I stand by this. Unless Trump is behind the scenes affecting their money in some way, but the NFL does not give a rats ass what Trump or anybody else other than paying customers think. Now he could have an indirect effect on the bottom line if his zealot followers are large enough in number to boycott the NFL or not based upon his opinions, but hard to gauge the data on that. But trust me the NFL only cares about Trump if he affects their bottom line. This is all about money.
Ya. I doubt very much the NFL made a decision based on anything Trump may have said or done. But I think it does go beyond just what the paying customer thinks. Public opinion does factor in, I believe, in this case. Especially since it concerns the flag and the anthem.
Just my two cents. Now I need to get back to my rum.
I stand by this. Unless Trump is behind the scenes affecting their money in some way, but the NFL does not give a rats ass what Trump or anybody else other than paying customers think. Now he could have an indirect effect on the bottom line if his zealot followers are large enough in number to boycott the NFL or not based upon his opinions, but hard to gauge the data on that. But trust me the NFL only cares about Trump if he affects their bottom line. This is all about money.
Again, this would only be a relevant comparison if the US government proclaimed that it is unlawful for the players not to stand for the national anthem which of course they are not and cannot according to our constitution. This is simply about the business that is the NFL losing money because enough of the fans i.e. customers do not like the image and are turning away apparently in droves to illicit such a drastic response from the corporation. Now, you can point the finger of blame at the fan base for this reaction, but the NFL policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the Trump, the US government, free speech or even the issues the players wish to spotlight by not standing in the first place other than the fan base don't like them doing it. If the fan base didn't care neither would the NFL. Believe me they would rather all of this just go away which is why I think they have made a terribly unwise business decision that will come back to bite them and everyone else associated with the NFL including the players. Personally I think the fans that are so offended by these protest are indeed hypocritical, but the NFL does not care about my opinion, they only care if I am still watching.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
May 24, 2018 - 11:14am
islander wrote:
How our national dialog should have gone. I really have trouble getting the perspective of people seeing taking a knee as dis-respective. It is respectful in every other circumstance, and certainly better than 'sitting it out'. I have trouble with the 'with us or against us' view, especially when it leads to patriotism is only done 'this way'. We should be upholding values, not symbols.
When it becomes "with us or against us," that's when you know it's moved from patriotism to nationalism - next stop, fascism.
It's a really nice story. Nate Boyer is the Green Beret. He left college at Texas, then came back after his service and finished his eligibility. By all accounts a very classy guy who brought a lot of wisdom to the team. His open letter could have been full of vitriol, instead he sought understanding and common ground.
Separate anecdote: in the locker room before a game, some dignitary came in to give them a pep talk. Well, the person said something like 'This isn't just football, this is war!' That didn't sit too well with Mr. Boyer, and he called the guy out. Having been in combat, he politely explained the differences. Class. c.
How our national dialog should have gone. I really have trouble getting the perspective of people seeing taking a knee as dis-respective. It is respectful in every other circumstance, and certainly better than 'sitting it out'. I have trouble with the 'with us or against us' view, especially when it leads to patriotism is only done 'this way'. We should be upholding values, not symbols.
Except that by standing—anyone, standing—for the anthem, addressing the flag with hand over heart, we/they are saying *something*. They are being forced to stand up and speak in front of cameras that they have no problem with our country at the moment, everything's great. Kaepernick originally just sat on the bench, rather than participate in that. An ex-military teammate hinted that that was disrespectful and suggested taking a knee; respect the flag, don't participate in the charade.
The NFL policy will allow Kaep et al to remain in the locker room during the anthem; if they'd had the option before, I suspect Kaepernick would have just sat it out.
It's a really nice story. Nate Boyer is the Green Beret. He left college at Texas, then came back after his service and finished his eligibility. By all accounts a very classy guy who brought a lot of wisdom to the team. His open letter could have been full of vitriol, instead he sought understanding and common ground.
Separate anecdote: in the locker room before a game, some dignitary came in to give them a pep talk. Well, the person said something like 'This isn't just football, this is war!' That didn't sit too well with Mr. Boyer, and he called the guy out. Having been in combat, he politely explained the differences. Class. c.
I'm still wondering why we do the national anthem at sports games, and why it's mostly the athletes participation we focus on.
a) if it's just entertainment, why don't we have the anthem at movies, and before tv shows, or concerts?
b) If it's bad for the athletes to take a knee, why is it okay for Average Joe, to grab a beer? Shouldn't concessions be closed down? Also restrooms. At home I'm sure everyone in the living room is standing with their hats off and hands over their hearts right?
Except that by standing—anyone, standing—for the anthem, addressing the flag with hand over heart, we/they are saying *something*. They are being forced to stand up and speak in front of cameras that they have no problem with our country at the moment, everything's great. Kaepernick originally just sat on the bench, rather than participate in that. An ex-military teammate hinted that that was disrespectful and suggested taking a knee; respect the flag, don't participate in the charade.
The NFL policy will allow Kaep et al to remain in the locker room during the anthem; if they'd had the option before, I suspect Kaepernick would have just sat it out.
I'm still wondering why we do the national anthem at sports games, and why it's mostly the athletes participation we focus on.
a) if it's just entertainment, why don't we have the anthem at movies, and before tv shows, or concerts?
b) If it's bad for the athletes to take a knee, why is it okay for Average Joe, to grab a beer? Shouldn't concessions be closed down? Also restrooms. At home I'm sure everyone in the living room is standing with their hats off and hands over their hearts right?
