Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?

Topic:  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
Author
Message
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 10:56:56 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Shouldn't the 'flag' have to earn our respect by achieving the ideals it represents?



You and Recovering Journalist are saying basically the same thing, so I'll address both here. No, the flag doesn't have to "earn" your respect. The executors do. If the law is fair but the enforcer of the law isn't, do you protest the law or the enforcer?



What if neither the law nor the enforcer is fair?
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,577

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 10:58:03 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
The thought of sitting at a lunch counter next to a Negro (or worse) was offensive to many.


Quote:
The thought of a Negro drinking out of the same water fountain was offensive to many.


Quote:
And heaven forbid, the thought of a Negro man having sex with a white woman even though she was his wife was offensive to many.


Very comparable to people who find it offensive to be disrespectful to the military IMO


Could you explain this further?


Heavy sarcasm.

Robert Fox wrote:
Offended at the lunch counter: Racism
Offended at the water fountain: Racism
Offended at the chapel: Racism
Offended at someone kneeling during the anthem (no matter what color they are): Not Racism

One of the items above is different.


Basic logic.

I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 11:02:19 AM 
The Optimist wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
The thought of sitting at a lunch counter next to a Negro (or worse) was offensive to many.


Quote:
The thought of a Negro drinking out of the same water fountain was offensive to many.


Quote:
And heaven forbid, the thought of a Negro man having sex with a white woman even though she was his wife was offensive to many.


Very comparable to people who find it offensive to be disrespectful to the military IMO


Could you explain this further?


Heavy sarcasm.

Robert Fox wrote:
Offended at the lunch counter: Racism
Offended at the water fountain: Racism
Offended at the chapel: Racism
Offended at someone kneeling during the anthem (no matter what color they are): Not Racism

One of the items above is different.


Basic logic.


Oh, okay. But I think your sarcasm misses the point, which is that even those things that we accept as obvious injustices now were unpopular at the time.

I also think, you know, that this has nothing to do with the military. That's a strawman that the right's created. The flag represents far more than simply the military, and pushing these protests as anti-troops is intellectually dishonest.

As for the racist vs. not-racist thing. . .there's still nobody here claiming otherwise. Nobody's called you racist. But pretty much all of your posts here are about how being critical of these protests is not racist. We know.


Last Edited: 9/29/2017 11:02:43 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 11:03:13 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

What if neither the law nor the enforcer is fair?



I thought you were on board with the basic law:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Do you not think the flag and anthem represent equality and justice?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 11:08:23 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

What if neither the law nor the enforcer is fair?



I thought you were on board with the basic law:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Do you not think the flag and anthem represent equality and justice?



That statement doesn't imply support for the basic law. It implies that I believe in the ideals that America was founded on, and that we're still working to achieve. The entire point of our democratic system is to create a process by which one has the right, and frankly, the duty to disagree with and push for laws to change.

Many of our laws are problematic. Many are being made more problematic as we speak. The flag represents ideals that are, in many cases, unachieved. They are unachieved because of imperfect and poorly enforced laws.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 11:17:47 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Many of our laws are problematic. Many are being made more problematic as we speak. The flag represents ideals that are, in many cases, unachieved. They are unachieved because of imperfect and poorly enforced laws.


Yes, the flag represents the ideal. In my analogy, that was "the law." If you agree the ideal is correct, and the flag represents the ideal, why not stand for it?

Of course there are bad laws, and of course there are instances of bad execution. That shouldn't change our allegiance to the ideal.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 11:28:13 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Many of our laws are problematic. Many are being made more problematic as we speak. The flag represents ideals that are, in many cases, unachieved. They are unachieved because of imperfect and poorly enforced laws.


Yes, the flag represents the ideal. In my analogy, that was "the law." If you agree the ideal is correct, and the flag represents the ideal, why not stand for it?

Of course there are bad laws, and of course there are instances of bad execution. That shouldn't change our allegiance to the ideal.


I think peaceful protest is one of the core ideals represented by the flag, and I believe in an individual's right to engage in that activity however they see fit. My personal feelings on their protest are less important to me than their constitutional rights. I would feel like a hypocrite insisting that somebody put a nationalistic display ahead of their first amendment rights. One is actual nationalism. The other is a symbolic gesture.

