|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Mixed feelings...
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 at 11:57:27 am EDT (Viewed 685 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Mixed feelings...
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 at 11:18:00 am EDT (Viewed 648 times)
I gave a pretty long reply and deleted it after thinking about it. I made a mistake and did not want to reach the same level of nastiness, but I will make a few points.
Quote:Just wondering about everyone's position here.
Quote:While I sympathize with (Kaepernick's) initial reasoning, I'm not sure I agree with kneeling. Whatever social niggles the US has, the flag and National Anthem are as much to honor those who fought and/or died for the country.
Quote:That said, my opinion shifted once Trump weighed in. A President suggesting people be fired (i.e. punished) for kneeling during the National Anthem makes it a direct case of government interfering with freedom of speech, something those same soldiers fought and died defending.
Quote:I find it hard to feel for these rich millionaires and their complaints that THEY are mistreated. The same guys who are basically paid to play a game all through college while the rest of us have to actually work for our grades.
Quote:I am confused as to why this has a barring on if they have been mistreated in the past or know people who are. They have a platform where they can be noticed and they chose to. That is their right.
Quote:I am questioning their motives and "lack" of standing up for the injustices THEY have benefitted from.
Quote:Such as? But you are willing to accept the hypocrisy for the side condemning them? Trump for instance does not have legs to stand on with anything regarding the troops.
Quote:Straw man argument. Where did I say I accepted such hypocrisy?
Your overall arguments and responses never discuss them, but attack the players. Even your criticism of Trump is only after you go after the media and say what he should have said. Not that you disagree that he said something or that those agreeing with him are bad too.
Given your focus and the clarification to the comments it seems fairly clear that you put more blame on the players. Meaning you find one sides hypocrisy more acceptible.
Quote:Straw man argument 2. Where did I say anything remotely like he hada leg to stand on?
You did not, but I take a bit of an issue here. This whole strawman thing that you are doing in this post is very confrontational. Particularly in light of you calling on a few questionable strawmen that could be misstatements or needing clarification. You also make a few of your own later.
This is more an example of my poor wording and phrasing. You did not say it, but I brought it up intended to make a point. Trump and those with this view are commonly wrapping themselves in the flag.
Which is ironic for a guy like Trump, given that he uses veterans and rips them off as needed.
Quote:They could be fired for it too, but they are within their rights. I just think you are mixing loads of issues that have no barring here.
Quote:I pretty flatly stated it was within their rights. Not mixing anything.
Quote:Yes you are, you are bringing up money and other things that have no barring on the matter.
Quote:Money/power plays a part in everything sadly.
How are they making money out of these protests? When many advertisers or sponsors are nervous and could cut some of their money?
For that matter, advantages or no leading to the NFL for being athletes does not diminish the right of expression. Which you seem to bring up as two counter balancing forces in your original argument.
Quote:No this isn't a conspiracy theory a large percentage of athletes are given many special "privileges" etc...
Quote:Yes, but what does that have to do with what is happening here?
Quote:Their motives as I said above...they are self-motivated. They are hypocrites benefitting from the system and using this for self-promotion. But they sure wouldn't stand up against their own unfair advantageous treatment.
Quote:This is a fair bit of accusation. We know that this happens, but we do not know to the level you are implying here.
Quote:It's rampant and has been going on for decades. The news reports on just such things from time to time.
Cool, what evidence do you have for that?
I just do not really understand the premise that because they are rich and have enjoyed advantages in the past (of varying natures) that this is a counter point to the ability to do this sort of thing.
I just recall many up in arms now happily defending groups seeking to usurp the idea of the flag and what the US is. But now they turn with venom on those using the right and not really expressing anything bad.
It goes to my points in my response to the main thread here. I am not sure at what point we only define patriotism by those serving in the armed forces either. As many of these people would be happy to fire government workers or see them fired. Despite the fact they are doing a patriotic duty too.
Not saying you are saying that, but I find that to be more of a hypocritical action in this case than anything the players have done so far.
Quote:What are they getting out of this? They are getting hammered by people and so on. Originally it was just a few guys. They were gripped at but largely ignored. Trump made a comment and they all did it out of unity.
Quote:So you think they are getting nothing out of it? Truly?
For every person ripping on them is another like you defending them.
