Some feel offended by these demonstrations while the rest feel it's their right to protest injustice. So who is ultimately correct, maybe nobody.
The NFL has ridden the wave of patriotism (and created good will which has = $$$). This party's over, let's get down to what really matters - The wonderful and entertaining spectacle which is modern man's version of gladiator games - Pro Football ....
And forget waving the flag - it causes too many ill feelings. Who wants to pay $100 (or more at he stadium) to witness this sideshow ?
RE: It's really strange to me how many working Americans Â
cannot wait to take Management's side on things when it comes to sports.
The NFL is not your 9-5 employer. Trying to apply the same standards you have to deal with at your job is bizarre.
personally, I take management’s side on pretty much everything. As I worker, I recognize that I am not their raison d’etre. Most times I think they are generally humane and, where not, a reasonable balance is achieved. And always, you have two sides that pretty much do the utmost for their own self-interest. It at least management can and pretty much has to see a bigger picture.
RE: Did we ever find out why he skipped voluntary minicamp? Â
That it is the people who get upset by anthem protests that keep it going and make it a big deal
If you all just stopped fussing about it, it would go away. Protests only work if they generate a reaction. Ignore the protests and they will go away on their own
Depends on who the opposing side represents. If I'm over here saying police brutality is out of control and the other person is saying, "fuck you, America love it or leave it", well not a lot of good can come out of listening and trying to reason with that person.
Once again... missing the point. When he speaks (or kneels) he has the Giants' logo attached. Meanwhile, if the rest of us decide to be social justice warriors on company time, we would be canned pretty quickly. It amazes me how people still don't get that.
.
I think you've cracked the code. It's like their jobs are radically different from ours!
Period!!!
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
Period!!!
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
Great thing about this country is freedom of speech in that the players can speak and act freely within conventional norms and ALSO choose the consequences of the free speech. NFL has stated their personal conduct policy for employment. The players could choose
to violate and seek alternative forms of employment as Kapernick did. Free to choose your employer. Think about that and the freedom. What value are these players placing on this job and their opinions and speech ?
As back drop remember most of these athletes have not been accountable for responsibility and personal conduct thru HS and college. Remember those guys that got a pass because the play sports? Some are the immature individuals with lack of emotional intelligence. I’ll bet one day Kapernick will reflect it was a mistake to let a political agenda in a skirt detail his career and chance to be recognized as an NFL relevant. Now he is poison. Or as Lenin alluded, a useful idiot. I think Goodell
came to his senses when he sent Joe Lockhart packing, as the you will see
a politicization trap on other marketing campaigns like breast cancer
etc. metoo, etc
Good thing we live in US we actually have choices
to improve or ruin our life.
don't have any language regarding the anthem, the NBA's might be the most restrictive stating that players must "stand in formation in a dignified pose" for the anthem.
That wording has been on the books for several years and it gets overlooked.
RE: It's really strange to me how many working Americans Â
cannot wait to take Management's side on things when it comes to sports.
I mean, if you're trying to make this some kind of a class solidarity thing, pro football players making millions a year aren't exactly "workers". Is there any functional difference between the players and management from the perspective of, say, a roofer? They all drive BMWs and Bentleys and live in mansions, so what's the difference?
but seriously, I do not care whether players stand or kneel for the anthem. However I do think its a lazy way of genuinely affecting change. So many other ways to call attention to any social injustices they perceive than to kneel during the anthem.
Period!!!
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
lol this is posted when the video of the bucks player being tased came out literally yesterday
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
cannot wait to take Management's side on things when it comes to sports.
I mean, if you're trying to make this some kind of a class solidarity thing, pro football players making millions a year aren't exactly "workers". Is there any functional difference between the players and management from the perspective of, say, a roofer? They all drive BMWs and Bentleys and live in mansions, so what's the difference?
Greg,
The owners are billionaires, and will be for the rest of their lives. NFL players are compensated handsomely, but only for an average of what, 3 years? And not everyone makes Eli Manning money. Of course they are nowhere close to the average working American in terms of compensation, but to lump the players together with the owners in terms of wealth is just silly. These guys have to live off this short-lived money for the rest of their lives and they put their bodies and health at risk in the meantime while the owners literally do nothing besides watch the games.
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
Right, they will pay the players off and pass the cost to PSL owners with $40 beer and hotdogs.
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
Right, they will pay the players off and pass the cost to PSL owners with $40 beer and hotdogs.
Wake up.
Make the owners trade on a public exchange. It will happen, next challenge will be making the NFL soccer. That is how deranged evolvement is.