As far as I'm concerned, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem is a patriotic gesture. Dissent is consistent with the history of our country, and he's far more of a patriot than the idiot Patriot fans on Deadspin that are burning NFL gear as a means of virtue signaling just how much they love their country. He's standing up for millions of people who feel underrepresented by their government after hundreds of years of systematic oppression. They're upset their feelings were hurt. The framers designed the first amendment specifically for one of those things. And it wasn't so people could watch football without anybody saying something political.

Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .

Last Edited: 9/29/2017 11:41:10 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,577

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 12:18:25 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Oh, okay. But I think your sarcasm misses the point, which is that even those things that we accept as obvious injustices now were unpopular at the time.

I completely understood that was the point being made. I disagree with the logic behind the argument. You're pointing to "things we accept as obvious injustices now were unpopular at the time" and assuming that this is one of those cases without any evidence this will be viewed as such in 50 years. The examples given are fundamentally different than this situation. Flawed logic to associate those examples with this situation.

Quote:

I also think, you know, that this has nothing to do with the military. That's a strawman that the right's created. The flag represents far more than simply the military, and pushing these protests as anti-troops is intellectually dishonest.

As for the racist vs. not-racist thing. . .there's still nobody here claiming otherwise. Nobody's called you racist. But pretty much all of your posts here are about how being critical of these protests is not racist. We know.

So you're saying the flag represents different things to different people?

The players kneeling are protesting racism/the lack of equality... But that doesn't mean equality is the only thing the flag stands for.

You're complaining about "the right" making the flag all about one thing but then saying it's OK for the players protesting to disregard what the flag means to other people and focus solely on their cause.

More flawed logic.

I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,458

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 12:42:17 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
The thought of sitting at a lunch counter next to a Negro (or worse) was offensive to many.


Quote:
The thought of a Negro drinking out of the same water fountain was offensive to many.


Quote:
And heaven forbid, the thought of a Negro man having sex with a white woman even though she was his wife was offensive to many.


Very comparable to people who find it offensive to be disrespectful to the military IMO


Could you explain this further?


Heavy sarcasm.

Robert Fox wrote:
Offended at the lunch counter: Racism
Offended at the water fountain: Racism
Offended at the chapel: Racism
Offended at someone kneeling during the anthem (no matter what color they are): Not Racism

One of the items above is different.


Basic logic.


I also think, you know, that this has nothing to do with the military. That's a strawman that the right's created. The flag represents far more than simply the military, and pushing these protests as anti-troops is intellectually dishonest.



THIS.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 1:14:53 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .


And part of what you should love about this country is the freedom of people to react, in whatever way they please, to protests.
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,577

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 1:31:55 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .


And part of what you should love about this country is the freedom of people to react, in whatever way they please, to protests.


Disagree. If you don't agree with the mainstream media you are a racist.

I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,196

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 1:50:48 PM 
The Optimist wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .


And part of what you should love about this country is the freedom of people to react, in whatever way they please, to protests.


Disagree. If you don't agree with the mainstream media you are a racist.


Do you ever bring anything meaningful to the conversation other than your cutting biting know everything comments?

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 1:53:04 PM 
The Optimist wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Oh, okay. But I think your sarcasm misses the point, which is that even those things that we accept as obvious injustices now were unpopular at the time.

I completely understood that was the point being made. I disagree with the logic behind the argument. You're pointing to "things we accept as obvious injustices now were unpopular at the time" and assuming that this is one of those cases without any evidence this will be viewed as such in 50 years. The examples given are fundamentally different than this situation. Flawed logic to associate those examples with this situation.

Quote:

I also think, you know, that this has nothing to do with the military. That's a strawman that the right's created. The flag represents far more than simply the military, and pushing these protests as anti-troops is intellectually dishonest.

As for the racist vs. not-racist thing. . .there's still nobody here claiming otherwise. Nobody's called you racist. But pretty much all of your posts here are about how being critical of these protests is not racist. We know.

So you're saying the flag represents different things to different people?

The players kneeling are protesting racism/the lack of equality... But that doesn't mean equality is the only thing the flag stands for.

You're complaining about "the right" making the flag all about one thing but then saying it's OK for the players protesting to disregard what the flag means to other people and focus solely on their cause.

More flawed logic.


