OT - NBA & Politics

[penn qtr eagle]

How far does your "There is a right and a wrong way to fight it" go? I understand the idea that when you are on the job, you should not be espousing personal opinions and taking personal stands (in my job, you will virtually never find me taking a political position -- and I would be in serious trouble if I did). But athletes have done this forever. Every athlete who "thanks Jesus" for his performance or takes time in his post-game interview to discussion religion is espousing his personal views and taking a position that is not necessarily supported by his employer.

Is your concern really with the timing of his statements and his use of the platform provided to him? Or is it the message?

I don't know your views, and you may tell me that you also oppose all the athletes who proselytize in post-game interviews, but I think the vast majority of people complaining about black athletes expressing political views are really focused on content that they don't like, and use the "time and place" argument as cover when they would never apply a "time and place" argument to athletes taking positions that they support.

And for the record, I am opposed to the athletes kneeling during the national anthem -- I think it is disrespectful to our military and people who served -- and I will also defend their right to kneel, because I think the ability and right to complain about our government is more important than honoring the military.

My concern is with the delivery of the message. Kneeling to thank God after a touchdown is making a statement of humility and giving thanks for his performance. Same with thanking God at the beginning of an interview. It is drawing attention to God, not himself. Either way, both usually last a few seconds and they move on.
What we’re talking about on the other side is the constant divisive and abusive statements with lack of solutions to help the situations they oppose. Most of them can’t even tell you why they think what they think. That comes across as desperate and bitter because who they wanted to win didn’t and shame to admit that POTUS is actually following through on promises and effecting positive change.
The worst of it is when they do this while “on the clock.”

Paragraphs are ur friend. This is hard to read.

 

[neeagle]

WER

Try this hypothetical, two groups marching around the county courthouse. One has posters that say "Praise Jesus, We Love God." The others have signs that say "The U.S. Military Is Corrupt. Down with the Pentagon." Both are expressing opinions using their freedom of expression. We may think that the first opinion is great and the second is disrespectful and stupid. But we don't say that the first is appropriate to march around the courthouse, but the second is inappropriate for the courthouse and that is the wrong time and place. The 1st Amendment case law on this is very clear -- and Scalia's decision in the flag burning case is one of the best examples.

Here, we are not talking about the 1st Amendment - because we are not talking about the government acting to censor expression. Instead, we are talking about the general propriety of expressing opinions at work. My point is simply that it is hypocritical to say that "athletes should not abuse their platform" only when they are taking positions with which you disagree. If all our examples were opinions with which you agree, then we would never have this discussion.

My argument is not about the content of the message and whether or not I agree with it. If they were raving about how much they love God or unicorns or hot dog buns on sports center, I’d probably have a problem with it. That’s not what they are getting paid to do and even tho i love God and hot dogs, it’s unprofessional if they are exploiting their platform to do so. I would have a lesser problem with it because their comments are not divisive, abusive or just plain ugly, but a problem none the less.

 

[neeagle]

Paragraphs are ur friend. This is hard to read.

I’m on my cell phone.

 

[penn qtr eagle]

WER

Try this hypothetical, two groups marching around the county courthouse. One has posters that say "Praise Jesus, We Love God." The others have signs that say "The U.S. Military Is Corrupt. Down with the Pentagon." Both are expressing opinions using their freedom of expression. We may think that the first opinion is great and the second is disrespectful and stupid. But we don't say that the first is appropriate to march around the courthouse, but the second is inappropriate for the courthouse and that is the wrong time and place. The 1st Amendment case law on this is very clear -- and Scalia's decision in the flag burning case is one of the best examples.

Here, we are not talking about the 1st Amendment - because we are not talking about the government acting to censor expression. Instead, we are talking about the general propriety of expressing opinions at work. My point is simply that it is hypocritical to say that "athletes should not abuse their platform" only when they are taking positions with which you disagree. If all our examples were opinions with which you agree, then we would never have this discussion.

