New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem

[*Nately120*]

(05-25-2018, 09:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the problem with your argument.  I agree that, for many of the players, the objective of their protests is not to denigrate the country.  However, you don't get to decide how your actions are perceived by others.  If others view it as offensive to the country the fact that you disagree doesn't immediately render those opinions invalid.  

People have a right to be as offended as they like. Its when people confidently declare that things that offend them are offensive to the country, or god and so on that some take issue with .

You also see this when people claim to love freedom, but justify limiting the freedoms that offend them by claiming said freedoms are against gods will or will hurt the country and so on.  

[Griever]

(05-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Nately120 Wrote: People have a right to be as offended as they like. Its when people confidently declare that things that offend them are offensive to the country, or god and so on that some take issue with .

You also see this when people claim to love freedom, but justify limiting the freedoms that offend them by claiming said freedoms are against gods will or will hurt the country and so on.  

Get out of my head

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Nately120 Wrote: People have a right to be as offended as they like. Its when people confidently declare that things that offend them are offensive to the country, or god and so on that some take issue with .

You also see this when people claim to love freedom, but justify limiting the freedoms that offend them by claiming said freedoms are against gods will or will hurt the country and so on.  

Sure, but the left engage in this behavior as well.  I say the left as you used "god and country" in your points, which is an obvious allusion to right leaning people.  The left claim to love free speech, but start a riot when Milo is going to speak.  The left embrace diversity but want a "no white people day".  These are extreme examples, to be sure, but they illustrate that claiming "I'm offended" is not tied to one ideology.


What this thread clearly illustrates is exactly why the NFL should not have allowed these protests from the jump, because they have nothing to do with their product and are extremely polarizing.  Whatever you think of the opinions on the protest, pro and con, that fact that people are forming any opinion on something other than the quality of the NFL product means the NFL should prohibit the activity.  It's a business, not a political platform.

[*Nately120*]

(05-25-2018, 09:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but the left engage in this behavior as well.  I say the left as you used "god and country" in your points, which is an obvious allusion to right leaning people.  The left claim to love free speech, but start a riot when Milo is going to speak.  The left embrace diversity but want a "no white people day".  These are extreme examples, to be sure, but they illustrate that claiming "I'm offended" is not tied to one ideology.


What this thread clearly illustrates is exactly why the NFL should not have allowed these protests from the jump, because they have nothing to do with their product and are extremely polarizing.  Whatever you think of the opinions on the protest, pro and con, that fact that people are forming any opinion on something other than the quality of the NFL product means the NFL should prohibit the activity.  It's a business, not a political platform.

I'm aware the left has its own self-serving agendas. Id hardly be the miserable cynic of a libertarian I am today if I didn't see that .

[Belsnickel]

The unfortunate truth about this all right now is that the movement in the NFL has failed. Not because the NFL made their policy decision, that is irrelevant. It failed because the conversation never really got to the issues the protesters were trying to bring attention to. I think this is a combination of failure in method as well as people unhappy with the message running a counter-message to shove the real intention under the rug.

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The unfortunate truth about this all right now is that the movement in the NFL has failed. Not because the NFL made their policy decision, that is irrelevant. It failed because the conversation never really got to the issues the protesters were trying to bring attention to. I think this is a combination of failure in method as well as people unhappy with the message running a counter-message to shove the real intention under the rug.

The NFL has set up a $90 million "Social Justice Fund" in response to the players protests.  Don't know what exactly it will do, but the protests have accomplished something.

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Nately120 Wrote: People have a right to be as offended as they like. Its when people confidently declare that things that offend them are offensive to the country, or god and so on that some take issue with .

You also see this when people claim to love freedom, but justify limiting the freedoms that offend them by claiming said freedoms are against gods will or will hurt the country and so on.  

This.

You are allowed to claim you don't like the kneeling, but you are not allowed to say it is offensive to the country.  There are lots of veterans who support the protests.

So complain all you want, but don't wrap yourself in the flag when you do it because there are lots of patriots that agree with protests.  You are speaking for yourself, not the country. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2018, 10:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The NFL has set up a $90 million "Social Justice Fund" in response to the players protests.  Don't know what exactly it will do, but the protests have accomplished something.

Which I get. But the reason to put such a public display on is to generate the conversation in the general public. It achieved something in that fund, and it did get some people talking about some good issues, but it didn't gain the traction it was intended to.

[XenoMorph]

(05-25-2018, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The unfortunate truth about this all right now is that the movement in the NFL has failed. Not because the NFL made their policy decision, that is irrelevant. It failed because the conversation never really got to the issues the protesters were trying to bring attention to. I think this is a combination of failure in method as well as people unhappy with the message running a counter-message to shove the real intention under the rug.

it failed cause no one wants to hear what over priced atheletes political opinions are...

Same with the movie stars who feel somehow since they are rich and famous their opinion has any more weight than the normal joe serving you coffee.


And especially because people don't watch football for political activism  We watch it for football.


These players tried to use their position to push their agenda.    And now don't wanna deal with the backlash.
Stay in the tunnel or shut your mouth..

You all make plenty of money to donate and start things outside of an nfl field.  Pay for your own TV time. 

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 10:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which I get. But the reason to put such a public display on is to generate the conversation in the general public. It achieved something in that fund, and it did get some people talking about some good issues, but it didn't gain the traction it was intended to.