Yeah, I never said equality is the only thing the flag stands for. In fact, I said "the flag represents our shared American ideals." I also mentioned many other things the flag represents, including freedom of speech. There's no logical way to read my posts in this thread and claim I'm arguing the flag only stands for equality. Not that I think you've actually read the thread. Because if you had, you'd understand there was no reason to come in and post three times insisting you're not racist.

As for this:

"You're complaining about "the right" making the flag all about one thing but then saying it's OK for the players protesting to disregard what the flag means to other people and focus solely on their cause.

More flawed logic."

It's not my logic you're finding flaws with, it's the Constitution's. Which is ironic given that you're in the midst of virtue signaling your patriotism by being so mad about these disrespectful protests.

My stance here isn't complicated or even all that controversial. The only thing it really lacks is much sympathy for people like you who are all upset about this. I'll spell it out for you:

You have every right to get all whiny and offended about anything you choose to be whiny and offended about.

You have every right to decide that the flag represents the troops and that kneeling in front of it is akin to pissing on Douglas MacArthur's grave. You can believe that in your bones. Totally fine.

But as an American, I have a duty to not give a shit about how offended you are on this particular issue.

Why? Because what you're so upset about -- what's gotten you so triggered -- is protected by the first amendment, and consistent with a long history of peaceful dissent in America. The first amendment is far more important than your feelings; you can be upset all you want, you can lay out all of the reasons you're upset, you can boycott the NFL, march in picket lines, shove daisies in the ear hole of NFL player's helmets. That's your right.

But I'm going to point out the hypocrisy of virtue signaling your patriotism by insisting that a ritualistic call for blind nationalism is somehow MORE patriotic than the application of constitutional rights.

You're not self-aware enough to see it, but you're the PC police in this instance. The Constitution doesn't require one stand for the national anthem. Standing for the national anthem just happens to be the politically correct thing to do.

So now we have a situation where conservatives, the same people who rail (rightfully) against overzealous pc crusaders on college campuses, are taking the exact opposite stance on this issue. Now because they're the ones outraged, feelings are important, and everybody else should adjust their words and actions accordingly so they can watch football without having to cry or whatever.

You don't have to give a shit about the cause these NFL players are bringing to the forefront. You're not required to care, and you're allowed to be as upset as you want to be.

But I'm going to call you a hypocrite because of it, and point out that you're exemplifying the outrage culture that does nothing but hurt our political discourse.



Last Edited: 9/29/2017 1:57:01 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 1:54:53 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .


And part of what you should love about this country is the freedom of people to react, in whatever way they please, to protests.


Again, we've already established that it's your right to react the way you have. I've been very clear about that. You have every right to react that way.

I just think it's harmful and inconsistent with the ideals you are clearly an ardent supporter of, and am trying to point that out. I would hope that we, as Americans, would be capable of putting the value and importance of the first amendment over our own anger. I don't discount your right to feel what you're feeling, I just think that as an American citizen we all have the obligation to prioritize the first amendment over our feelings. Especially in this case where the infraction seems so, I dunno, minor? I mean, I've gone to plenty of NFL games in my day, and when the national anthem's playing people still walk around the concourse, buy beer, talk, yell, use the silence to make asinine comments, etc. I have a hard time getting worked up over somebody silently sitting.

And I also think, in this particular case, the issues that players are trying to spark a national dialogue about are important enough that they merit that.

Last Edited: 9/29/2017 2:32:08 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 2:46:36 PM 
Are you kneeling during the anthem? And if not, why not?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 3:09:10 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Are you kneeling during the anthem? And if not, why not?


I'm standing. Because I don't think it's my place to make this particular statement, nor do I think I have an audience that would magnify it in any meaningful way if I did.

Kneeling itself is not the most meaningful way I can show support for the protesters.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,196

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 4:16:29 PM 
Please watch it all but more importantly, listen.

https://boingboing.net/2017/09/28/excellent-video-explain...
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,643

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/29/2017 10:57:02 PM 
As some of you know, my youngest daughter married an African American. Over the last few years, I've become very close to my daughter's father-in-law. I recently asked him his feelings about the NFL protests, here was his response:

"I believe in protest, so long as it is peaceful. It is not a legal requirement that you stand for the Anthem. I consider myself a 'patriot.' I fought in Vietnam for the flag. I also have been subjected to the uneven justice and protection under the law that we hear so much about. Until . . .[the] President made his statement, I would stand for the anthem. Now I feel more solidarity with the kneelers than the standers."

