax:
No it's not, and I've already explained why.
Symbols change meaning with how they're used, and the moment black armbands become associated with respecting these specific individuals they will take on a new, political meaning. Players typically wear black armbands on the field for deceased teammates, not other people. Any display meant to draw attention to these specific people turns any supposed "apolitical approach" into a political one because the issue is one of politics and you cannot simply separate "respecting the dead" from the issue at hand because of why there are dead to need to respect in the first place.

And I disagree. Let's move on. We aren't getting anywhere here, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the OT anymore.

The black armband is used far wider than just other players, though. Dead fans, dead fans of other teams, backroom staff, it's broad enough that it's legit.

Catnip1024:
The black armband is used far wider than just other players, though. Dead fans, dead fans of other teams, backroom staff, it's broad enough that it's legit.

As I've already pointed out as well - if it's so broad then it's easy to miss or dismiss and therefore a failed protest. An effective protest actively draws attention to the protester and gives them an easy chance to spread their message.

You cannot "apolitically" protest an issue that is inherently political.

Catnip1024:
Well, first, I'm distinguishing between sportsmen and comedians / authors. Because despite your comment above, that is a significant difference.

Oh, of course there's a difference. One plays sports, the other tells jokes. But can you really argue that the sportsman has less of a right to speak freely than the comedian? On what grounds? How does being a person who plays sports as opposed to telling jokes make it more or less acceptable to bring a political discussion into the workplace? Why does one have the right to political speech and the other has the obligation to shut up and play?

You haven't said anything convincing to justify that double standard. You haven't really responded to my points at all. When Jimmy Kimmel started talking healthcare politics during his late night show, people told him to shut up and go back to comedy. Does Jimmy Kimmel have a right to talk about serious political issues during his show? If Jimmy Kimmel has that right, why doesn't Colin Kaepaernick?

For that matter, if it's so ethically vital that sportsmen specifically keep anything political out of the sport, why the bloody hell are they singing the national anthem in the first place?

Catnip1024:
Second, the insistency on calling anything you disagree with "horseshit" is rather unbecoming.

Not everything I disagree with. This specific thing. Because it is horseshit.

Honestly, man. You're arguing - and I quote - "...sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted."

Here's a brain-teaser: where do the Olympics fit into this framework of yours?

Catnip1024:

trunkage:
But keeping politics out of sport (or any work.) Is that stuff written into contracts? Because I would disagree. That fact that you go to work is political - it supports Capitalistic ideals. Drive a car? Walk? Public Transport? Climate Change debate. Get a coffee? Health regulations, "exploitation" of poor countries

See, the problem here is that this attitude takes it to absurd extremes. You end up comparing getting a coffee to turning up to work in an SS uniform.

Clearly, there is a significant difference between overt political symbology in the workplace, and choosing a particular brand of biscuits.

I believe the NFL contracts have terms on branding type / PR behaviours, through which they could probably attempt to enforce this. And there're usually enough generic terms that you're screwed if they really want you to be.

Absurd extremes... Firstly, you don't need to compare everything. Life doesn't have to be a listcle that YouTube pretends it is.

Now, I got this absurd business.
We buy petrol and a lot of that money goes to the Saudis. They are powerful and the US wants to cosy up to them. The Saudis (or at least the "black sheep") give money to Wahhabism - the Muslims that actually want to kill us. Every time you fill up, pays for terrorists. Then we got to think about how many times the US intervenes in the Middle East and how many Americans that has killed. Guess what your petrol purchased? They generally do it against the enemy of the Saudis, because they are too powerful to go against, which creates more terrorism.

Look, on second thought. I might stop. My purchases have already hurt enough people and I havent gone through everything yet. I dont want to think about it.

As to political symbology. I see this as a cause, simialr to providing awareness for cancer or SIDS. People are going to call this move as political to make sure you (African Americans in this case) can't speak about it, which is the whole point why people are getting offended at this. Their lives are now a political football when they just want to be treated fairly.

