Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
It sounds eerily similar to "I don't agree with you" "you're a Nazi!"
The TRUTH is that for most people, there is no discussion anymore. It's either their view, or you're a Nazi or racist or un-American.
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.
* FYI, my company issued a social media policy stating what we CANNOT say. Any violation is grounds for instant dismissal.
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.
* FYI, my company issued a social media policy stating what we CANNOT say. Any violation is grounds for instant dismissal.
love the anonymous keyboard crusaders on Twitter? If you are going to voice a strong opinion, especially in direct response to someone else's, you could at least use your real name and face.
Years ago I worked for an agency who had a protocol officer who put a picture up on his Facebook page of himself in his underwear smoking a joint. He got fired that week.
these players miss the point completely. you don't have a RIGHT Â
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
See, but you're choosing to react only to that differing opinion that should be ignored instead of the million other coherent and salient differing opinions being offered. Maybe instead of harping on the vast minority of ignorant views in opposition to kneeling, take note of realistic differing views and see if that leads to real dialogue. I've seen your posts on the other thread and I can't say i'm confident you're interested in that.
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.
* FYI, my company issued a social media policy stating what we CANNOT say. Any violation is grounds for instant dismissal.
Do you have to do the national anthem at work?
I can't name a company that I have worked for that has demanded it.
Social Media policies are good and all, but lets be real people that make the big bucks get away with a ton of shit in every company. If someone who makes the money at the top gets in trouble, they find ways to get around it, make something disappear if they are that valuable to the team.
Players are no different. You don't have your players, especially the great ones, you have a shit product to address. So I cannot see a social media policy being whipped out anytime soon.
I listened to Francessa's interview with Shurmer Â
Years ago I worked for an agency who had a protocol officer who put a picture up on his Facebook page of himself in his underwear smoking a joint. He got fired that week.
We do have leaders in this country who do and say stupid shit all the time, and they don't get fired either. Sorry, just had to do it. Just saying the rules just aren't the same for everyone.
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.
Holy stereotype Batman!!!
RE: Q- does anyone know what woulda happened last year Â
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
He had like 13 tweets in an hour. That's what I meant by going off. He also told a little kid in North Carolina to buy 10 jerseys so he could burn them.
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.
1) I'm talking about the rule that they announced yesterday.
2) as an employee of a company, the "right" that you have is to leave if you don't like the policies.
3) Where do you derive a "right" from there was "no rule"? By your logic, since NBC had no stated rule against secretly locking your office door and forcing yourself on a woman, Matt Lauer had a right to do it. Miramax had no rule against shoving one's cock into an unwilling girl's mouth, so it was Harvey's right to do so.
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
You usually need to do that when you get secondhand news here - people tend to grossly exaggerate to garner more attention. Much like the media we know and love oh, so much!
Thee NFL spells out what should be done during National Anthem Â
I thought that when I read the interview but he didn't sound all that bothered when I watched the PC. My guess is that he's old and cranky because we jettisoned DRC and JPP.
RE: 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.
1) I'm talking about the rule that they announced yesterday.
2) as an employee of a company, the "right" that you have is to leave if you don't like the policies.
3) Where do you derive a "right" from there was "no rule"? By your logic, since NBC had no stated rule against secretly locking your office door and forcing yourself on a woman, Matt Lauer had a right to do it. Miramax had no rule against shoving one's cock into an unwilling girl's mouth, so it was Harvey's right to do so.
This was so stupid it's not worth my time. Human beings have the right not stand for a pledge or anthem. That thet NFL last year had no rule against it certainly gave the players the right to express themselves freely..
Now the NFL has a rule and the players must abide by it or they're subject to discipline.
Your comparison to "shoving cocks in mouths" shows your emotion to the subject and I can only conclude you're probably a racist or a brainwashed patriot.
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
He ripped into a prepubescent kid. Not sure he knew how old the kid was, but one look at the profile pic confirmed it.
RE: RE: 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.
1) I'm talking about the rule that they announced yesterday.
2) as an employee of a company, the "right" that you have is to leave if you don't like the policies.
3) Where do you derive a "right" from there was "no rule"? By your logic, since NBC had no stated rule against secretly locking your office door and forcing yourself on a woman, Matt Lauer had a right to do it. Miramax had no rule against shoving one's cock into an unwilling girl's mouth, so it was Harvey's right to do so.