I'm sure we will have some additional give and take on this issue. He and I are not in the same place on this issue. But, we respect each other, and we listen to each other. We also both realize that we are in favor of the same goal -- color-blind justice and color-blind law enforcement.

I just wish that all of our debate and discussion on controversial issues could be done in a respectful manner. My daughter's father-in-law and I often have discussions of racial and other tough issues over frosty mugs of beer. Now, beer diplomacy, that's something that all BAers should be able to agree on!

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,478

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 7:22:31 AM 
The protests seem to be having the expected effect. Apparently TV ratings were down 13% last week, and ticket sales are down 31% this week. It's also stimulated a lot of discussion...of topics like the flag, patriotism, pro football players, and Trump and distracted conversation away from topics like whether the police behave appropriately during arrests. Per CNN, the clear winner in the NFL debate was...Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/opinions/trump-winner-in-nf...

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
I think peaceful protest is one of the core ideals represented by the flag, and I believe in an individual's right to engage in that activity however they see fit. My personal feelings on their protest are less important to me than their constitutional rights. I would feel like a hypocrite insisting that somebody put a nationalistic display ahead of their first amendment rights. One is actual nationalism. The other is a symbolic gesture.

I agree. They absolutely have the right to do it. My only question is whether it is wise for them to do it. All they will do it hurt themselves, and distract attention.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem is a patriotic gesture. Dissent is consistent with the history of our country, and he's far more of a patriot than the idiot Patriot fans on Deadspin that are burning NFL gear as a means of virtue signaling just how much they love their country. He's standing up for millions of people who feel underrepresented by their government after hundreds of years of systematic oppression. They're upset their feelings were hurt. The framers designed the first amendment specifically for one of those things. And it wasn't so people could watch football without anybody saying something political.

I have to disagree here. Kaepernick, and other had a right to protest. Patriot fans have a right to protest as well, and a right to not buy tickets, and to not watch on TV. Kaepernick feels he is protesting for millions of people who feel unrepresented. Patriot fans feel they are protesting for millions of people who have served and supported our country.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .

But, you should also love the freedom that allows fans to choose to disagree, to burn gear, to not watch on TV, and to not buy tickets. Freedom goes both ways.

Last Edited: 9/30/2017 7:32:31 AM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 9:18:53 AM 
L.C. wrote:
The protests seem to be having the expected effect. Apparently TV ratings were down 13% last week, and ticket sales are down 31% this week. It's also stimulated a lot of discussion...of topics like the flag, patriotism, pro football players, and Trump and distracted conversation away from topics like whether the police behave appropriately during arrests. Per CNN, the clear winner in the NFL debate was...Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/opinions/trump-winner-in-nf...

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
I think peaceful protest is one of the core ideals represented by the flag, and I believe in an individual's right to engage in that activity however they see fit. My personal feelings on their protest are less important to me than their constitutional rights. I would feel like a hypocrite insisting that somebody put a nationalistic display ahead of their first amendment rights. One is actual nationalism. The other is a symbolic gesture.

I agree. They absolutely have the right to do it. My only question is whether it is wise for them to do it. All they will do it hurt themselves, and distract attention.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem is a patriotic gesture. Dissent is consistent with the history of our country, and he's far more of a patriot than the idiot Patriot fans on Deadspin that are burning NFL gear as a means of virtue signaling just how much they love their country. He's standing up for millions of people who feel underrepresented by their government after hundreds of years of systematic oppression. They're upset their feelings were hurt. The framers designed the first amendment specifically for one of those things. And it wasn't so people could watch football without anybody saying something political.

I have to disagree here. Kaepernick, and other had a right to protest. Patriot fans have a right to protest as well, and a right to not buy tickets, and to not watch on TV. Kaepernick feels he is protesting for millions of people who feel unrepresented. Patriot fans feel they are protesting for millions of people who have served and supported our country.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Part of what you should love about this country is the freedom that allows the NFL players to take this stand, and personally, I find that freedom worthy of protecting. It is much more important to me than whether or not people are upset. .