My argument is not about the content of the message and whether or not I agree with it. If they were raving about how much they love God or unicorns or hot dog buns on sports center, I’d probably have a problem with it. That’s not what they are getting paid to do and even tho i love God and hot dogs, it’s unprofessional if they are exploiting their platform to do so. I would have a lesser problem with it because their comments are not divisive, abusive or just plain ugly, but a problem none the less.

Exploiting? So, you want ur black athletes to just be athletes? Mindless trolls?

 

[Legendary Eagle]

Not sure that you are really reading what I write.



I completely agree that "having a constitutional right doesn't make something morally or ethically right." I think I have said about four times now that I think the kneeling is disrespectful (and for the record, I am opposed to flag burning, and never said that I favored it).

I also agree that a constitutional right "doesn't protect you from getting the wrath that you deserve." Taking positions has consequences, and simply because you can take a position does not mean that you can prevent other people from reacting.

My point has been -- and continues to be -- that complaining about "abusing the platform" is hypocritical and arbitrary if that standard is only used when you disagree with the position being given.

Until you provide a legitimate example of someone being hypocritical, the point you are attempting to make holds no merit. I don’t support black athletes being disrespectful to our flag and military. I also don’t support white wacko “alleged” Christians from Kansas protesting and being disrespectful at funerals with signs like “God hates fags”. It’s not about whether I believe in the agenda, or not. It’s about intentionally being an asshole. Tim Tebow wasn’t being an asshole. And he didn’t disrespect anyone. The anthem kneelers are intentionally trying to provoke anger. So once again, your analogy is bogus.

 

[Duke Eagle]

My concern is with the delivery of the message. Kneeling to thank God after a touchdown is making a statement of humility and giving thanks for his performance. Same with thanking God at the beginning of an interview. It is drawing attention to God, not himself. Either way, both usually last a few seconds and they move on.
What we’re talking about on the other side is the constant divisive and abusive statements with lack of solutions to help the situations they oppose. Most of them can’t even tell you why they think what they think. That comes across as desperate and bitter because who they wanted to win didn’t and shame to admit that POTUS is actually following through on promises and effecting positive change.
The worst of it is when they do this while “on the clock.”

I think the distinction between drawing attention to yourself and being humble makes some sense. But I think from the perspective of the players protesting, they are not simply drawing attention to themselves. In fact, with Kapernick as an example, they are potentially risking their financial future by kneeling. That is not a minor risk to take considering the average length of an NFL career. I think most of the protesting players would say that they are attempting to direct the public's attention to an issue -- not to themselves -- at great personal risk.

And as far as what they are doing having no effect, I think that is pretty debatable. The complaint that you hear from people who are in the Black Lives Matter movement or others who questions police procedures is that the issue with police harassment only comes to light when an incident becomes notorious and makes the national news, then it fades away and some police, in their view, continue to act improperly without a spotlight on them. But the players actions -- and the public's response -- have kept their message in the news and with the public's attention for years at this point. There have been no concrete solutions -- and I don't know what those would be -- but one solution in their view is to simply raise and sustain the profile of the issue.

And I agree that lots of people on the left are overly critical of Trump and desperate and bitter because they lost the election (and they did the same thing to George W. Bush -- especially after the 2000 election). But the response of the left does not appear all that different from the desperate, bitter partisans on the right who refused to accept that they lost two elections to Obama. I think this current spiral of disrespect for the presidency began in 2000 with the Democrats, but it was exacerbated by the Republicans after Obama won and has continued from there. I also don't think that Trump is doing anyone any favors now, because his tweets and unpresidential actions (criticizing Gold Star families, picking petty fights, etc.) have made it easy for the Democrats to not respect the office of president.

 

[Legendary Eagle]

Exploiting? So, you want ur black athletes to just be athletes? Mindless trolls?

Why is every post you make attempting to turn this into a race war? Does your white guilt keep you up all night? If it was white players kneeling and being disrespectful, we would still be pissed about it. Grow up.

 

[neeagle]

Exploiting?

Yes.