This was so stupid it's not worth my time. Human beings have the right not stand for a pledge or anthem. That thet NFL last year had no rule against it certainly gave the players the right to express themselves freely..
Now the NFL has a rule and the players must abide by it or they're subject to discipline.
Your comparison to "shoving cocks in mouths" shows your emotion to the subject and I can only conclude you're probably a racist or a brainwashed patriot.
Learn to read. As private citizens (fans in the stands for example), they have every right to sit, kneel, turn their backs or whatever other peaceful protest they wish to pursue. As employees of the team, they are bound by company policy during working hours. You are incapable of reasoned thought. Don't you dare ever refer to me as a racist or brainwwahsed anything. People like you are the reason this board is going downhill. You can't reason logically, so you jump into name calling. YOU wrote that "The NFL never had a rule against kneeling. So they actually did have the right to Kneel." By that logic, anything not stated as banned is a right. You're wrong.
I personally don't see why it's even necessary to have the Anthem played before games, nor do I approve of the way the NFL takes money from the services to promote the armed forces.
Without a rule against kneeling why didnt the players have the right to kneel? It's their right. Until the league puts in a rule they were not in violation of anything.
They now have a rule.
Your comparison to forcing your dick down someones throat was not only distasteful it was moronic as nobody is allowed to shove their dick down someones throat regardless of where they work.
I stand by my perception of you and will never respond to you as I believe you're beneath me.
Players will be allowed to wait in the tunnel until the anthem is concluded . To me, that’s an enlightened decision . When guys come out of the tunnel late, fans will be able to express their approval or disapproval with the action . I think that’s utterly fair. When they were kneeling on the sideline , upon completion of the anthem, you couldn’t cheer for 5 seconds then boo for 2.
Now you can give a lusty hosa for Vernon , when he comes out . Whatever .
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
He ripped into a prepubescent kid. Not sure he knew how old the kid was, but one look at the profile pic confirmed it.
The pre pubescent kid's handle is DeepStateExterminator?
RE: RE: RE: RE: I just scrolled through his Twitter, Â
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
He ripped into a prepubescent kid. Not sure he knew how old the kid was, but one look at the profile pic confirmed it.
The pre pubescent kid's handle is DeepStateExterminator?
Nope it was some kid, who has since deleted his Twitter page, so you can't view that pic.
and deal with the NFL on an ongoing basis. Kneeling for the national anthem has certainly hurt the league's (and thereby ownership) bottom line, as well as countless business partners of the league. While I believe they would love to side with the players and allow them to express themselves, they are not willing to do so to the detriment of the brand image.
RE: these players miss the point completely. you don't have a RIGHT Â
I obviously don't know what is up with him, but clearly he is acting in a different manner than he did his first year here. He clearly doesn't take well to criticism, earned or otherwise.
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
Thats a bit disengenuous. On the other thread there was a at least one person who disagreed with the premise of the first art of your statement, and did not use pejorative. Just expressed disagreement. And that person was subjected to high pitched invective.
RE: RE: RE: RE: these players miss the point completely. you don't have a RIGHT Â
Your comparison to "shoving cocks in mouths" shows your emotion to the subject and I can only conclude you're probably a racist or a brainwashed patriot.
What exact part of anything up to this point has pointed to racisim?
If there is a certain population that is upset with certain aspects of American life, feeling marginalized or cheated, they deserve to express that in whatever way they choose. It's not for those who are without dissent to force others to behave a certain way. It is for those dissenters to express their dissatisfaction and offer solutions. Those that are able must then find remedies for those concerns.
This forcing players to stand is just putting lipstick on a pig. We all know there are unaddressed issues. Until they are addressed it just makes for a stupid, insincere display.
To the NFL, players kneeling doesn't make their product look any worse as it's not about the NFL. It's about people suffering and nothing being done.
It was affecting the NFLs bottom line. That's it. It has nothing to do with patriotism, or the troops, or anything else. It's about moving the merch.
The NFL would just like this to go away, and now this stupid policy is going to make things worse for them. The reporting on what happened at the meeting to discuss this last year shows how out of touch these owners are.