I asked you that question. You have not really given a great answer yet. I look forward to one though.
The last point is a bit amusing. Because both sides are doing something it means that it is all ok then?
Aren't Trump voters supposed to be beyond PC culture? Seems they are being awfully easily offended then?
Quote:I just fail to see the crux of your argument at all. As everything you are saying can be turned easily on those criticizing them. I mean the people gripping at them are not saying much most of the time about that sort of thing anyway, they watch them play. Help pay their salaries and so on.
Quote:And they have a lot of people backing them. Heck its pretty safe to badmouth the president...get some great press and people talking about you and look like a hero to those who hate Trump. There is a lot to be gained...and yes they will lose from his supporters.
So...I don't know how to tell you this but big NFL players already are very popular and have quite a bit of press on their own. Most NFL players are not known too much other than fans and will not last long in the league.
So, everybody kneeling at once is not going to bring much attention on any one player. Just so we are clear there. Be it popular or not. I would argue it is potentially more detrimental. As I figure more die hard sports fans have conservative leanings. Not all, but I would imagine it edges that way. Seems true from most sports radio I have heard. But I have not listened for a while. Maybe I am wrong now.
They also lose from people that do not want politics in their escapism. Does not matter if they are backing Trump or not. Just seems like more negatives than not. As people are not really discussing why they are doing it either. Or why they did this action. Just how offended they are by it.
Quote:I don't see what's so hard to understand though, my argument is simply they are motivated by self interest not some altruistic motives.
And you have not been very clear on what self-interest is at play here. What you have elaborated so far does not make much logical sense. Unless maybe they are going to run for liberal office.
Many owners, mostly conservative, either kneeled with them or were supportive. You are not commenting on them, or the ones that did. And many of them had more advantages than the players. From wealth since birth in many cases.
Nor for that matter why it has barring on free speech.
Quote:Again, you are mixing various issues together. I am not sure why you do not see that. That they may have had advantageous treatment is not an issue with this. Unless you want to turn it on everything else too. In which case most people and individuals are hypocrites. Flat out.
Quote:Sometimes issues are intertwined...news flash. The world is not black and white.
They can be, these two are not at all. At least not the two you are forcing in.
It is sports culture vs free speech. That makes zero since to me.
Sports culture is bad and has been bad. Not just with what you are talking about either. How about player treatment in some programs and so on. Even in that it is more complicated. One could argue in college particular many players are exploited.
Still no bearing on their right to have an opinion that is free from government criticism. As you said, people can tare into them. I get the disrespecting the flag. I do not get your point.
As, if they are being hypocrites for things, those attacking them are being fairly big ones as well. I am really just trying to get you to see that. And you are fighting very hard. And being fairly nasty.
Quote:They have had massive advantageous treatment...this is extremely prevalent starting at least at college if not well before.
So, this is only a problem for the players? You are fine with owners backing the protest. They had more advantages than any of the players we see growing up, or at least many owners are from money.
I just really fail to see how this matters for this argument. Or is a valid analysis of the issues with sports culture. As the focus is more on what they got that I didn't. Are you mad at the kid that got a scholarship for being poor? Or the kid that had amazing grades. Granted, those do not happen as much as they should.
However, in big time football the players are potentially bringing the university all sorts of money. Money that most players will see nothing of. You can argue they are getting a free ride but most of these guys will not go the NFL, but did contribute to the college teams success, but the university made more on their efforts than the scholarship was worth.
Quote:That said...this kind of protest is a very peaceful one and they have every right to do so (and if they suffer commercial contract losses they should not complain). And they have every right to continue to do so. I am curious where this requirement of a national anthem at all sporting events even comes from in the first place. The Olympics? If so is a bunch of millionaires playing for a bunch of billionaires something we should even play the anthem at?
Quote:As for Trump...as sick as I am of the media attacking him like rabid dogs over every single thing he does...he's an idiot and his statements here prove it. If he had just said something along the lines of..."They have the right to do this. I feel it is wrong and diminishes those who fight for their very right to protest like this...but it is their right nonetheless." I think he would have a lot more agreement...instead we get a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote:I am more sick of those up in arms about this but not as up in arms about other crimes in the NFL. Ray Rice was on video knocking his girlfriend/wife out cold and draggin her out of the elevator. Where were these Patriotic Defense Warriors then?