Exploiting? So, you want ur black athletes to just be athletes? Mindless trolls?

No.

 

[EagleOwens]

Feel like I’ve enter Bizarro-Land with that analogy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Please never leave this board...Like...Never

 

[neeagle]

I think the distinction between drawing attention to yourself and being humble makes some sense. But I think from the perspective of the players protesting, they are not simply drawing attention to themselves. In fact, with Kapernick as an example, they are potentially risking their financial future by kneeling. That is not a minor risk to take considering the average length of an NFL career. I think most of the protesting players would say that they are attempting to direct the public's attention to an issue -- not to themselves -- at great personal risk.

And as far as what they are doing having no effect, I think that is pretty debatable. The complaint that you hear from people who are in the Black Lives Matter movement or others who questions police procedures is that the issue with police harassment only comes to light when an incident becomes notorious and makes the national news, then it fades away and some police, in their view, continue to act improperly without a spotlight on them. But the players actions -- and the public's response -- have kept their message in the news and with the public's attention for years at this point. There have been no concrete solutions -- and I don't know what those would be -- but one solution in their view is to simply raise and sustain the profile of the issue.

And I agree that lots of people on the left are overly critical of Trump and desperate and bitter because they lost the election (and they did the same thing to George W. Bush -- especially after the 2000 election). But the response of the left does not appear all that different from the desperate, bitter partisans on the right who refused to accept that they lost two elections to Obama. I think this current spiral of disrespect for the presidency began in 2000 with the Democrats, but it was exacerbated by the Republicans after Obama won and has continued from there. I also don't think that Trump is doing anyone any favors now, because his tweets and unpresidential actions (criticizing Gold Star families, picking petty fights, etc.) have made it easy for the Democrats to not respect the office of president.

Kapernick’s actions were a risk because it falls under the “wrong way to fight” I mentioned above. The risk ended up catching him but not just because he was the most infamous spokesman of the issue, but also because he was an awful quarterback. There are simply a lot better ways to draw attention to your cause. Maybe he intended to draw attention to the oppressed, but as we see, it was the wrong methodology and all it did was draw attention to him in a terrible way.

You have a point about the way the conservatives ranted about obama, but at least for the most part, they could point out where Obama hurt us and why they didn’t like them. Many who don’t like trump can’t tell you why or justify any grief they have with him. It’s just a constant barrage of hatred and criticism with nothing behind it.

 

[wer4usm]

Hmmm...showing respect for God....not showing respect for America. I'd love to have this conversation with you to determine how Tebow is wrong and the players are right. Players point upward all the time and that was never an issue. It's because some folks don't agree with Tebow's beliefs that they found that to be an issue. And this is a nation under God...the same God Tebow was respecting. The same nation that others were kneeling in disrespect. Trying to see the logic.

WER

Try this hypothetical, two groups marching around the county courthouse. One has posters that say "Praise Jesus, We Love God." The others have signs that say "The U.S. Military Is Corrupt. Down with the Pentagon." Both are expressing opinions using their freedom of expression. We may think that the first opinion is great and the second is disrespectful and stupid. But we don't say that the first is appropriate to march around the courthouse, but the second is inappropriate for the courthouse and that is the wrong time and place. The 1st Amendment case law on this is very clear -- and Scalia's decision in the flag burning case is one of the best examples.

Here, we are not talking about the 1st Amendment - because we are not talking about the government acting to censor expression. Instead, we are talking about the general propriety of expressing opinions at work. My point is simply that it is hypocritical to say that "athletes should not abuse their platform" only when they are taking positions with which you disagree. If all our examples were opinions with which you agree, then we would never have this discussion.

No what is hypocritical is how the NFL handled the two situations. Tebow was asked to stop but the anthem protest was allowed as free speech by the NFL.

 

[wer4usm]

If you can't see that "protesting" is expressing an opinion, then you are correct: there is no point in discussing this, because you are missing some pretty basic concepts.

