All 22 players take a knee
- Thread starter Fk_Pitt
- Start date
His comment struck me as being tactically similar opposition to the gun control movement after a mass shooting: "now is not the right time, etc."
I realize now I wasn’t clear enough. My apologies. Nobody gets to set the parameters of someone else’s protest. And protests by nature are going to be divisive. Because there are some who cling to garbage like the confederate flag. Or quite frankly want to keep black people or other POC down.
I will say that the violence and looting is wrong. But otherwise people can and should protest however they see fit. And for the record that stands universally. I’ve seen some anti abortion protests in person. And some of the images they used were rather graphic. And I’ve seen other protest methods that I don’t necessarily agree with the tactics. But as long as it’s not violent or criminal have at it.
He was literally protesting cops murdering black people. That never changed. The hyper-nationalist stuff started as a response because some people were more concerned with the method and others refused to acknowledge his reasons. It was easier for a lot of people to just wrap the issue up in the flag and ignore it. That's pretty much the history of race in this country. Now players all over the world are kneeling in protest and it's quite likely, you'll see it in the NFL this fall. Guys like JJ Watt are saying they will kneel. Obviously the protest meant something because it is still meaningful.
Yes—protesting the anthem made it easier for people to ignore the reason for the protest. THANK YOU. That’s my point!
and players all over the world are protesting. But they aren’t protesting during the US anthem. Let’s not forget that I am the one who started this thread.
Now I’m done.
And that's happening in some places. Watch what happens in some of the Fourth of July parades that happen.
Here's the deal. Protest has a way of bubbling these things to the surface. What happened to Bubba Wallace came from within NASCAR. It wasn't like someone could just wander into his garage. Here's the mentality; He spoke out and supported the cause. He is a person of color. He must pay. That's exactly what systemic racism looks like.
That's always the lazy rebuttal. "You're just trying to politicize it you *insert convenient insult*." To be fair, it works on a large number of people because it's natural to gravitate to some sort of quiet period. We've also taught people to be single issue warriors and to willingly betray some beliefs to defend others.
The core of this entire thread is that it's somehow inappropriate to protest during the anthem and that the message was "lost" in the reaction. That basically ignores the power of the protest and the ways people look to avoid dealing with the subject matter. Nobody pretended to not understand why a man was kneeling. They shrouded their discomfort in the flag because it felt easier than having to face the substance. It was a missed opportunity and, as we see, we still have a long way to go.
Those folks want to be divisiveI am.
And my one opinion is shared by millions. His protest is divisive. This is not a time to divide, it’s a time to unite. For those who protest in that way, it’s like the motivation is skewed. Do they want to turn people off, or do they want to unite and bring positive change? That’s all. I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve been hoping to check out of this conversation. I’ve said enough but I keep getting pulled back in.
Because their favorite outrage networks tells them to be triggered
Then use an ad populum logical fallacy to support their position
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_...d-white-lives-matter-spray-paint?platform=amp
something , something heritage
Yes exactly.
That would have been true in the NFL too until pretty recently. Or in a sense at least -- football players only left the locker room to stand for the national anthem (with the exception of the super bowl) since 2009 or so.
Let us also remember this when the owners talk about their disappointment about players kneeling:
"The report found the Department of Defense had spent $6.8 million on what they called "paid patriotism" between 2012 and 2015. This money was spread out among 50 pro teams from the NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, MLS and others. In exchange for the money, teams organized displays of national pride including flag presentations, the honoring of military members, reenlistment ceremonies, and even the most unassailable and uplifting of patriotic moments: surprise military homecomings"
One interesting thing about having mostly ex-military coworkers when I was in a Seafarers Union job (merchant marines) is how most of them basically hated and distrusted the military to a much larger extent than most civilians I know (may not be surprising though since our country basically chose endless war as a policy around 2003 or so.) We never talked about the Kapernick controversy though, not going to pretend I know how most of them view it now but I'd guess you'd get a wide variety of opinions, just like from anyone else...
BLM is outpolling the God Emperor by about 20-25 points. 62% favorability is about as popular as any single issue can get in the USA.
Yep. I follow the league intently and saw that on my twitter feed earlier. The racist culture there is much worse than here. That doesn’t shock me at all.
It's not twisting words at all. If an NFL team tells their players that if they kneel during the national anthem they will be fined $X and a player does kneel and does get fined, if he were to go to court to have that fine rescinded because his Constitutional rights had been violated, well, first off that player would have trouble finding a lawyer willing to argue that, but if he did he'd find his case tossed out of court in a hot second. Because players kneeling during the national anthem is NOT a Constitutional right.