Quote:I agree 100%. But this also includes these players...where were they when this happened? They like pointing the finger but never at themselves.
Quote:Yet you give a pass to the holier than thou viewer who jumps at a chance like this to boycot but not over rape, assault, dog fighting and so on? Isn't that hypocritical of those throwing criticism and starting the whole thing? Trump in particular is the biggest of all and leading this holier than all charge.
Quote:Straw man argument 3. Where is the pass I gave? Please show me where I said..."I give a pass to the holier than thou viewer "insert viewer"?
Quote:Straw man argument 4. Where did I say it's ok to "rape, assault, dog fighting and so on?" Did you miss the part (which you even alluded to earlier) where I accuse them of getting unfair advantages?
You split these two up, my sentence, for some reason. It needs to be read in full.
The whole thing I say is that you are giving them a pass and then that they (the ones mad about the flag) really did not backlash to the other issues as much as they are this. Thus they are hypocrites.
So, strawman 4 was not even directed at you, much like strawman 1. However with strawman 3. You do not have to really make the statement. Your whole point is fairly critical of the players outside of being supportive of free speech but skeptical because they are hypocrites. You then go after the media and a quote of what Trump should have said.
You never once bring up those attacking the players. So, I fail to see that the fact you omitted or where not clear reflects on it being a straw man. Even in our back and forths it is clear that you place majority of the blame on the players and will only put anything towards those after them if I prod pretty hard. Or at least that is what it seems.
A strawman would mean I am making my own argument against what you are saying. You never commented either way on them but given the tennor and what general side you seem to be more leaning towards it is not unreasonable to make a claim that your point is on the same general side. Taken as a whole your message is at the least very unclear, but seems probably that you were not pointing them out for a reason.
Instead of this straw man thing you could just say I understood you wrong and clarify a bit.
Quote:Trump is an petulant child. They often have a holier than though attitude...it seems you missed that part too.
Still a comment about Trump and not those siding with him over the criticism. Trump is not in this alone.
Quote:Some players have, maybe not enough. However, you are focusing soley on the blame in these issues on one side. The whole thing would not be happening at all if our president just stayed the crap out of things that do not concern him.
Quote:Thank you for saying what I already said and then acting like you said it first.
You never said Trump should stay out of it. You called him a child. Given the sentence before it is unclear if you agree with the premise but just against how he said it.
The other stuff I said there, you did not say. Or at least not clearly.
Quote:A few players were doing it, most of them did it as unity against what he said. Remember, the guy who said there were good people at a white supremacists rally but called kneeling NFL players SOBs.
Quote:Well technically he didn't say all football players were SOB's which would be an equivalent statement, but why do you keep acting like you are pointing out to me that what Trump said was moronic when I said this in my initial post? This is rather bad form in a discussion adding to the 4 straw man arguments you have made so far.
"Remember, the guy who said there were good people at a white supremacists rally but called kneeling NFL players SOBs."
Never said all. He was clearly referencing kneeling players. So, I was not wrong.
You never said what he said was terrible. You said he was throwing a temper tantrum. It is not clear in your post if you agree with him and are just against how he said it. Which is fine if you do, but it is not at all clear.
I would revisit straw man arguments too. As a few of those are pretty weak.
Quote:IMO, Trump should be attacked all of the time. His administration is basically, with or without the media, changing US politics for the worst. Just keep telling lies and expecting everybody to believe you. His base and supporters will believe and defend every lie anyway.
Quote:The toxicity is probably beyond recovery at this point.
Quote:All the time? Really? That's...rather single minded. He should just be attacked regardless of what he says? That's why he will stay in power. Attacking EVERYTHING all the time...will at the very least portray you as even less rational than he is.
Quote:You have the uncanny ability to only hear/read what you want to. He deserves to be attacked all of the time because he is always and doing something worthy of it. He and his administration are constantly lying and hurting people.
Quote:You accuse me of not getting your point (uncanny ability to only hear/read what you want to)...then restate exactly what I understood yet again..."He deserves to be attacked all of the time". Can you see the problem with this?
This may be my poor ability to phrase things. But I was attempting to clarify my statement to you.
You are of the mind that most of it should not be reported on because reasons. Which is normalization.