I agree.  The problem was that it was so vague and poorly planned when it started.  Kaepernick had no real goal for what had to be done in order for him to stop protesting.  That allowed everyone who opposed him to claim he was protesting the wrong things or for the wrong reason.

If he had come out and said something like "I want an independent prosecutor appointed for all cases where a police officer is accused of misconduct.' we would not have all these people claiming "He encourages cop killers" and things like that.

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 10:12 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: it failed cause no one wants to hear what over priced atheletes political opinions are...

Same with the movie stars who feel somehow since they are rich and famous their opinion has any more weight than the normal joe serving you coffee.

It failed because no one wants to hear anyone who disagrees with them.  Doesn't matter how much money they make.  Rich people don't think their opinion counts any more than the average Joe.  They just know they have a method of reaching more people with their message.  If the average Joe who serves you coffee made apolitical comment that you disagreed with you would be just as upset.

All this hatred aimed at "rich and famous" people is just jealousy.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2018, 10:12 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: it failed cause no one wants to hear what over priced atheletes political opinions are...

Same with the movie stars who feel somehow since they are rich and famous their opinion has any more weight than the normal joe serving you coffee.


And especially because people don't watch football for political activism  We watch it for football.


These players tried to use their position to push their agenda.    And now don't wanna deal with the backlash.
Stay in the tunnel or shut your mouth..

You all make plenty of money to donate and start things outside of an nfl field.  Pay for your own TV time. 

Your statements might bear more truth were it not for the current POTUS that is in the White House.

[*Nately120*]

(05-25-2018, 10:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your statements might bear more truth were it not for the current POTUS that is in the White House.

No kidding. An overpaid celebrity is president but no one cares about the political opinions of overpaid celebrities.  Figure that one out .

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 10:12 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: And especially because people don't watch football for political activism  We watch it for football.

Since the protests had noting to do with the game you should not be upset. 

But apparently a lot of people watch football just for the anthem played before the game.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 07:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, that's not true. It may not be mandatory by law, but force can be used to require people to do so. This is that ambiguity in the term, again. Also, this is working off of the assumption that actions such as kneeling aren't respectful. From the onset of this conversation, about two years ago, now, the statement has been that the intention has been respect but with an acknowledgment of problems.

I understand that you may not find the action respectful, but we aren't going to move anywhere in this conversation if we don't couch it in those terms. You feel it is disrespectful, but not everyone does. That is a subjective interpretation but you aren't presenting it as subjective. This makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion about the issue.

Of course it's true that you are not required to stand; I thought we had determined this when we discussed the US Code

Not only to I find it disrespectful to the Nation, the people doing it, do as well. They assert they are not protesting the Military, but they are overtly disrespecting the Nation because they feel it is unfair to some. To show disrespect is the singular reason they are doing it. 

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 11:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not only to I find it disrespectful to the Nation, the people doing it, do as well. They assert they are not protesting the Military, but they are overtly disrespecting the Nation because they feel it is unfair to some. To show disrespect is the singular reason they are doing it. 

"The military" is not the same as "the nation".  The military is not involved in any of the social justice issues that the kneeling was protesting.

People who love this country protest because they want to "make America great again".  Our current president ran on a platform of disrespect for our country.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. "The military" is not the same as "the nation".  The military is not involved in any of the social justice issues that the kneeling was protesting.

2. People who love this country protest because they want to "make America great again".  Our current president ran on a platform of disrespect for our country.

1. Isn't that exactly what I said? The flag represents the Nation and they are kneeling to not show respect (disrespect) for the Nation is represents. I do not think one person knelt because they intended to disrespect the Military and I personally am not offended, but it is a show of disrespect. It is the impetus for doing so.

2. People who love this country put their lives on the line so others can protest. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-25-2018, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: "The military" is not the same as "the nation".  The military is not involved in any of the social justice issues that the kneeling was protesting.

People who love this country protest because they want to "make America great again".  Our current president ran on a platform of disrespect for our country.

Agreed.  We have seen both sides of the fence complaining about various aspects of this country for years.  They just have different ways of justifying why they are calling things "not great" that supposedly absolve them of being disrespectful.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2018, 11:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it's true that you are not required to stand; I thought we had determined this when we discussed the US Code

Requirements, force, they do not require a legal mandate to be used.

(05-25-2018, 11:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not only to I find it disrespectful to the Nation, the people doing it, do as well. They assert they are not protesting the Military, but they are overtly disrespecting the Nation because they feel it is unfair to some. To show disrespect is the singular reason they are doing it. 

Has this been stated by those participating in these protests? You're assigning motive that I am unaware of. Do you find protest to be inherently disrespectful?

From what I am gathering, this is just an example of what I have been saying in this thread. People are coming to this discussion by stating their opinions as facts, and that is damaging to the discourse.

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Isn't that exactly what I said? The flag represents the Nation and they are kneeling to not show respect (disrespect) for the Nation is represents. I do not think one person knelt because they intended to disrespect the Military and I personally am not offended, but it is a show of disrespect. It is the impetus for doing so.

2. People who love this country put their lives on the line so others can protest. 

1.  Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.  Do you agree that everyone who cheered for Trump when he talked about how messed up the country was also "disrespected" this country?  I don't see how you can have it both ways.  Trump saying the country is messed up is no different from Kaepernick saying the same thing.

2.  The military are not the only patriots who love this country.