Lots of people seem to think that it is. Plenty of people say stuff like that all the time. They are wrong. Clearly, obviously, wrong.
You obviously don’t understand what a right is versus policy. It’s not going to matter. The NFL won’t make that mistake again.
Actually it's you who obviously doesn't understand the difference. Along with anyone else who thinks that there is a Constitutional right to kneel during the national anthem at a sporting event.
The NFL is going to change the POLICY. The Constitution hasn't changed one bit. It always was, and still is, constitutional for an NFL team to tell their players that they are not allowed to kneel during the anthem.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/opinions/first-amendment-football-protest-callan-opinion/index.html
For those who don't want to read it, the money lines:
"One often-heard, but inaccurate, refrain among the talking heads was that the athletes had a "legal right" to peacefully protest in football stadiums across the country because the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. "It's a free country" this line of thinking goes, and American soldiers have fought and lost their lives to preserve this sacred right.
The fact is, these athletes do not have the "right" to protest at football games unless their employers consent to the conduct. Their private employers have a legal right under the US Constitution to fire or suspend players who engage in acts of protest on the field during the playing of the National Anthem and the display of Old Glory."
You’re absolutely correct on this
As a parallel it’s also why trump whining about freedom of speech on Twitter is laughable by a normal hack and deeply concerning levels of incompetence for a president
The constitution protects you from prosecution. That’s what a right is. They have the right to kneel. It’s protected speech. They won’t go to jail. The NFL can set a policy saying they can’t and try to fine them but they probably won’t.
Right. The fact that people all the way up to the President cannot seem to understand that private companies are allowed to do things that the government is not allowed to do boggles my mind. It's right there in the first words of the amendment. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp, and yet...
"Congress shall make no law..."
So my company can force me to quarter an army but the constitution can’t? Ha ha
Your company absolutely can set the terms of your employment. They absolutely can tell you that no political speech or statements are allowed on company property and on company time, and that violations of that policy will result in your termination. The government absolutely cannot tell you that and cannot pass a law to that effect.
The fact that you cannot wrap your mind around something that is such a simple concept is, well, I'll leave that for others to decide.
You miss the point. He was not protesting the Anthem, he was protesting during the Anthem so that people would get his message. If he took a knee at kickoff, no one would notice.
I want to point out this 3rd amendment to point out the folly of taking a literal or even original intent approach to the constitution .
Literally the 3rd amendment is protecting you from military staying in your house without permission
How bonkers a concept is that ?
I chose that one to point out the absurdity of his arguments. I don’t know where exactly we “learned” to lay down to keep a job or not cause waves but it’s a shame.
I never said that policy doesn’t exist or that it’s unenforceable. I literally tried to explain the difference between a right and a policy and you just keep posting the same dumb answer. You really need to grab a civics book. At least stare at the pictures a while.
But joe is absolutely right -
The right protects individuals from government censorship .
Not individuals from private entities
The constitution protects the right of the individual. Mostly it’s protection from the government but the government didn’t own slaves but it protects people from being owned by another person. Any law is subject to its constitutional authority and there are protected forms of speech in the workplace that derive from the law. These aren’t all anchored in the first amendment.
It doesn’t matter. Kneeling isn’t something the NFL is going to try to stop with a written policy unless the union is all in and agrees (and speaking up as a union member is actually protected speech, btw).
You think it's dumb because at this point it's obvious that you don't understand the difference between the two.
If you steal money from your employer the FBI (ie the government) would not be able to force you to admit to your crime. But your employer certainly could fire you for it. Because you have the RIGHT to not incriminate yourself with the government, but your company can still have a POLICY that if you don't cooperate with any investigation you can be fired. Similarly, Congress cannot pass a law that it's illegal to kneel for the national anthem, because you have the RIGHT to speech free from government interference. But your employer could absolutely have a POLICY that political protests are not allowed on company property and company time and that if you violate that POLICY then you can be fired. And there are lots of other scenarios out there where individuals and companies can have policies against certain actions that the government absolutely could not outlaw.
Like I said, it's really not that hard a concept to understand, and yet you just don't get it.
No, I just wrote the same thing that you took exception to three days ago.
I said "no one has a Constitutional right to kneel for the national anthem before a sporting event".
And you replied with "You do have a constitutional right to kneel. It’s covered under the first amendment."
No, you don't. As I just explained. Again. If the Constitution guaranteed your right to kneel then you couldn't be sanctioned for doing it. And yet you can. Because it's not a Constitutional issue.
I do too. I've never had a discussion before with someone who disagrees with both me and themselves.
Similar threads