But, you should also love the freedom that allows fans to choose to disagree, to burn gear, to not watch on TV, and to not buy tickets. Freedom goes both ways.


I did make it clear that they have the freedom to do as they choose. I laid it out pretty clearly in my response to The Optimist. I'd quote it here, but I was an asshole to him and don't want to be an asshole to you. He deserves that tone because he's here merely to be antagonistic, so if you want to go back and read it feel free, just do your best to parse the premise from condescending tone. That was specifically for my old friend The Optimist.

To summarize: I do get it's the right of Patriot's fans to protest the protests. I just find it narrow-minded, and frankly, damaging. We should, as a country, be pushing against the preponderance of "outrage culture." The angry response, in this particular case, is one that's purely emotional. There's a sense of outrage that the protesters are disrespecting veterans, and that sense persists regardless of how many times the players say otherwise, and regardless of how many veterans speak up to say there's no need to be outraged on their behalf.

So yes, they have the freedom to react anyway they choose. But I think our country needs -- and is terribly lacking -- self-analysis and introspection. Rather than just jumping from culture war battle to culture war battle, and wielding our outrage as a weapon directed at the other side, we should make an honest effort to hear each other.

Which brings me back to my main point in all of this: these protests are protected by the Constitution. You don't have to agree with them, you can even counter-protest them. That's your right. But ultimately, the purpose of these counter protests is to ensure that an individual is punished for exercising a constitutionally protected right. And I find that troubling, and will continue to be critical of that behavior. I can accept that it's their right, while disagreeing with their reasoning and end-goals. They are pushing to punish a fellow American citizens for speaking freely. It's their right to do it, but I choose to side with the constitution here. Personally, I think that's what a patriot should do in this case. Soldiers swear an oath to protect the constitution, after all. Is it more disrespectful to their sacrifice to kneel quietly in front of the flag in a call for equality, or to push against the First Amendment (whether that's the intention or not -- that's what they're doing) because they're upset? I know my answer.

And I can understand how some might find that inconsistent. After all, may on the right merely disagree with Kaepernick's methodology. So what's so different about my stance on the counter-protesters?

The difference is the goal. I find it deeply troubling that counter-protesters are doing what they can to push the NFL to punish somebody for speech. It's doubly troubling that the call to do so was led by the head of state. The right rightly pushes back about PC culture, and the 'intolerant left' getting people fired and ridiculed for speech that's not PC. And then they turn around and do the same here and they do so with the government's blessing. We need less of that, not more, and the notion that the leader of our country is pushing for this is disgusting. It is in direct opposition to the First Amendment and I'm shocked by how little conservatives seem to care about that right now.

Meanwhile, the NFL players are trying to spur a conversation that everybody seems to agree is merited and necessary. The difference seems clear to me, and I'm honestly not at all sure why my stance is so controversial.

Last Edited: 9/30/2017 9:50:09 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,478

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 9:50:32 AM 
As an interesting comparison, back in the 60s, protests led to some discussion of the protesters, but also discussion of the underlying issue, the appropriateness of US involvement in the war. Why the difference? In my opinion, the difference is that the bulk of protesters were nameless, faceless multitudes, whereas this time the protesters are in a visible position, which diverts the discussion to them, and away from the underlying issues, making the protest counterproductive.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,999

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 10:07:06 AM 
L.C. wrote:
As an interesting comparison, back in the 60s, protests led to some discussion of the protesters, but also discussion of the underlying issue, the appropriateness of US involvement in the war. Why the difference? In my opinion, the difference is that the bulk of protesters were nameless, faceless multitudes, whereas this time the protesters are in a visible position, which diverts the discussion to them, and away from the underlying issues, making the protest counterproductive.


Yeah, I think that's a really good point and probably has a significant impact on the reaction.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,478

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 10:29:25 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
The difference is the goal. I find it deeply troubling that counter-protesters are doing what they can to push the NFL to punish somebody for speech. It's doubly troubling that the call to do so was led by the head of state. The right rightly pushes back about PC culture, and the 'intolerant left' getting people fired and ridiculed for speech that's not PC. And then they turn around and do the same here and they do so with the government's blessing. We need less of that, not more, and the notion that the leader of our country is pushing for this is disgusting. It is in direct opposition to the First Amendment and I'm shocked by how little conservatives seem to care about that right now.