They are going to get sued. I am not a lawyer, and can acknowledge that your conduct at work is governed by your employer. I also think political speech that doesn't at all affect your performance at work is probably a different subject. Then you've got the fairly obvious collusion case that Kaepernick has which is also winding its way through the courts.
Nothing like this had to happen. The players are asking to start a discussion on this topic. There are numerous ways the NFL could have facilitated or helped with this that would have been a win-win for everyone involved. Instead we have this stupidity.
I think this would have blown over is certain political people or types didn’t go out of their way to make this a big issue for purely partisan or ratings reasons. I know for me I don’t give a shit what the players. And, I know for a fact that I can’t put myself in the players shoes. What irritates me regarding Kapo is not his kneeling, it’s that he admitted he never voted in the next election.
As an aside, on Francesa yesterday, Shurmur had no problems with Harrison’s absence. He said he was aware of the reason and ok with it.
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’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.
i really thought snacks was a stand up guy with great character but it seems like he loses the power in his message by playing the same game as the social justice brigade and media now a days. singling out individual tweets and making sweeping rationalizations? yes snacks, that is exactly what your fans what to see and will lead us all to better moral standing, thank you for your sage wisdom.
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.
the guy who has a job "30 million other people can do" further diminish what ever moral high ground he thinks he is on. claims to fighting for inequality but just devalued someone's self worth completely without having a single clue about the person or his role in the world. it all just seems petty and immature.
it doesn't matter how many people can do my job, if I consistently push my personal agenda during company hrs/meetings, i will surely be reprimanded. Not to mention by signing an employment contract with a private entity, you are required to follow what ever conduct policy they set forth and have little legal recourse to retaliate if found to be non-compliant.
I think this would have blown over is certain political people or types didn’t go out of their way to make this a big issue for purely partisan or ratings reasons. I know for me I don’t give a shit what the players. And, I know for a fact that I can’t put myself in the players shoes. What irritates me regarding Kapo is not his kneeling, it’s that he admitted he never voted in the next election.
As an aside, on Francesa yesterday, Shurmur had no problems with Harrison’s absence. He said he was aware of the reason and ok with it.
That's funny, I don't think the media reported on this enough. I certainly saw a lot of "here's who's kneeling this week," but investigations into why and what the players wanted was lacking.
If they had, perhaps what we could have gotten was an agreement that the issues they wanted to raise were worth talking about. If you don't think that they are worth at least a conversation, I don't know what to tell you.
"Can’t look kids in the eye anymore and tell that they can be whatever they want to be. Has to now be you can be whatever they allow you to be and to the level they want you to be that at." - @snacks
It's sad, but for some, it's always been this way in America.
The NFL Owners can make money off of the backs of black people, but when it comes to fighting for issues that have an adverse effect on that same black community that produces so much of it's product, we get...
"stay in the locker room"
The NFL Owners only care about money and that is a dishonorable trait.
RE: My solution is better than the NFL's solution... Â
Let the players kneel if they want to. Don't fine any of them. Don't fine the teams either.
Instruct the camera men not to film or photograph any kneeling players. Shitcan any camera man not following those orders.
I actually don't think that would be a very good solution. It would hardly be a secret that players continued to kneel, and the league/networks would take flack for trying to cover it up.
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.
Exactly, I would argue that the NFL or any other professional sport for that matter is very unique and unlike your average employer/employee relationships we understand. I think the NFL is a symbiotic partnership between two peers the owners and the players. Each side requires the other to be prosperous. If this were a purely constitutional question than those arguing that the players do not have a right to protest in the work place would probably prevail. However it’s not. It’s more of a political question. The idea that if the players want to abide by rules and noms set by the league then they should be fired is silly. It’s not like me or you in your job where if we quit or were fired they could replace us rather quickly. We are talking about professional athletes. It’s not like you can easily replace these guys. The scab players during the strike years showed the public is not going to pay to watch sub standard entertainment. My point is both sides have a vested interest in finding a win-win solution because no one enjoys having something rammed down their throat. Negotiations over the CBA were going to be difficult already. I fear if they get this wrong negotiations will only be more difficult
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.
No, but Shurmur didn't sound pleased.
Agreed.
Well he better perform at a high level.
A guy who openly doesn't want to be a team leader sure as hell likes to publicly bitch about things...
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
or on Twitter. Ever.
Quote:
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
Quote:
In comment 13972984 Geomon said:
Quote:
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
No shit
Quote:
In comment 13972984 Geomon said:
Quote:
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
It sounds eerily similar to "I don't agree with you" "you're a Nazi!"
The TRUTH is that for most people, there is no discussion anymore. It's either their view, or you're a Nazi or racist or un-American.
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.
* FYI, my company issued a social media policy stating what we CANNOT say. Any violation is grounds for instant dismissal.
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.
* FYI, my company issued a social media policy stating what we CANNOT say. Any violation is grounds for instant dismissal.
The only thing dumber is the NFL's "solution".
Quote:
In comment 13972984 Geomon said:
Quote:
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
See, but you're choosing to react only to that differing opinion that should be ignored instead of the million other coherent and salient differing opinions being offered. Maybe instead of harping on the vast minority of ignorant views in opposition to kneeling, take note of realistic differing views and see if that leads to real dialogue. I've seen your posts on the other thread and I can't say i'm confident you're interested in that.
;)
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.
* FYI, my company issued a social media policy stating what we CANNOT say. Any violation is grounds for instant dismissal.
Do you have to do the national anthem at work?
I can't name a company that I have worked for that has demanded it.
Social Media policies are good and all, but lets be real people that make the big bucks get away with a ton of shit in every company. If someone who makes the money at the top gets in trouble, they find ways to get around it, make something disappear if they are that valuable to the team.
Players are no different. You don't have your players, especially the great ones, you have a shit product to address. So I cannot see a social media policy being whipped out anytime soon.
We do have leaders in this country who do and say stupid shit all the time, and they don't get fired either. Sorry, just had to do it. Just saying the rules just aren't the same for everyone.
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.
Are you suggesting a bbi poster is being overly dramatic? That's hard to believe.
Was it mandated that they come out and stand?
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.
Holy stereotype Batman!!!
Was it mandated that they come out and stand?
No.
He had like 13 tweets in an hour. That's what I meant by going off. He also told a little kid in North Carolina to buy 10 jerseys so he could burn them.
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.
1) I'm talking about the rule that they announced yesterday.
2) as an employee of a company, the "right" that you have is to leave if you don't like the policies.
3) Where do you derive a "right" from there was "no rule"? By your logic, since NBC had no stated rule against secretly locking your office door and forcing yourself on a woman, Matt Lauer had a right to do it. Miramax had no rule against shoving one's cock into an unwilling girl's mouth, so it was Harvey's right to do so.
You usually need to do that when you get secondhand news here - people tend to grossly exaggerate to garner more attention. Much like the media we know and love oh, so much!
Quote:
.
No, but Shurmur didn't sound pleased.
Quote:
In comment 13973042 Victor in CT said:
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.
1) I'm talking about the rule that they announced yesterday.
2) as an employee of a company, the "right" that you have is to leave if you don't like the policies.
3) Where do you derive a "right" from there was "no rule"? By your logic, since NBC had no stated rule against secretly locking your office door and forcing yourself on a woman, Matt Lauer had a right to do it. Miramax had no rule against shoving one's cock into an unwilling girl's mouth, so it was Harvey's right to do so.
This was so stupid it's not worth my time. Human beings have the right not stand for a pledge or anthem. That thet NFL last year had no rule against it certainly gave the players the right to express themselves freely..
Now the NFL has a rule and the players must abide by it or they're subject to discipline.
Your comparison to "shoving cocks in mouths" shows your emotion to the subject and I can only conclude you're probably a racist or a brainwashed patriot.
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
Quote:
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
He ripped into a prepubescent kid. Not sure he knew how old the kid was, but one look at the profile pic confirmed it.
Quote:
In comment 13973086 QB Snacks said:
Quote:
In comment 13973042 Victor in CT said:
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.
1) I'm talking about the rule that they announced yesterday.
2) as an employee of a company, the "right" that you have is to leave if you don't like the policies.
3) Where do you derive a "right" from there was "no rule"? By your logic, since NBC had no stated rule against secretly locking your office door and forcing yourself on a woman, Matt Lauer had a right to do it. Miramax had no rule against shoving one's cock into an unwilling girl's mouth, so it was Harvey's right to do so.
This was so stupid it's not worth my time. Human beings have the right not stand for a pledge or anthem. That thet NFL last year had no rule against it certainly gave the players the right to express themselves freely..
Now the NFL has a rule and the players must abide by it or they're subject to discipline.
Your comparison to "shoving cocks in mouths" shows your emotion to the subject and I can only conclude you're probably a racist or a brainwashed patriot.
Learn to read. As private citizens (fans in the stands for example), they have every right to sit, kneel, turn their backs or whatever other peaceful protest they wish to pursue. As employees of the team, they are bound by company policy during working hours. You are incapable of reasoned thought. Don't you dare ever refer to me as a racist or brainwwahsed anything. People like you are the reason this board is going downhill. You can't reason logically, so you jump into name calling. YOU wrote that "The NFL never had a rule against kneeling. So they actually did have the right to Kneel." By that logic, anything not stated as banned is a right. You're wrong.
I personally don't see why it's even necessary to have the Anthem played before games, nor do I approve of the way the NFL takes money from the services to promote the armed forces.
They now have a rule.
Your comparison to forcing your dick down someones throat was not only distasteful it was moronic as nobody is allowed to shove their dick down someones throat regardless of where they work.
I stand by my perception of you and will never respond to you as I believe you're beneath me.
I don't care enough to look it up, but it seemed like a legit reason at the time.
2) That said, if a coach and/or organization feels strongly one way or the other and wants to impose rules or guidelines, I have no problem with that.
3) 1st Amendment rights don't apply, as they are representing their team and they are "on the clock" while in the stadium.
4) Personally, my wish is that all owners and coaches would view this as a player's right and leave it at that.
Now you can give a lusty hosa for Vernon , when he comes out . Whatever .
Quote:
to a player who, instead of kneeling, simply stayed in the locker room till the anthem was over?
Was it mandated that they come out and stand?
No.
The Steelers, Seahawks, and Titans stayed in the locker room for the anthem last season.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20801902/pittsburgh-steelers-remain-locker-room-national-anthem
Quote:
In comment 13973084 phil in arizona said:
Quote:
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
He ripped into a prepubescent kid. Not sure he knew how old the kid was, but one look at the profile pic confirmed it.
The pre pubescent kid's handle is DeepStateExterminator?
Quote:
In comment 13973110 gmen9892 said:
Quote:
In comment 13973084 phil in arizona said:
Quote:
he's being pretty polite. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't classify what he's saying as 'going off'.
Quote:
@snacks
Following Following @snacks
More Damon Harrison Sr. Retweeted DeepStateExterminator
You probably have a job that 30 million other people could do 🤯 not my fault you are basic
Not all of it is polite. I dont even disagree with his point, but he is going after fans. Went in on Rannan the other day. Not really the best way for a current player that is in a good light with fans to go about his business. He is certainly picking up a few more enemies this offseason.
He ripped into a prepubescent kid. Not sure he knew how old the kid was, but one look at the profile pic confirmed it.
The pre pubescent kid's handle is DeepStateExterminator?
Nope it was some kid, who has since deleted his Twitter page, so you can't view that pic.
The only thing dumber is the NFL's "solution".
In theory, this is right. But in practice, it does not apply to people who have power, wealth, or a highly desired skill.
Snacks can say whatever he wants because he is one of the top ten nose tackles on the planet. Ditto for anyone else who has a skill highly in demand.
Quote:
. I thought he was getting his degree and that was the reason for his absence
No, but Shurmur didn't sound pleased.
Quote:
In comment 13972984 Geomon said:
Quote:
Apparently that's not allowed either according to some.
Doesnt that work both ways? If someone has a different opinion shouldn't you hear out both sides and talk it out, instead of attacking every person who doesnt agree with him?
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.
This forcing players to stand is just putting lipstick on a pig. We all know there are unaddressed issues. Until they are addressed it just makes for a stupid, insincere display.
To the NFL, players kneeling doesn't make their product look any worse as it's not about the NFL. It's about people suffering and nothing being done.
Just MHO.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13973091 Dave said:
Quote:
to a player who, instead of kneeling, simply stayed in the locker room till the anthem was over?