RE: RE: Look social issues do not belong in sports Â
Period!!!
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
lol this is posted when the video of the bucks player being tased came out literally yesterday
Yeah missed that, my bad.... It had been a stretch though
A lot of early onset Alzheimer’s on this thread. Â
Opening Day:
All of the "non white" players on team X have decided to stay in Locker Room until after Anthem.
ON sidelines are a dozen or so white players and coaches.
How soon before the EXPLOSION ?
This is quite possibly the worst plan ever.
First Amendment does not extend to the workplace. Â
Employers are free to set standards and rules by which to run their businesses.
These players have access to media, before and after every game, practice and team event, why aren't the holding press conferences then?
Easy, the want the free advertising for their cause du jour.
and as with most Leftists, they want to thumbs their collective noses at patriotic Americans.
RE: RE: these players miss the point completely. you don't have a RIGHT Â
to do whatever you want on the company's time. Protest all you want on your own time.
The only thing dumber is the NFL's "solution".
The NFL never had a rule against kneeling. So they actually did have the right to Kneel.
Actually any owner can allow or not allow players to kneel. It isn't a right. Their employer can dictate behaviors acceptable or unacceptable
This is a bad as when people say we live in a
Democracy.
have the right to tell you not to talk politics, current events, or Jets' football in the office?
No.
Does your boss have the right to punish you for holding views that s/he finds abhorrent?
No.
Do you, as an employee, have the right to speak honestly without fear of recrimination?
Yes.
Just because players have been made into demi-gods by us doesn't mean they automatically have to become intellectually or politically neutered. In fact, it probably means that they have the obligation to use their pulpit to advance their causes.
The great ones often do this. I'm looking at you, Photo of Mohammad Ali.
However if the views can be proven to harm the business of the employer then that is a different story. Eg a racist or misogynist rant
i think that this is absolutely right. And it’s possible that the Anthem is a Pandora’s Box for those types of vocalizations. You might end up asking people why they knelt or why they performed some other on field action and find out it was in support of defunding Planned Prenthood or Open Carry or something else we might disagree with. And that’s not substantively different, protest-wise, or right-wise (should we decide that unfettered, in-thought about speech in a private workplace, is a right.
have the right to tell you not to talk politics, current events, or Jets' football in the office?
No.
Does your boss have the right to punish you for holding views that s/he finds abhorrent?
No.
Do you, as an employee, have the right to speak honestly without fear of recrimination?
Yes.
Just because players have been made into demi-gods by us doesn't mean they automatically have to become intellectually or politically neutered. In fact, it probably means that they have the obligation to use their pulpit to advance their causes.
The great ones often do this. I'm looking at you, Photo of Mohammad Ali.
Your post isn’t correct. If you do something at work, political or otherwise that causes your boss or employer money, well being fired is a possible outcome. Telling your boss you don’t agree with X isn’t a fireable offense, but if you start talking about X with customers, making them upset or cause them to take their business elsewhere, you can absolutely be fired.
This isn’t about the cause, it’s about business. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this. I work for a startup and can speak freely at the office. If I start posting things on LinkedIn that potential investors don’t agree with, you think that won’t potentially effect my employment?
No way a private enterprise can survive with a model that cannibalizes itself.
Which is why the owners decision is more remarkable. They need mass market appeal, which is a function of both the quality of their product and their reputation as an employer. Social governance and responsibility is a huge value creator in the good will section of corporate balance sheets. The owners are destroying their reputation as an employer with this move, and thats on top of the fact that they have been publicly ignorant of CTE. That they are rich beyond belief and thoroughly dissconnected from their customer only furthers their lack of appeal.
RE: Absolutely correct about the business aspect Â
Wideright's comment about CTE is well taken. The players put a lot on the line to entertain and inspire us all. This, I hope, was taken into account by the owners.
I feel that this issue has been spun way out of control by individuals, let's say, outside their area of expertise. This is not about patriotism or the anthem. This is about the safety of the families of these employees. When anyone looks at this from a compassionate understanding, they will see that this is largely a very positive step forward. I see this in the same light as cancer awareness, honoring the military, etc. The players have asked for a month of promoting social justice activism through the NFL. The commish should return to that idea as a possible means to replace kneeling.
No way a private enterprise can survive with a model that cannibalizes itself.
Which is why the owners decision is more remarkable. They need mass market appeal, which is a function of both the quality of their product and their reputation as an employer. Social governance and responsibility is a huge value creator in the good will section of corporate balance sheets. The owners are destroying their reputation as an employer with this move, and thats on top of the fact that they have been publicly ignorant of CTE. That they are rich beyond belief and thoroughly dissconnected from their customer only furthers their lack of appeal.