Everyone is messing this whole thing up and missing the point, this is not or should not even be a free speech issue at all. What it should be is an employer/employee conflict that has nothing to do with free speech.
Except that by standing—anyone, standing—for the anthem, addressing the flag with hand over heart, we/they are saying *something*. They are being forced to stand up and speak in front of cameras that they have no problem with our country at the moment, everything's great. Kaepernick originally just sat on the bench, rather than participate in that. An ex-military teammate hinted that that was disrespectful and suggested taking a knee; respect the flag, don't participate in the charade.
The NFL policy will allow Kaep et al to remain in the locker room during the anthem; if they'd had the option before, I suspect Kaepernick would have just sat it out.
Everyone is messing this whole thing up and missing the point, this is not or should not even be a free speech issue at all. What it should be is an employer/employee conflict that has nothing to do with free speech. Of course the players should be able to protest the anthem all they want........on their own time. If the NFL does not want them protesting the anthem then they have every right to enforce this rule as they please. I don't think it is a wise business move to handle it this way, but they have the right to do so just as your employer has the right to fire you if you call your boss an asshole to his face. You have every right to do so and your employer has every right to fire you for doing this as well. What the NFL should do if they were smart and they're not, is just quit playing the anthem before games. Seems like a silly out dated jingoistic practice anyway. Either way, they are all going down because the GAME has become a business and political theatre for the employees and I for one being a lifelong NFL fan and historian as a child have totally lost interest and have stopped watching. And to be clear, I have not stopped watching for political reasons, I understand and support the reason why the players are doing this even though I do not think it is actually helping their cause mostly because of the reasons I stated before. The very people the players are trying to reach are never going to listen now because they are viewing it purely through the short sighted jingoistic prism of disrespect to the anthem and are being guided and prodded to by those with an agenda including and especially Trump. He should have gone against his very nature and just have been quiet and let the NFL handle it as they saw fit. If he was smart and we all know he is not, this would have all died down and not have been a problem, but that ship is sailed and there will be absolutely no good that will come with this other than the satisfaction that the NFL is on the decline and will completely fail and the owners will lose their teams and all NFL employees from custodians, cheerleaders and the players themselves will be out of work. Hope everyone is happy.
Could you elaborate on how active efforts to deny a platform to abhorrent messages is a problem? I'll start you with a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a really passionate believer that people who post on the internet using handles of the format Adjective + Numeral should be chemically and/or physically castrated (for whatever absurd reason). BillG sees me posting horrible (in his opinion) things directed not specifically at you, but very obviously generally about "those adjective-numeral people", and deletes it from his website. How is this a problem?
Now this bleeds into the civil rights argument. Remember that Rand Paul wasn't a proponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I believe his thought was that the government shouldn't regulate what businesses must do - such as serve people of all races. Right or wrong ethically, it's that the government should not get involved in business practices in that way. Superficially I think he's got a point, that we shouldn't legislate what businesses choose to do/not do.
So, should BillG ban people with exclusive or insulting or divisive opinions? If you take Rand Paul's approach, the answer is: it's a business. BillG can do any damn thing he pleases. If it's not a valid business model, then it'll fail on its own.
Or should we legislate what BillG can do when he sets up a forum? Tell him what he can/can't allow? Bring in the FCC?
—-
Finishing up the Rand Paul thing, a little deeper: if they allowed businesses to be racist, as they were then, then the unwanted minorities in an area would be unable to get some staples - like groceries or gas. "You have to go to the colored store for your food" "But, there is no colored grocery store?!" or the colored gas station, etc. I can see where the Civil rights Act was very important in making sure that we didn't exclude races/religions/genders/etc from the marketplace for their own survival - even though it's "modified" capitalism. Rand Paul avoids that inhumane consequence of letting the marketplace make the decisions.
Could you elaborate on how active efforts to deny a platform to abhorrent messages is a problem? I'll start you with a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a really passionate believer that people who post on the internet using handles of the format Adjective + Numeral should be chemically and/or physically castrated (for whatever absurd reason). BillG sees me posting horrible (in his opinion) things directed not specifically at you, but very obviously generally about "those adjective-numeral people", and deletes it from his website. How is this a problem?
Dial back the egregiousness of the speech a little and see if your premise still works.
I was really disappointed in Mr. Munroe when I saw this.
It is willfully obtuse. It doesn't accurately describe the problem. The controversy is not about unpopular messages being ignored, disagreed with, or criticized—it's about active efforts to prevent people from ever hearing them.
I thought it was spot-on.
Could you elaborate on how active efforts to deny a platform to abhorrent messages is a problem? I'll start you with a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a really passionate believer that people who post on the internet using handles of the format Adjective + Numeral should be chemically and/or physically castrated (for whatever absurd reason). BillG sees me posting horrible (in his opinion) things directed not specifically at you, but very obviously generally about "those adjective-numeral people", and deletes it from his website. How is this a problem?
I was really disappointed in Mr. Munroe when I saw this.
It is willfully obtuse. It doesn't accurately describe the problem. The controversy is not about unpopular messages being ignored, disagreed with, or criticized—it's about active efforts to prevent people from ever hearing them.