Was it mandated that they come out and stand?
No.
The Steelers, Seahawks, and Titans stayed in the locker room for the anthem last season.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20801902/pittsburgh-steelers-remain-locker-room-national-anthem
The NFL would just like this to go away, and now this stupid policy is going to make things worse for them. The reporting on what happened at the meeting to discuss this last year shows how out of touch these owners are.
They are going to get sued. I am not a lawyer, and can acknowledge that your conduct at work is governed by your employer. I also think political speech that doesn't at all affect your performance at work is probably a different subject. Then you've got the fairly obvious collusion case that Kaepernick has which is also winding its way through the courts.
Nothing like this had to happen. The players are asking to start a discussion on this topic. There are numerous ways the NFL could have facilitated or helped with this that would have been a win-win for everyone involved. Instead we have this stupidity.
As an aside, on Francesa yesterday, Shurmur had no problems with Harrison’s absence. He said he was aware of the reason and ok with it.
In comment 13973086 QB Snacks said:
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.
It drew some attention, but in the end Villanueva's comments about the whole thing were pretty much perfect.
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.
In comment 13973290 Mad Mike said:
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.
it doesn't matter how many people can do my job, if I consistently push my personal agenda during company hrs/meetings, i will surely be reprimanded. Not to mention by signing an employment contract with a private entity, you are required to follow what ever conduct policy they set forth and have little legal recourse to retaliate if found to be non-compliant.
As an aside, on Francesa yesterday, Shurmur had no problems with Harrison’s absence. He said he was aware of the reason and ok with it.
That's funny, I don't think the media reported on this enough. I certainly saw a lot of "here's who's kneeling this week," but investigations into why and what the players wanted was lacking.
If they had, perhaps what we could have gotten was an agreement that the issues they wanted to raise were worth talking about. If you don't think that they are worth at least a conversation, I don't know what to tell you.
...and I always stand for the national anthem. (My father would have crucified me had I remained in my seat).
But when did it become a crime / fine to choose otherwise?
NFL thinking about its pocketbook. Period. It's about the money. Their rule about staying in the locker room is an insult to their employees.
Instruct the camera men not to film or photograph any kneeling players. Shitcan any camera man not following those orders.
The NFL is not your 9-5 employer. Trying to apply the same standards you have to deal with at your job is bizarre.
It's sad, but for some, it's always been this way in America.
The NFL Owners can make money off of the backs of black people, but when it comes to fighting for issues that have an adverse effect on that same black community that produces so much of it's product, we get...
"stay in the locker room"
The NFL Owners only care about money and that is a dishonorable trait.
Instruct the camera men not to film or photograph any kneeling players. Shitcan any camera man not following those orders.
I actually don't think that would be a very good solution. It would hardly be a secret that players continued to kneel, and the league/networks would take flack for trying to cover it up.
All alone... In my tiny apartment, watching some important event on TV.
During the anthem. Hand on heart. Alone!:
Whereas that I still;
I seriously don't give a flying fuck what anyone else does. Not a wit.
I mean, is it a well founded act of protest? No. ( privately imho It's backwards and dumb as heck.)
But am I publicly condemning anyone or seeking to control their actions? Hell no!
What anyone else chooses to do or not do is not my business.
The NFL is not your 9-5 employer. Trying to apply the same standards you have to deal with at your job is bizarre.
Exactly, I would argue that the NFL or any other professional sport for that matter is very unique and unlike your average employer/employee relationships we understand. I think the NFL is a symbiotic partnership between two peers the owners and the players. Each side requires the other to be prosperous. If this were a purely constitutional question than those arguing that the players do not have a right to protest in the work place would probably prevail. However it’s not. It’s more of a political question. The idea that if the players want to abide by rules and noms set by the league then they should be fired is silly. It’s not like me or you in your job where if we quit or were fired they could replace us rather quickly. We are talking about professional athletes. It’s not like you can easily replace these guys. The scab players during the strike years showed the public is not going to pay to watch sub standard entertainment. My point is both sides have a vested interest in finding a win-win solution because no one enjoys having something rammed down their throat. Negotiations over the CBA were going to be difficult already. I fear if they get this wrong negotiations will only be more difficult
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.