When players kneel...in a circle...at the ends of games. From the outrage perspective , well, those people were just morons, but from the nfl’s the same action but they said that was acceptable to them. Sometimes, it’s just whose ox is being gored.
Also interesting to note that the Anthem kneel also occurs Â
Decision came from the NFL office. Link - ( New Window )
So basically they are setting themselves up to cop a mea culpa in a few years. Fire Goodell with a 100M severence package, bring in a "players commish" to pretend they are making real changes, then just continue the same crap.
The owner are a crusty, old, predictably dishonest lot. And that includes Mara
Benjamin Sachs, Harvard Law (labor and industry specialist), calls it blatantly unconstitutional due to the fact that the owners/league did not negotiate this with he players union first. It's a fundamental squashing of a person's first amendment rights to prevent them from expressing a political opinion, even in the workplace, he says.
And just because the league has a policy in the books about standing on the sidelines during the Anthem doesn't mean it will hold up in court. But it hasn't been challenged by anyone, so there hasn't been a mandate to strike it down.
This is going to be an interesting summer, because at least one player, but more likely the entire players union, will challenge this in court.
And they'll win.
RE: RE: RE: RE: these players miss the point completely. you don't have a RIGHT Â
It’s not in the game rules but it is in the operations manual. Francesca read from it yesterday. It’s basically a manual for how the league runs a game. It specifies MUST stand and hold helmet in left hand.
It explicitly does not say they MUST stand and hold their helmets. It says they should. It does however say they must be on the sideline, which I didn't realize.
And the operations manual is not issued to the players, which, by definition, means it is not a rule book in the employee handbook sense (which would legally apply in any other labor scenario).
RE: First Amendment does not extend to the workplace. Â
Employers are free to set standards and rules by which to run their businesses.
These players have access to media, before and after every game, practice and team event, why aren't the holding press conferences then?
Easy, the want the free advertising for their cause du jour.
and as with most Leftists, they want to thumbs their collective noses at patriotic Americans.
This isn't accurate. Certain parts of the First Amendment absolutely extend to the workplace (freedom of religion, for example). Your employer does not have full latitude to infringe upon certain rights. Full stop.
Freedom of expression and freedom of speech do extend to the workplace in certain ways. Unless spelled out at the time of employment or mutually agreed upon at a later date, a normal employer cannot unilaterally declare something like "from now on, we're going to start our day with the Pledge of Allegiance." Well, actually, they could - but they could not fire or otherwise punish any employees who chose not to participate.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. These players are protesting as passively as possible while remaining visible. They're simply kneeling during the anthem, which is a right that any other American has as well. It is fundamentally American to respect the rights of your fellow American to observe patriotic rites however they choose.
Where it turns into a hot button issue for many, it seems, is the fact that we know why they're kneeling. And that seems to make it egregious for some. I'd be a hypocrite to tell them how to feel, because I think they're hypocrites for claiming that they're offended in the name of freedom.
And as for the why, we know it because of those press conferences and interviews and other media access after games, not during games, etc.; all the criteria you set out as acceptable in your post. And for the record, calling it a "cause du jour" seems a little dismissive and pejorative (as does your use of "Leftists" but I digress). The cause has been the same all along. "Cause du jour" implies that it's been changing as a matter of convenience throughout this whole saga.
Much of this is just how I feel and I respect the fact that others can see the same scenario and feel differently.
This is the same guy who got in a Twitter fight with Carl Banks last season. Snacks can play football, but he seems to be a bit of a moron.
Maybe he’s simply doesn’t care what people think of him? I know we have this nice fuzzy picture of what athletes should be and if they don’t fit in that box they are labeled morons, idiots, etc but maybe he’s simply had it with the business end of football and the media. Seems to be more common as the years go on.
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
the Players have access to media before and after every game, practice, team sponsored event. They are doing it during the Anthem for the free air time. Players could hold press conferences as often as they want, to address their cause du jour.
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
the Players have access to media before and after every game, practice, team sponsored event. They are doing it during the Anthem for the free air time. Players could hold press conferences as often as they want, to address their cause du jour.
Keep repeating "cause du jour." Their cause hasn't changed. It's not a du jour scenario. I don't expect that you'd understand that, though.
Forcing everyone to stand for the anthem removes the value of anyone standing for the anthem within their own freedom, which is what this country is supposed to be about. I don't expect that you'd understand that, either.
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
the Players have access to media before and after every game, practice, team sponsored event. They are doing it during the Anthem for the free air time. Players could hold press conferences as often as they want, to address their cause du jour.
Keep repeating "cause du jour." Their cause hasn't changed. It's not a du jour scenario. I don't expect that you'd understand that, though.
Forcing everyone to stand for the anthem removes the value of anyone standing for the anthem within their own freedom, which is what this country is supposed to be about. I don't expect that you'd understand that, either.
My point is, standing for the anthem only matters if you choose to do it. The moment that it's forced upon you, it loses all its value, as do we, as a nation built upon individual freedom.
However if the views can be proven to harm the business of the employer then that is a different story. Eg a racist or misogynist rant
i think that this is absolutely right. And it’s possible that the Anthem is a Pandora’s Box for those types of vocalizations. You might end up asking people why they knelt or why they performed some other on field action and find out it was in support of defunding Planned Prenthood or Open Carry or something else we might disagree with. And that’s not substantively different, protest-wise, or right-wise (should we decide that unfettered, in-thought about speech in a private workplace, is a right.
How does your mind equate people saying I am tired of living in terror of being killed or abused by law enforcement in this country with support for or against Planned Parenthood?
It was interesting. The 'for' side, Dyson and Goldberg, were for the most part so bound by their narrative that they completely failed to debate the question at hand. Resorting constantly instead to accusing the against side of membership in some or other group that had to go through a process of mea culpa and re-awakening before they (the for side) would be held to debate standards, or simply repeating the litany of historic grievances as if that vaguely justifies any undeclared strategy today. Which or course it doesn't and is deeply offensive within the context of a formal debate. And used direct qualifying accusations as well.
Against side; Fry and Pederson, won by a wide margin with an 8% increase over the start of the debate.
BUT here we have this issue of kneeling, which, on the surface flips the question.
Because here, kneeling is an expression and some typically maybe on the free speech side would seek to control that expression?!? Ironic.
I say let people express themselves.
I would say that the deeper issue is:
- weather or not that particular protest is rooted in a well informed and intellectually honest understanding of the underlying problem. And it isn't.
But do they have the right to kneel? I say yes. But is that narrative helpful? No.
It was interesting. The 'for' side, Dyson and Goldberg, were for the most part so bound by their narrative that they completely failed to debate the question at hand. Resorting constantly instead to accusing the against side of membership in some or other group that had to go through a process of mea culpa and re-awakening before they (the for side) would be held to debate standards, or simply repeating the litany of historic grievances as if that vaguely justifies any undeclared strategy today. Which or course it doesn't and is deeply offensive within the context of a formal debate. And used direct qualifying accusations as well.
Against side; Fry and Pederson, won by a wide margin with an 8% increase over the start of the debate.
BUT here we have this issue of kneeling, which, on the surface flips the question.
Because here, kneeling is an expression and some typically maybe on the free speech side would seek to control that expression?!? Ironic.
I say let people express themselves.
I would say that the deeper issue is:
- weather or not that particular protest is rooted in a well informed and intellectually honest understanding of the underlying problem. And it isn't.
But do they have the right to kneel? I say yes. But is that narrative helpful? No.
If a well-informed and intellectually honest understanding of an issue is required in order to participate, the vast majority of those opposed to the kneeling would be disqualified from the kneeling discussion itself.
But as I'm not opposed, as I said, I prefer to adress the underlying narrative and the implications of using a historic grievance, or even a real or percieved current power imbalance to broadly justify unstated strategies under the banner of that greivance.
As clearly demonstrated in the other thread, not only is tieing the current situation to the historic grievance highly debatable, (todays police are not slave guards) but the actual facts of the current situation dont even remotely reflect the current narrative about today's situation.
Add to that, using historic grievance to broadly justify contemporary modalities is at the root of many of the greatest evils of the 20th century. It's just a bad idea.j
But again, kneeling does not bother me in the least.
But as I'm not opposed, as I said, I prefer to adress the underlying narrative and the implications of using a historic grievance, or even a real or percieved current power imbalance to broadly justify unstated strategies under the banner of that greivance.
As clearly demonstrated in the other thread, not only is tieing the current situation to the historic grievance highly debatable, (todays police are not slave guards) but the actual facts of the current situation dont even remotely reflect the current narrative about today's situation.
Add to that, using historic grievance to broadly justify contemporary modalities is at the root of many of the greatest evils of the 20th century. It's just a bad idea.j
But again, kneeling does not bother me in the least.
For the record, I wasn't implying you. But I genuinely feel like it needs to be two separate discussions. The underlying issue that is prompting the players' protest is incredibly nuanced and hot-button. That debate should rightfully receive a thoughtful and thorough discussion.
Freedom from being forced to participate in what should be a meaningful ceremony that is unrelated to one's job is not a matter of one's employment (or shouldn't be). That part of the conversation should be simple to understand: as soon as saluting the flag becomes mandatory, rather than by choice, that salute loses all patriotic value.
Ironically, those who oppose kneeling would inadvertently destroy the importance of the anthem in the first place.
Fry (comedian from Fry and Laurie) showed himself miles above the other three by eloquently appealing for a return to place where we can debate ideas without being restricted by formulaic rhetorical tactics, (identity based assumptions about ones role or motive in discourse, the power play / demand for ritualised mea culpas and rhetorical delay tactic via re-listings of grievances etc.)
Ironically, I don't think Fry even has a college degree. But he soared above the others.
That said, freedom of expression is freedom of expression. So. Kneel away if you want. I won't, but fine.
Some feel offended by these demonstrations while the rest feel it's their right to protest injustice. So who is ultimately correct, maybe nobody.
The NFL has ridden the wave of patriotism (and created good will which has = $$$). This party's over, let's get down to what really matters - The wonderful and entertaining spectacle which is modern man's version of gladiator games - Pro Football ....
And forget waving the flag - it causes too many ill feelings. Who wants to pay $100 (or more at he stadium) to witness this sideshow ?
The NFL is not your 9-5 employer. Trying to apply the same standards you have to deal with at your job is bizarre.
I thought he was finishing his degree
If you all just stopped fussing about it, it would go away. Protests only work if they generate a reaction. Ignore the protests and they will go away on their own
Quote:
Depends on who the opposing side represents. If I'm over here saying police brutality is out of control and the other person is saying, "fuck you, America love it or leave it", well not a lot of good can come out of listening and trying to reason with that person.
Once again... missing the point. When he speaks (or kneels) he has the Giants' logo attached. Meanwhile, if the rest of us decide to be social justice warriors on company time, we would be canned pretty quickly. It amazes me how people still don't get that.
.
I think you've cracked the code. It's like their jobs are radically different from ours!
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
Great thing about this country is freedom of speech in that the players can speak and act freely within conventional norms and ALSO choose the consequences of the free speech. NFL has stated their personal conduct policy for employment. The players could choose
to violate and seek alternative forms of employment as Kapernick did. Free to choose your employer. Think about that and the freedom. What value are these players placing on this job and their opinions and speech ?
As back drop remember most of these athletes have not been accountable for responsibility and personal conduct thru HS and college. Remember those guys that got a pass because the play sports? Some are the immature individuals with lack of emotional intelligence. I’ll bet one day Kapernick will reflect it was a mistake to let a political agenda in a skirt detail his career and chance to be recognized as an NFL relevant. Now he is poison. Or as Lenin alluded, a useful idiot. I think Goodell
came to his senses when he sent Joe Lockhart packing, as the you will see
a politicization trap on other marketing campaigns like breast cancer
etc. metoo, etc
Good thing we live in US we actually have choices
to improve or ruin our life.
That wording has been on the books for several years and it gets overlooked.
I mean, if you're trying to make this some kind of a class solidarity thing, pro football players making millions a year aren't exactly "workers". Is there any functional difference between the players and management from the perspective of, say, a roofer? They all drive BMWs and Bentleys and live in mansions, so what's the difference?
but seriously, I do not care whether players stand or kneel for the anthem. However I do think its a lazy way of genuinely affecting change. So many other ways to call attention to any social injustices they perceive than to kneel during the anthem.
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
Quote:
cannot wait to take Management's side on things when it comes to sports.
I mean, if you're trying to make this some kind of a class solidarity thing, pro football players making millions a year aren't exactly "workers". Is there any functional difference between the players and management from the perspective of, say, a roofer? They all drive BMWs and Bentleys and live in mansions, so what's the difference?
Greg,
The owners are billionaires, and will be for the rest of their lives. NFL players are compensated handsomely, but only for an average of what, 3 years? And not everyone makes Eli Manning money. Of course they are nowhere close to the average working American in terms of compensation, but to lump the players together with the owners in terms of wealth is just silly. These guys have to live off this short-lived money for the rest of their lives and they put their bodies and health at risk in the meantime while the owners literally do nothing besides watch the games.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
Right, they will pay the players off and pass the cost to PSL owners with $40 beer and hotdogs.
Wake up.
Quote:
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
Right, they will pay the players off and pass the cost to PSL owners with $40 beer and hotdogs.
Wake up.
Make the owners trade on a public exchange. It will happen, next challenge will be making the NFL soccer. That is how deranged evolvement is.
Quote:
Period!!!
Disrespecting the flag or the country will not help quell any injustices perceived or real. What it will do is polarize the country into what it is vastly becoming, The States of Special Interests as opposed to the United States.
BTW- Been a while since there has been any sensationalized cop shooting, and I for one am very happy about that and hope it continues forever.
lol this is posted when the video of the bucks player being tased came out literally yesterday
Yeah missed that, my bad.... It had been a stretch though
All of the "non white" players on team X have decided to stay in Locker Room until after Anthem.
ON sidelines are a dozen or so white players and coaches.
How soon before the EXPLOSION ?
This is quite possibly the worst plan ever.
These players have access to media, before and after every game, practice and team event, why aren't the holding press conferences then?
Easy, the want the free advertising for their cause du jour.
and as with most Leftists, they want to thumbs their collective noses at patriotic Americans.
Quote:
to do whatever you want on the company's time. Protest all you want on your own time.
The only thing dumber is the NFL's "solution".
The NFL never had a rule against kneeling. So they actually did have the right to Kneel.
Actually any owner can allow or not allow players to kneel. It isn't a right. Their employer can dictate behaviors acceptable or unacceptable
This is a bad as when people say we live in a
Democracy.
No.
Does your boss have the right to punish you for holding views that s/he finds abhorrent?
No.
Do you, as an employee, have the right to speak honestly without fear of recrimination?
Yes.
Just because players have been made into demi-gods by us doesn't mean they automatically have to become intellectually or politically neutered. In fact, it probably means that they have the obligation to use their pulpit to advance their causes.
The great ones often do this. I'm looking at you, Photo of Mohammad Ali.
No.
Does your boss have the right to punish you for holding views that s/he finds abhorrent?
No.
Do you, as an employee, have the right to speak honestly without fear of recrimination?
Yes.
Just because players have been made into demi-gods by us doesn't mean they automatically have to become intellectually or politically neutered. In fact, it probably means that they have the obligation to use their pulpit to advance their causes.
The great ones often do this. I'm looking at you, Photo of Mohammad Ali.
Your post isn’t correct. If you do something at work, political or otherwise that causes your boss or employer money, well being fired is a possible outcome. Telling your boss you don’t agree with X isn’t a fireable offense, but if you start talking about X with customers, making them upset or cause them to take their business elsewhere, you can absolutely be fired.
This isn’t about the cause, it’s about business. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this. I work for a startup and can speak freely at the office. If I start posting things on LinkedIn that potential investors don’t agree with, you think that won’t potentially effect my employment?
Which is why the owners decision is more remarkable. They need mass market appeal, which is a function of both the quality of their product and their reputation as an employer. Social governance and responsibility is a huge value creator in the good will section of corporate balance sheets. The owners are destroying their reputation as an employer with this move, and thats on top of the fact that they have been publicly ignorant of CTE. That they are rich beyond belief and thoroughly dissconnected from their customer only furthers their lack of appeal.
I feel that this issue has been spun way out of control by individuals, let's say, outside their area of expertise. This is not about patriotism or the anthem. This is about the safety of the families of these employees. When anyone looks at this from a compassionate understanding, they will see that this is largely a very positive step forward. I see this in the same light as cancer awareness, honoring the military, etc. The players have asked for a month of promoting social justice activism through the NFL. The commish should return to that idea as a possible means to replace kneeling.
In comment 13974757 WideRight said:
Which is why the owners decision is more remarkable. They need mass market appeal, which is a function of both the quality of their product and their reputation as an employer. Social governance and responsibility is a huge value creator in the good will section of corporate balance sheets. The owners are destroying their reputation as an employer with this move, and thats on top of the fact that they have been publicly ignorant of CTE. That they are rich beyond belief and thoroughly dissconnected from their customer only furthers their lack of appeal.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-didnt-vote-on-the-leagues-new-national-anthem-policy/
Link - ( New Window )
So basically they are setting themselves up to cop a mea culpa in a few years. Fire Goodell with a 100M severence package, bring in a "players commish" to pretend they are making real changes, then just continue the same crap.
The owner are a crusty, old, predictably dishonest lot. And that includes Mara
And just because the league has a policy in the books about standing on the sidelines during the Anthem doesn't mean it will hold up in court. But it hasn't been challenged by anyone, so there hasn't been a mandate to strike it down.
This is going to be an interesting summer, because at least one player, but more likely the entire players union, will challenge this in court.
And they'll win.
Quote:
It’s not in the game rules but it is in the operations manual. Francesca read from it yesterday. It’s basically a manual for how the league runs a game. It specifies MUST stand and hold helmet in left hand.
It explicitly does not say they MUST stand and hold their helmets. It says they should. It does however say they must be on the sideline, which I didn't realize.
And the operations manual is not issued to the players, which, by definition, means it is not a rule book in the employee handbook sense (which would legally apply in any other labor scenario).
These players have access to media, before and after every game, practice and team event, why aren't the holding press conferences then?
Easy, the want the free advertising for their cause du jour.
and as with most Leftists, they want to thumbs their collective noses at patriotic Americans.
This isn't accurate. Certain parts of the First Amendment absolutely extend to the workplace (freedom of religion, for example). Your employer does not have full latitude to infringe upon certain rights. Full stop.
Freedom of expression and freedom of speech do extend to the workplace in certain ways. Unless spelled out at the time of employment or mutually agreed upon at a later date, a normal employer cannot unilaterally declare something like "from now on, we're going to start our day with the Pledge of Allegiance." Well, actually, they could - but they could not fire or otherwise punish any employees who chose not to participate.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. These players are protesting as passively as possible while remaining visible. They're simply kneeling during the anthem, which is a right that any other American has as well. It is fundamentally American to respect the rights of your fellow American to observe patriotic rites however they choose.
Where it turns into a hot button issue for many, it seems, is the fact that we know why they're kneeling. And that seems to make it egregious for some. I'd be a hypocrite to tell them how to feel, because I think they're hypocrites for claiming that they're offended in the name of freedom.
And as for the why, we know it because of those press conferences and interviews and other media access after games, not during games, etc.; all the criteria you set out as acceptable in your post. And for the record, calling it a "cause du jour" seems a little dismissive and pejorative (as does your use of "Leftists" but I digress). The cause has been the same all along. "Cause du jour" implies that it's been changing as a matter of convenience throughout this whole saga.
Much of this is just how I feel and I respect the fact that others can see the same scenario and feel differently.
Maybe he’s simply doesn’t care what people think of him? I know we have this nice fuzzy picture of what athletes should be and if they don’t fit in that box they are labeled morons, idiots, etc but maybe he’s simply had it with the business end of football and the media. Seems to be more common as the years go on.
His comments aren’t outlandish.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
the Players have access to media before and after every game, practice, team sponsored event. They are doing it during the Anthem for the free air time. Players could hold press conferences as often as they want, to address their cause du jour.
Quote:
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
the Players have access to media before and after every game, practice, team sponsored event. They are doing it during the Anthem for the free air time. Players could hold press conferences as often as they want, to address their cause du jour.
Keep repeating "cause du jour." Their cause hasn't changed. It's not a du jour scenario. I don't expect that you'd understand that, though.
Forcing everyone to stand for the anthem removes the value of anyone standing for the anthem within their own freedom, which is what this country is supposed to be about. I don't expect that you'd understand that, either.
Quote:
In comment 13974252 George said:
Quote:
Does not get suspended the moment you punch the clock at work. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that management cannot suppress non-violent talk or gestures (e.g. kneeling) of labor if they don't like the things employees are saying while on the job. That one has been in the books since, like, the 1930s.
Get ready for lots of players and lots of entire teams to stay in the tunnel until the anthem is over; look for players and entire teams to find other ways to voice their social/political concerns in even more public ways. And look for the Colin Kap case to demonstrate league collusion: and then the NFL will have SERIOUS issues to deal with.
Owners blew this one big time, and just turned a slightly large mole hill into a mountain.
the Players have access to media before and after every game, practice, team sponsored event. They are doing it during the Anthem for the free air time. Players could hold press conferences as often as they want, to address their cause du jour.
Keep repeating "cause du jour." Their cause hasn't changed. It's not a du jour scenario. I don't expect that you'd understand that, though.
Forcing everyone to stand for the anthem removes the value of anyone standing for the anthem within their own freedom, which is what this country is supposed to be about. I don't expect that you'd understand that, either.
My point is, standing for the anthem only matters if you choose to do it. The moment that it's forced upon you, it loses all its value, as do we, as a nation built upon individual freedom.
Quote:
However if the views can be proven to harm the business of the employer then that is a different story. Eg a racist or misogynist rant
i think that this is absolutely right. And it’s possible that the Anthem is a Pandora’s Box for those types of vocalizations. You might end up asking people why they knelt or why they performed some other on field action and find out it was in support of defunding Planned Prenthood or Open Carry or something else we might disagree with. And that’s not substantively different, protest-wise, or right-wise (should we decide that unfettered, in-thought about speech in a private workplace, is a right.