Quote:No one is ALWAYS doing something worthy of being attacked. He is a buffoon and a moron in many ways, but he is not wrong about every single thing.
Never said he was always wrong, but he and his administration are always doing or saying something that is pretty bad. Either contradicting each other, refusing to admitt faults and varying degrees of lying. Or just constant bragging about how awesome they are.
For years I was led to believe things with the executive have their buck stop with the president. Guess not?
Quote:If you believe he is always 100% wrong about every single thing...that is by at least close approximation of the definition of Fanaticism.
Never said that. Very close a straw man yourself. I said always doing or saying something worthy of attack. They are different.
Quote:That you seem to want to gloss over most of it for only the big stuff is just enabling and saying that the other stuff is not a big deal.
I could say you gloss over the things he sometimes does that are actually positive. Whereas I see he does BOTH. Far far far too much negativity and wrong. But I am sure in your reply you will "gloss" over this.
Please, point them out to me. You yourself are saying he is more negative than positive. If one takes the step and includes administrations actions and how they do it. It is not hard to jump to the conclusion that I stated.
Quote:As I have told you many times in other threads, a few down. Those that voted for Trump are the only ones responsible here. They made their choice knowing full well what sort of monster he was and believing his lies.
Quote:You can tell me as many times as you like and you will be wrong that many more times. They are a large PART of the reason of course. The other is the opposing party put a terrible candidate forward, that they have turned deaf ears on the needs of large segments of the people who actually VOTE whereas Trump pandered to them.
Instead of going into this too much I want to point out the logical inconsistency.
"You can tell me as many times as you like and you will be wrong that many more times."
"They are a large PART of the reason of course."
I am either right or wrong. If you agree with me, even in part, than I am not wrong as you are stating. At least not without you being PARTly wrong too.
The PART of the reason aspect is mistaken a bit. As you give a reason people voted for him. Somehow exonerating them from their vote. I am not discussing reasons yet. If they voted for him than they ARE the reason. Period.
Reasons may vary.
Quote:I also find it funny...how you say people believed his lies but voted for him anyways...huh? what?
Check out the studies on Trump voters where they believe he is lying but still like him just fine and think he is trustworthy. Is this all? No, but you act like I am pulling this out of the sky.
Quote:So which is it?
Quote:Are they evil deplorables who voted for Trump the monster?
Were they duped?
This is again near a straw man. I only said above that those that voted for him were responsible. I then made to simple a statement about believing his lies. To this you are making a black and white distinction after claiming the world is not.
Anyway, it is a range. Some did it because they do not like illegal immigrants, some did not like Clinton more (for reasons that do not make loads of since in many cases), some were mad about trade, some are racist and saw a kindred spirit (hate groups like Trump), religious conservatives that can only forgive the sins of conservatives and all manor of things. Some were even the average Joe that believed his lies about making things better but having no strategy to do it, other than blaming others.
So, it can and is a range. I recommend you looking into the election read outs instead of stating your opinion as facts and blaming liberals for everything. Both sides had poor candidates. Very poor. They were historically unpopular. And the election was unusual in the sense that it varied wildly from scandal to scandal. Trump had more, but Clinton's was something that was never dropped. Even after she was more or less exonerated.
Do people have to like her? No. Vote for her? Of course not. But every case against Clinton can be used similarly against Trump. Ironically he even said America does not deserve an administration/president always under investigation. Happening anyway.
The last boot was the FBI jumping in last second that did seem to have an impact. Now, would Trump have won anyway? Hard to say, but given the data available it did have an impact. And given the unusual swings of the race it is impossible to ignore.
Never once have I seen you much acknowledge the realities of the elections and the dynamics other than to blame Clinton, Dems or liberals. Maybe I missed it, but you are very happy to just say that Trump is everybodies fault. To some extent, sure. I guess. But those that voted for him have more to answer for than anybody else. You tend to claim the reverse. That they were victims of sorts.
Quote:You seem to accuse them of both in the same breath but these 2 don't mix well.
Yes they do, not sure if you pay much attention to voting circles or blocks. But many do not get along great in principle but will vote together. Quite common really.
Religious conservatives and libertarians for instance.
Quote:Sad part is, more American's did not vote for him.
Quote:It's because we are a representative Democracy and not a true Democracy.
Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|