Saelune:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/nfl-bans-on-field-kneeling-during-the-national-anthem.html

I wish he was as ok about screwing over the 2nd Amendment as he was the 1st.

(alternative title, Trump is a fascist part 3/NFL is fascist part 1)

Im sorry but I am incapable of seeing how this makes Trump a fascist. This is literally a private company telling their employees what is and isn't acceptable. No different then how you would in the past go on about how 'Its not censorship if it isn't the government doing it'.

kiri3tsubasa:

Saelune:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/nfl-bans-on-field-kneeling-during-the-national-anthem.html

I wish he was as ok about screwing over the 2nd Amendment as he was the 1st.

(alternative title, Trump is a fascist part 3/NFL is fascist part 1)

Im sorry but I am incapable of seeing how this makes Trump a fascist. This is literally a private company telling their employees what is and isn't acceptable. No different then how you would in the past go on about how 'Its not censorship if it isn't the government doing it'.

When the private company has voiced concerns about the pressure the President is putting on them to do so it becomes an issue. The private business would not have acted at all without the pressure coming from the white house IS what makes this different. Trump interjected himself and changed the narrative. as I already pointed out in post 81 in this thread:

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.

When it is the President of the United States doing it, it is in fact the government doing it.

Catnip1024:

I mean, seriously, a bit of civility isn't much to ask for. I hold a different position. I remember when people could do that without resorting to shitty dismissals and bad attitude.

You remember when? And when exactly was that? It certainly was not during Obama's presidency. Nor Bush's. Bill's? Maybe. I was too young to know.

If you want civility, maybe start with opposing Trump. No, calling him an idiot does not count when everything after is your undying support for him, for his actions, for his politics, his views. You support Trump on virtually every issue. No one is fooled.

trunkage:
Look, on second thought. I might stop. My purchases have already hurt enough people and I havent gone through everything yet. I dont want to think about it.

Again, while you can make a painful case that every single thing is political, that overlooks a huge distinction between drinking a sports drink before you come on the pitch, and doing a black power gesture. Since you don't seem willing to recognise that, I don't think we're going to get anywhere.

Saelune:
If you want civility, maybe start with opposing Trump.

But, you see, that would require us to all be holding the same position. Which implies that you are incapable of being civil to people holding a different position. Which directly supports the point I made.

Catnip1024:
Again, while you can make a painful case that every single thing is political, that overlooks a huge distinction between drinking a sports drink before you come on the pitch, and doing a black power gesture.

Why do you think kneeling constitutes a black power gesture?

Are you thinking of these guys?

Catnip1024:
But, you see, that would require us to all be holding the same position. Which implies that you are incapable of being civil to people holding a different position. Which directly supports the point I made.

The point is that if you want to criticise declining standards of civility in political discussion, start with the guy who is prolifically uncivil. Otherwise you come off as looking like something of a hypocrite.

I also can't help but notice that you haven't really responded to any of my points yet. Were you planning to?

bastardofmelbourne:
Why do you think kneeling constitutes a black power gesture?

Why do you think that statement was anything to do with kneeling? In the previous overly exaggerated example I used the example of rocking up in an SS uniform, and that has nothing to do with this particular instance either.

Are you thinking of these guys?

Those guys, yes. Who a) were making far more overtly political gestures, and b) did get punished for it iirc. But who c) I do sympathise more strongly with.

The point is that if you want to criticise declining standards of civility in political discussion, start with the guy who is prolifically uncivil. Otherwise you come off as looking like something of a hypocrite.

Not particularly. I'm fairly open in stating that Trump's a loudmouthed prick. But that's a bizarre line of argument that leads to "well we can be as impolite as we want because Trump is as bad", which just leads to degrading standards all around.

I also can't help but notice that you haven't really responded to any of my points yet. Were you planning to?

At some point. I'm kind of busy, and have about 7 unread items that I don't want to read until I have time to actually reply to them. Otherwise I lose track.

Catnip1024:
But, you see, that would require us to all be holding the same position. Which implies that you are incapable of being civil to people holding a different position. Which directly supports the point I made.

There's plenty of room for differences of opinion without having to defend Trump constantly, or even occasionally.

Catnip1024:
Those guys, yes. Who a) were making far more overtly political gestures, and b) did get punished for it iirc. But who c) I do sympathise more strongly with.

Why is that?

Catnip1024:
But that's a bizarre line of argument that leads to "well we can be as impolite as we want because Trump is as bad", which just leads to degrading standards all around.

No-one is saying that we should all stoop to Trump's level. It's just that by demanding civility from only one side of the debate, you come off as something of a hypocrite.

Thaluikhain:

Catnip1024:
But, you see, that would require us to all be holding the same position. Which implies that you are incapable of being civil to people holding a different position. Which directly supports the point I made.

There's plenty of room for differences of opinion without having to defend Trump constantly, or even occasionally.

And brushing aside the fact that stating Trump did not make this political is not a defence of Trump so much as a statement of the sequence of events, how does that detract from the ideal world where people can disagree without being uncivil? Because all this "but, but, but" is essentially arguing for a world where you believe you are within your rights to be grossly impolite to people simply based on them not agreeing with you. Which put's those in favour more on a par with Trump than anyone else.

bastardofmelbourne:
For that matter, if it's so ethically vital that sportsmen specifically keep anything political out of the sport, why the bloody hell are they singing the national anthem in the first place?

And I've said from the start you can argue the toss either way about that. Personally, I don't see a national anthem as pushing any particular cause, but I'll concede the US goes slightly nutty over that sort of thing. That said, I don't believe they are obliged to sing it, rather just stand respectfully.

I've dropped the preceding text because we simply disagree there. I've stated my reasons previously, and they still apply. If you don't see the difference between someone paid to professionally talk about politics and someone paid to professionally run after a bit of leather, we might as well let this one drop.

Honestly, man. You're arguing - and I quote - "...sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted."

And that's horseshit, is it? It's an opinion. What's so mind-bogglingly bizarre about this opinion that this particular one is horseshit, and not say, preferring jam to marmalade, or not liking trains?

Here's a brain-teaser: where do the Olympics fit into this framework of yours?

As a colossal effort by many parties to attempt to keep the politics out of sport.

National anthems do not make the olympics political. Neither do flags. That's just team colours, in effect. While there are political elements to the Olympics (Taiwan), these largely detract from the overall thing and I disagree with these themselves. So, you know, consistent application of "horseshit".

bastardofmelbourne:
Why is that?

a) Racism was far more overt back then. They had far more in the way of grievances to be dealing with.
b) They knew they would get punished, they took a stand regardless. They broke professional ethics and jeopardised their careers for a greater cause.

And yes, those same criteria would lead me to respect any NFL players that continue in the face of sanctions, because they are putting their philosophies before their careers. Which is an admirable thing. But I don't believe it is wrong for the clubs to ask them not to do it, either.

And let's be honest, off on a tangent here, if the protest was accepted and dragged on, it would lose all impact. Nobody is risking anything, nobody is doing anything new. It would become a forgotten backdrop to the matches, rather like the anthem itself.

No-one is saying that we should all stoop to Trump's level. It's just that by demanding civility from only one side of the debate, you come off as something of a hypocrite.

Trump is not on the forums, though. That's like me saying that because some wannabe Bolshevik swore at me once, I'm going to be unpleasant to the lot of you. It's a bizarre argument to excuse ones own rudeness. One could even go so far as to call it "horseshit"

Catnip1024:

trunkage:
Look, on second thought. I might stop. My purchases have already hurt enough people and I havent gone through everything yet. I dont want to think about it.

Again, while you can make a painful case that every single thing is political, that overlooks a huge distinction between drinking a sports drink before you come on the pitch, and doing a black power gesture. Since you don't seem willing to recognise that, I don't think we're going to get anywhere.

Saelune:
If you want civility, maybe start with opposing Trump.

But, you see, that would require us to all be holding the same position. Which implies that you are incapable of being civil to people holding a different position. Which directly supports the point I made.

I have no civility for people who hold a different position that is utterly immoral.

Trump is an evil bigoted piece of garbage, and I have no reason to be kind to people who support him and his evil bigotedness.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
Why is that?

a) Racism was far more overt back then. They had far more in the way of grievances to be dealing with.
b) They knew they would get punished, they took a stand regardless. They broke professional ethics and jeopardized their careers for a greater cause.

Considering that Colin Kapernic has basically lost his career in his prime and no one wants to sign him due to the controversy he started...

Wouldn't you day that's him jeopardizing his career for a greater cause that he believes in?

Just askin' questions here.

aegix drakan:
Considering that Colin Kapernic has basically lost his career in his prime and no one wants to sign him due to the controversy he started...

Wouldn't you day that's him jeopardizing his career for a greater cause that he believes in?

Just askin' questions here.

Him, yes. I do respect the guy for it. That doesn't mean I blame the franchises for what they've done, though.

The larger movement does not face the same risk though. And if it were endorsed, there would be even less risk, and even less point. If it stopped being controversial, it would stop having any impact. That's kind of how protest movements work.

thebobmaster:
I do want to point out one thing. This is not the first time a country has essentially mandated a sports team to be patriotic, or suffer the consequences.

Yeah, I'm invoking Godwin's Law. I don't care, it seems to fit the scenario.

It is quite fitting considering it was an US Army Green Beret who told Kaepernick to kneel in the first place and then Trump attempts to claim it is insulting to veterans.

https://mic.com/articles/189567/nate-boyer-military-vet-who-convinced-colin-kaepernick-to-kneel-for-anthem-disses-nfls-new-policy#.gr99hM4SJ

The NFL can do whatever they want within reason, its a business.

The players signed a contract which tells them to follow the NFL governing boards polices. That these polices can change and that they either follow these changes or are fired. Luckily, they are giving the players a option of not being on the field and not FIRING/SUING them which they legally can do.

For many who have no idea about the world of multi-billion dollar industry or how it works. The US constitution may protect your right to free speech, but it is not totally guaranteed by a corporations. Polices and Terms under contracts mean a company can prevent you from using certain parts of the web or even social media. A company can even prevent you from disclosing anything pertaining to work (NDA). Heck , I am still under a NDA from my time working in my field of work for the next six years all because i signed a contract.

So if you want to argue politics has an issue with sports, its business politics. If you want to argue about racism in business, the only color that matters is green .

Catnip1024:
Because all this "but, but, but" is essentially arguing for a world where you believe you are within your rights to be grossly impolite to people simply based on them not agreeing with you.

No, it's based on them defending deeply immoral people and things. I can politely disagree with any number of people here on any number of things. I see no requirement to be polite to someone defending Trump.

Thaluikhain:
No, it's based on them defending deeply immoral people and things. I can politely disagree with any number of people here on any number of things. I see no requirement to be polite to someone defending Trump.

Right, this is going to be my last reply on this particular line of argument, because after a certain point you just have to say "fuck it".

Your criteria are bizarre and arbitrary. "People defending Trump"? First, just because you don't like someome does not make every single thing they do unworthy of defence. Last week, he pardoned a black boxing champion convicted under historical, racist laws. I fully support that. Are you going to be rude about that, then?

Second, as I have repeatedly (repeatedly, repeatedly) stated, nothing I have said in this thread is a defence of Trump. Because afai care, the underlying issue here is nothing to do with him. It's to do with political symbology in sport, and more broadly in the workplace.

The nearest I have come is to state that he did not politicise this, on the grounds that due to the inconvenient chronological order of events, it was already political by the nature of the protest. That's not a defence of Trump. That's a statement of the sequence of events. If accurately stating the order in which things happened is now a defence of Trump, we're all fucked...

 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