Meanwhile, the NFL players are trying to spur a conversation that everybody seems to agree is merited and necessary. The difference seems clear to me, and I'm honestly not at all sure why my stance is so controversial.


And this is where we differ. I don't see it as unexpected, unusual, or inappropriate. When a business takes a political position, with that comes benefits and risks. If a radio station chooses to broadcast Rush Limbaugh or Air America, they will gain some listeners and lose others. If a restaurant chooses a conservative or liberal theme, again, they gain some customers and lose others. If the editorial staff of a paper is overly left wing or right wing, the paper loses subscribers.

This is not new, or novel, or unanticipated. It's a known, predictable response. That is exactly why I don't get excited about it in the least. The NFL has succeeded by being apolitical in a political world. While fans can argue over political issues, they can unite in support of a team. Look no further than BA! There are liberals here, and conservatives here, and a Libertarian or two. We don't agree on politics, but we can (sometimes) agree on football.

Why do you think that the mullahs of BA try to discourage political discussions, and never engage in them themselves?

Against the judgement of the owners, the players have elected to politicize the NFL. I know they aren't trained in economics or business, but that doesn't mean that won't eventually bear the consequences of their actions, consequences which were easily predicted and anticipated. If they alienate and drive away half their fan base, they will surely see major declines in pay. I predict that it doesn't take them too long to figure that out, and that the players association will choose some other form of protest so as to depoliticize games.

Last Edited: 9/30/2017 10:33:28 AM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,196

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 10:45:19 AM 
L.C. wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
The difference is the goal. I find it deeply troubling that counter-protesters are doing what they can to push the NFL to punish somebody for speech. It's doubly troubling that the call to do so was led by the head of state. The right rightly pushes back about PC culture, and the 'intolerant left' getting people fired and ridiculed for speech that's not PC. And then they turn around and do the same here and they do so with the government's blessing. We need less of that, not more, and the notion that the leader of our country is pushing for this is disgusting. It is in direct opposition to the First Amendment and I'm shocked by how little conservatives seem to care about that right now.

Meanwhile, the NFL players are trying to spur a conversation that everybody seems to agree is merited and necessary. The difference seems clear to me, and I'm honestly not at all sure why my stance is so controversial.


And this is where we differ. I don't see it as unexpected, unusual, or inappropriate. When a business takes a political position, with that comes benefits and risks. If a radio station chooses to broadcast Rush Limbaugh or Air America, they will gain some listeners and lose others. If a restaurant chooses a conservative or liberal theme, again, they gain some customers and lose others. If the editorial staff of a paper is overly left wing or right wing, the paper loses subscribers.

This is not new, or novel, or unanticipated. It's a known, predictable response. That is exactly why I don't get excited about it in the least. The NFL has succeeded by being apolitical in a political world. While fans can argue over political issues, they can unite in support of a team. Look no further than BA! There are liberals here, and conservatives here, and a Libertarian or two. We don't agree on politics, but we can (sometimes) agree on football.

Why do you think that the mullahs of BA try to discourage political discussions, and never engage in them themselves?

Against the judgement of the owners, the players have elected to politicize the NFL. I know they aren't trained in economics or business, but that doesn't mean that won't eventually bear the consequences of their actions, consequences which were easily predicted and anticipated. If they alienate and drive away half their fan base, they will surely see major declines in pay. I predict that it doesn't take them too long to figure that out, and that the players association will choose some other form of protest so as to depoliticize games.



The only fans I see getting angry are white fans. I wonder if white players and primarily quarterbacks started taking a knee. I don't think we'd see nearly the ruckus we are now experiencing. For some, this is an easy way in a group environment to express racist beliefs. I said, for some.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
   Posted: 9/30/2017 11:09:21 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:


The only fans I see getting angry are white fans. I wonder if white players and primarily quarterbacks started taking a knee. I don't think we'd see nearly the ruckus we are now experiencing. For some, this is an easy way in a group environment to express racist beliefs. I said, for some.



Throughout this thread, some of us have been ridiculed for defensively stating we are not racists. Now do you see why?

I don't care what color you are. If you kneel during the anthem, I'll reject it.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  276 - 300  of 708 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 330 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
330 Guests
0 Registered Users
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties