Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 26 Sep 2017, 4:27 pm

What we have here is a battle for control of a narrative.

What is our flag exactly? What is it really a symbol of? That's the question being asked.

How you answer points to your experiences of living in the United States, no matter how much money you've made as a result of living here and no matter how many opportunities have been afforded to you.

Maybe the anthem shouldn't be sung any more. Maybe the words are no longer true for its citizens?

I'd rather have a moment of silence than observe puppeteers drive their political agendas over a symbol that no longer brings people together.
Last edited by dag hammarsjkold on 26 Sep 2017, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Sep 2017, 5:50 pm

I find it interesting that so many people protesting are so easily offended by symbols such as a confederate flag, statue or name on a building, and everyone must capitulate to their views. However, when they offend me personally by refusing to stand for their national anthem, it is not a big deal, and they have a right to portray their view, and the rest be damned!

Anyone else see a dichotomy?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Sep 2017, 5:54 pm

Side note:

Does a NFL owner have the right to fire or bench someone for their opinion?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 5:58 pm

bbauska wrote:Side note:

Does a NFL owner have the right to fire or bench someone for their opinion?


I don’t know. However, it is in the league rules that players MUST stand for the anthem.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 6:02 pm

To me, the players certainly have the right to protest.

However, anyone who thinks this is an effective manner of protest is out of their tree. The polls suggest, overwhelmingly, that Americans don’t think this is appropriate. They don’t see it as a BLM protest, but as disrespectful to the flag, the nation, and veterans.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Sep 2017, 9:40 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:Side note:

Does a NFL owner have the right to fire or bench someone for their opinion?


I don’t know. However, it is in the league rules that players MUST stand for the anthem.


I thought someone at Google was fired for his beliefs. Same?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:12 am

bbauska wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:Side note:

Does a NFL owner have the right to fire or bench someone for their opinion?


I don’t know. However, it is in the league rules that players MUST stand for the anthem.


I thought someone at Google was fired for his beliefs. Same?

As I understand it, Damore was fired for how he expressed his opinion rather than the content. But employers do have latitude to fire people (especially in the US with your less rigorous employment rights legislation) for what they say, whether in company time or outside it but identifiably as an employee

The other side to it is that the NFL don't have to fire people either, if they don't want to, and coaches don't have to. If these are the NFL's rules, then it is up to the NFL whether to enforce them or not.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:18 am

Another comparison I have seen is Kim Davis.

There were many who said she should not be punished or lose her job for what she did, which was to refuse to carry out part of her key function, registration of marriages, because she had moral objections to certain kinds of marriage.

Of course, she was jailed because that also violated law, but she retained her job (and still does I believe).

These NFL players may be in breach of an NFL rule, but they are not refusing to perform their actual job (to train for and play in football games). And they are not in breach of a law.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:23 am

I’m going to make this really simple: communication involves making sure the intended message is received.

Whatever the players are trying to communicate is lost because of their chosen method. Most Americans see their message as disrespectful to the nation and those who serve/have served.

It’s like a bad advertisement: whatever you meant to convey is irrelevant. If the audience interprets your message in the opposite way you’ve intended, you can blame them if you’d like, BUT you’ve lost.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:39 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I’m going to make this really simple: communication involves making sure the intended message is received.

Whatever the players are trying to communicate is lost because of their chosen method. Most Americans see their message as disrespectful to the nation and those who serve/have served.

It’s like a bad advertisement: whatever you meant to convey is irrelevant. If the audience interprets your message in the opposite way you’ve intended, you can blame them if you’d like, BUT you’ve lost.

All very well, but that being your opinion of their method and with my reading of your posts over time being that you also disagree with their message - this started off as protesting a perceived racial unfairness in police treatment including shootings and that not being adequately dealt with by the authorities - what is the problem? Why are people so exercised by it if it is a poor way to promote a message you don't really want promoting anyway?

Just let 'em get on with it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:44 am

But, for consistency, I would love to see as much ire for the following which really do disrespect the US flag, and the nation:

Flying the flag of enemies that the US has fought against in wars, such as the Confederate flag, and giving it respect or deference

Using the flag as part of sports uniforms.

Using the flag in advertising

Using the flag on disposable items

Wearing the flag on underwear or beachwear

Holding the flag parallel to the ground, rather than aloft

Showing defaced or altered versions of the flag
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:57 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I’m going to make this really simple: communication involves making sure the intended message is received.

Whatever the players are trying to communicate is lost because of their chosen method. Most Americans see their message as disrespectful to the nation and those who serve/have served.

It’s like a bad advertisement: whatever you meant to convey is irrelevant. If the audience interprets your message in the opposite way you’ve intended, you can blame them if you’d like, BUT you’ve lost.

All very well, but that being your opinion of their method and with my reading of your posts over time being that you also disagree with their message - this started off as protesting a perceived racial unfairness in police treatment including shootings and that not being adequately dealt with by the authorities - what is the problem? Why are people so exercised by it if it is a poor way to promote a message you don't really want promoting anyway?

Just let 'em get on with it.


It’s not merely a poor way to communicate their message: it’s an utter failure.

How so? Because it communicates a completely different message.

What they want to communicate: “There is inequity in our justice system. Black people are being unjustly killed by police.”

What they are communicating: “We hate this country.”

So, they not only are failing to communicate their message, they are angering the majority of Americans. Of course, liberals are fine with the message because they hate the US too.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:59 am

danivon wrote:But, for consistency, I would love to see as much ire for the following which really do disrespect the US flag, and the nation:

Flying the flag of enemies that the US has fought against in wars, such as the Confederate flag, and giving it respect or deference

Using the flag as part of sports uniforms.

Using the flag in advertising

Using the flag on disposable items

Wearing the flag on underwear or beachwear

Holding the flag parallel to the ground, rather than aloft

Showing defaced or altered versions of the flag


Pardon me, but this comes off as less than sincere—and more like something you saw somewhere else.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10740
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 7:11 am

If you are black and this is the state of affairs ...

There is inequity in our justice system. Black people are being unjustly killed by police


then isn't this a likely outcome?

We hate this country.”


I think the problem is that black people aren't supposed to speak up. Because no matter what method or venue they choose ...its wrong.
If the flag is a symbol of the nation, then it is supposed to represent to every person the ideals of the nation. When the nation falls short of delivering on those ideals, why shouldn't the symbol of those ideals be central to protest?

The point of protest is to get your view point on a specific topic noticed. And to keep it central in public debate.
Until recently, taking a knee wasn't all that effective in achieving this...
But in attempting to use the protest as a rallying point for his bigoted base, Trump has managed to elevate the protest and awareness of the central issue. He has also muddies the issue as now its also about free speech, employee rights, the militarization of America and more...
The US military pays the NFL millions of dollars in tax payers money to present military demonstrations at NFL stadiums... Its an enormously political act on the part of the military. Most of the soldiers I've seen express a view on this, support the right of those protesting to do so and do not see it as a slight on the military. Nor do other athletes
He’s very courageous,” A’s outfielder Khris Davis said. “I respect his decision, he’s just exercising his rights as an American.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... bc3917e5b1

Michael Sand is a former Green Beret, and comes from a family of military servicemembers. As he wrote on Facebook, his father was a World War II veteran fighting fascism, he served in Vietnam fighting communism, and his son is currently serving in the Army fighting the Taliban and terrorism.

"Three vastly different enemies, but enemies who shared one common trait," Sand writes. "ALL of them stifle free speech. All of them bully, degrade and terrorize those who hold opposing views and who peacefully express them."

http://www.businessinsider.com/army-vet ... ump-2017-9

He is exercising his constitutional right, and I'm glad that he's doing it," Benjamin Starks, a veteran of both the US Navy and the US Army Reserve, told Business Insider in September 2016.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 7:31 am

rickyp wrote:If you are black and this is the state of affairs ...

There is inequity in our justice system. Black people are being unjustly killed by police


then isn't this a likely outcome?

We hate this country.”


But, the premise is, by and large, not true. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-st ... on-bandler

3. The Post's data does show that unarmed black men are more likely to die by the gun of a cop than an unarmed white man...but this does not tell the whole story. In August 2015, the ratio was seven-to-one of unarmed black men dying from police gunshots compared to unarmed white men; the ratio was six-to-one by the end of 2015. But Mac Donald points out in The Marshall Project that looking at the details of the actual incidents that occurred paints a different picture:

The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

In one of those unintended cases, an undercover cop from the New York Police Department was conducting a gun sting in Mount Vernon, just north of New York City. One of the gun traffickers jumped into the cop’s car, stuck a pistol to his head, grabbed $2,400 and fled. The officer gave chase and opened fire after the thief again pointed his gun at him. Two of the officer’s bullets accidentally hit a 61-year-old bystander, killing him. That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death. In the other collateral damage case, Virginia Beach, Virginia, officers approached a car parked at a convenience store that had a homicide suspect in the passenger seat. The suspect opened fire, sending a bullet through an officer’s shirt. The cops returned fire, killing their assailant as well as a woman in the driver’s seat. That woman entered the Post’s database without qualification as an “unarmed black victim” of police fire.


Mac Donald examines a number of other instances, including unarmed black men in San Diego, CA and Prince George's County, MD attempting to reach for a gun in a police officer's holster. In the San Diego case, the unarmed black man actually "jumped the officer" and assaulted him, and the cop shot the man since he was "fearing for his life." MacDonald also notes that there was an instance in 2015 where "three officers were killed with their own guns, which the suspects had wrestled from them."


I think the problem is that black people aren't supposed to speak up. Because no matter what method or venue they choose ...its wrong.


I think you must be thick as a brick. When the anthem and flag are protested the message is, "We hate this country." There is no asterisk or other explanation--no matter what the intent is. The polls don't lie.

For every vet you can cite, there are 1000 or more who disagree.

If they keep up this manner of protesting, they will lose endorsements, money, fans, and jobs.

Keep it up!