Sfdebris.net

It's all over the internet. Just about every where i look its got this story, or something connected to it.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html

Even Michael Jordan is weighing in on this...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/jo ... smsnnews11

Is it true that the NFL wouldn't let members of the Dallas Cowboys wear decals on their helmets to honor the officers slain the in the Dallas attack? Or for another team to wear shoes remembering those lost on 9/11? If true I'd say they're talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to free speech.

I know some people claim that what he said was illegal, but since he's calling on consumers to boycott rather than directly demanding the owners fire the players I don't think it is according to the section I keep seeing posted on Facebook. Not sure on the legality of a member of the government calling for a consumer boycott, but I doubt Trump is the first.

I don't think Trump has caught on that things are different now that he's President as far as making comments like that, though it could make for some interesting discussion as far as where the separation between the person and the office they hold is, if there is indeed any.

In theory, there should be some separation, since the President is effectively the embodiment of the state.

In practice, there isn't, as the power of the Presidency is such that even a statement made as a private individual assumes greater import because of the President being the one to speak it, with all sorts of inference as to his desired policies and plans.

As for this Kaepernik thing... honestly kneeling isn't as disrespectful as people make it out to be. Sitting on the bench, making rude gestures, or turning your back would be far more disrespectful, while kneeling implies - to me at least - to be more of a quiet petition. It's not showing the same kind of respect as on your feet, hand over heart, but it's not a rejection either.

Steve wrote:
As for this Kaepernik thing... honestly kneeling isn't as disrespectful as people make it out to be. Sitting on the bench, making rude gestures, or turning your back would be far more disrespectful, while kneeling implies - to me at least - to be more of a quiet petition. It's not showing the same kind of respect as on your feet, hand over heart, but it's not a rejection either.

Could it be routed in the historic distaste Americans have for royalty and other such autocrats? Kneeling in their minds has a connotation of supplication, of placing people on different levels, while standing connotates everyone being on the same level? Although phrased like that I suppose sitting would be more respectful as it puts the able bodied on the same level as those with disabilities.

Could be a case of cultural dissonance, but to me kneeling actually seems in someways more respectful, possibly because of the whole supplication connotations.

Any game of NFL Football has heavy use of nationalist imagery with some sort of shout-out to the military and/or police officers. Sports audiences are also significantly wealthier and more conservative, especially those able to buy tickets -- or, come to think of it -- teams.

The NFL requires that each team (except the democratic, community-owned, and grandfathered Green Bay Packers) be controlled by an oligarchy, and most have just one wealthy investor running the show.

The athletes have the right to exercise their freedom of speech.

Now, the First Amendment only prohibits government censorship, as I understand it, so the NFL could fire them, but it would be a dickish move, financially unwise (because it would cost them a lot of good players), and they wisely won't do it.

Trump, as President, pushing it is, if not illegal (and it very well may be), then at the very least an undemocratic abuse of his power and position, and a divisive, unPresidential course of action. But what else is new.

Incidentally, they way I heard it, taking a knee is not meant as a gesture of disrespect. This is second hand information, because I don't really follow football, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, taking a knee is something you do to honour a player if they've been hurt or something. So far from being an insult to our country, it could be seen as a way to honour the country while acknowledging its problems.

In any case, its a non-violent, non-disruptive protest, and no one who truly honours America and its values on a deeper level than pageantry and symbolism would object to people exercising that right.

The ways that the fliag is displayed in NFL games are quite often, technically speaking, gestures of disrespect according to the official code.

But let's get this out of the way. This has fuckall to do with with respect for america or the cloth or the anthem. Nobody's angry THAT he's kneeling. Everyone angry at him is angry because of WHY he's kneeling.

People riot and they say "You're acting like animals! Stop being so violent! MLK wouldn't approve!"
So they tone it down and do peaceful protests like blocking traffic. "This is disruption! You're making more enemies!"
So they shout slogans. "YOu're drowning out the opposition! Nobody can take you seriously!"
So they kneel, in silence, during the anthem, and it's still not "peaceful" enough. It's still not "polite" enough.

I want you to think about all the people who are angry at Kaepernick for his protest, and think about what he could possibly do in protest of mass murder that they wouldn't take objection to.

Oh, yeah, Trump's pandering to his Klan base for sure here.

And also probably trying to distract the media from (Insert latest Trump cluster fuck here).

That said, I actually know a black person who apparently thinks that its disrespectful, so I wouldn't put it down completely to white racism.

I think Trevor Noah put it best:
https://youtu.be/4-Gx23vH0CE?t=4m59s

Steve wrote: As for this Kaepernik thing... honestly kneeling isn't as disrespectful as people make it out to be. Sitting on the bench, making rude gestures, or turning your back would be far more disrespectful, while kneeling implies - to me at least - to be more of a quiet petition. It's not showing the same kind of respect as on your feet, hand over heart, but it's not a rejection either.

He also had gone to Ghana and praised it regardless how it treated gay people, said Hillary should be in prison etc...

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:The ways that the fliag is displayed in NFL games are quite often, technically speaking, gestures of disrespect according to the official code.

But let's get this out of the way. This has fuckall to do with with respect for america or the cloth or the anthem. Nobody's angry THAT he's kneeling. Everyone angry at him is angry because of WHY he's kneeling.

People riot and they say "You're acting like animals! Stop being so violent! MLK wouldn't approve!"
So they tone it down and do peaceful protests like blocking traffic. "This is disruption! You're making more enemies!"
So they shout slogans. "YOu're drowning out the opposition! Nobody can take you seriously!"
So they kneel, in silence, during the anthem, and it's still not "peaceful" enough. It's still not "polite" enough.

I want you to think about all the people who are angry at Kaepernick for his protest, and think about what he could possibly do in protest of mass murder that they wouldn't take objection to.

Protest out of uniform not at your workplace, also if i was a leftist i would not choose him as my hero.

Steve wrote:In theory, there should be some separation, since the President is effectively the embodiment of the state.

Not for me, i never saw it that way.