How does your mind equate people saying I am tired of living in terror of being killed or abused by law enforcement in this country with support for or against Planned Parenthood?
'For and Against Political Correctness'
It was interesting. The 'for' side, Dyson and Goldberg, were for the most part so bound by their narrative that they completely failed to debate the question at hand. Resorting constantly instead to accusing the against side of membership in some or other group that had to go through a process of mea culpa and re-awakening before they (the for side) would be held to debate standards, or simply repeating the litany of historic grievances as if that vaguely justifies any undeclared strategy today. Which or course it doesn't and is deeply offensive within the context of a formal debate. And used direct qualifying accusations as well.
Against side; Fry and Pederson, won by a wide margin with an 8% increase over the start of the debate.
BUT here we have this issue of kneeling, which, on the surface flips the question.
Because here, kneeling is an expression and some typically maybe on the free speech side would seek to control that expression?!? Ironic.
I say let people express themselves.
I would say that the deeper issue is:
- weather or not that particular protest is rooted in a well informed and intellectually honest understanding of the underlying problem. And it isn't.
But do they have the right to kneel? I say yes. But is that narrative helpful? No.
'For and Against Political Correctness'
It was interesting. The 'for' side, Dyson and Goldberg, were for the most part so bound by their narrative that they completely failed to debate the question at hand. Resorting constantly instead to accusing the against side of membership in some or other group that had to go through a process of mea culpa and re-awakening before they (the for side) would be held to debate standards, or simply repeating the litany of historic grievances as if that vaguely justifies any undeclared strategy today. Which or course it doesn't and is deeply offensive within the context of a formal debate. And used direct qualifying accusations as well.
Against side; Fry and Pederson, won by a wide margin with an 8% increase over the start of the debate.
BUT here we have this issue of kneeling, which, on the surface flips the question.
Because here, kneeling is an expression and some typically maybe on the free speech side would seek to control that expression?!? Ironic.
I say let people express themselves.
I would say that the deeper issue is:
- weather or not that particular protest is rooted in a well informed and intellectually honest understanding of the underlying problem. And it isn't.
But do they have the right to kneel? I say yes. But is that narrative helpful? No.
If a well-informed and intellectually honest understanding of an issue is required in order to participate, the vast majority of those opposed to the kneeling would be disqualified from the kneeling discussion itself.
As clearly demonstrated in the other thread, not only is tieing the current situation to the historic grievance highly debatable, (todays police are not slave guards) but the actual facts of the current situation dont even remotely reflect the current narrative about today's situation.
Add to that, using historic grievance to broadly justify contemporary modalities is at the root of many of the greatest evils of the 20th century. It's just a bad idea.j
But again, kneeling does not bother me in the least.
As clearly demonstrated in the other thread, not only is tieing the current situation to the historic grievance highly debatable, (todays police are not slave guards) but the actual facts of the current situation dont even remotely reflect the current narrative about today's situation.
Add to that, using historic grievance to broadly justify contemporary modalities is at the root of many of the greatest evils of the 20th century. It's just a bad idea.j
But again, kneeling does not bother me in the least.
For the record, I wasn't implying you. But I genuinely feel like it needs to be two separate discussions. The underlying issue that is prompting the players' protest is incredibly nuanced and hot-button. That debate should rightfully receive a thoughtful and thorough discussion.
Freedom from being forced to participate in what should be a meaningful ceremony that is unrelated to one's job is not a matter of one's employment (or shouldn't be). That part of the conversation should be simple to understand: as soon as saluting the flag becomes mandatory, rather than by choice, that salute loses all patriotic value.
Ironically, those who oppose kneeling would inadvertently destroy the importance of the anthem in the first place.
Kneeling/PC and Freedom of expression (shouldn't matter what one thinks about any particular sentiment?)
And
What is the basis on which our freedom rests:
negative rights + individual rights
vs
positive rights + group rights?
2 very different debates.
Fry (comedian from Fry and Laurie) showed himself miles above the other three by eloquently appealing for a return to place where we can debate ideas without being restricted by formulaic rhetorical tactics, (identity based assumptions about ones role or motive in discourse, the power play / demand for ritualised mea culpas and rhetorical delay tactic via re-listings of grievances etc.)
Ironically, I don't think Fry even has a college degree. But he soared above the others.
That said, freedom of expression is freedom of expression. So. Kneel away if you want. I won't, but fine.