In fact, no less than Justice Scalia (who I assume you would not call a snowflake) found that burning the American flag -- a much more disrespectful protest than kneeling during the national anthem -- was expressing an opinion. "Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn’t just mean written words or oral words. … Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea."

Except that most can't burn flags at their place of employment without some consequences. Nobody is saying they can't protest in any manner they choose. But they take an opportunity to express themselves on national TV to an audience which is available through their employment. If you own a retail business and some employees felt that it right to protest their social convictions during the busy holiday season, would you accept that "expressing an opinion" and say it's ok? Or would you terminate them for disrupting and causing damage to your business?

 

[Duke Eagle]

No what is hypocritical is how the NFL handled the two situations. Tebow was asked to stop but the anthem protest was allowed as free speech by the NFL.

Are you saying that the current kneelers have not been asked to stop? I'll admit that I don't recall all the facts, but I don't believe that Tebow was ever fined or penalized -- it was just discussed in the press. In other words, Tebow was discussed in the press and faced no real punishment from the NFL -- the same as the current kneelers (except for Kap who has lost his job and while not an elite QB is certainly worthy and would otherwise have at least been signed as a back-up by some team).

I agree that treating the two situations disparately would by hypocritcal -- that is my entire point. I am not sure that the NFL has done that. I think that the liberals who criticized Tebow and praise the current kneelers (and the conservatives who praised Tebow and criticize the current kneelers) are hypocritical.

 

[Duke Eagle]

Except that most can't burn flags at their place of employment without some consequences. Nobody is saying they can't protest in any manner they choose. But they take an opportunity to express themselves on national TV to an audience which is available through their employment. If you own a retail business and some employees felt that it right to protest their social convictions during the busy holiday season, would you accept that "expressing an opinion" and say it's ok? Or would you terminate them for disrupting and causing damage to your business?

I agree. There are different levels of disruption created by expressing opinions in different ways. And the different level of disruption may warrant a different response.

Which is more disruptive: (A) kneeling for a few seconds in the endzone after scoring a TD drawing further attention to yourself when literally the entire stadium was already looking at you; (B) kneeling during the anthem silently on the sideline before the game starts when the audience is supposed to be facing the flag or the music?

I don't think there is a meaningful difference in the level of disruption caused by the two expressions of opinion.

 

[wer4usm]

I agree. There are different levels of disruption created by expressing opinions in different ways. And the different level of disruption may warrant a different response.

Which is more disruptive: (A) kneeling for a few seconds in the endzone after scoring a TD drawing further attention to yourself when literally the entire stadium was already looking at you; (B) kneeling during the anthem silently on the sideline before the game starts when the audience is supposed to be facing the flag or the music?

I don't think there is a meaningful difference in the level of disruption caused by the two expressions of opinion.

The disruption on Tebow was more a liberal media voicing concern. Kap caused the paying customers and viewers of the disruption a concern. I don't know if you follow social media but more has been about the players disruption than anything Tebow could mount. Also, the fans were not talking of boycotting the business due to Tebow but they have in the case of the players. Don't think the owners haven't paid attention. But in this snowflake, liberal world than devalues Christian beliefs it is ok to shame Tebow but to shame the players gets you anything from a racist callout to an association with siding with hate. Either way there is no room in a business environment which makes money from consumers on both sides of the aisle to allow this disruption.

 

[Duke Eagle]

The disruption on Tebow was more a liberal media voicing concern. Kap caused the paying customers and viewers of the disruption a concern. I don't know if you follow social media but more has been about the players disruption than anything Tebow could mount. Also, the fans were not talking of boycotting the business due to Tebow but they have in the case of the players. Don't think the owners haven't paid attention. But in this snowflake, liberal world than devalues Christian beliefs it is ok to shame Tebow but to shame the players gets you anything from a racist callout to an association with siding with hate. Either way there is no room in a business environment which makes money from consumers on both sides of the aisle to allow this disruption.

I guess I see them as both the results of the media. Kap didn't become an issue until the media made it into one. The Kap one got more traction -- in the sense that it appears to have actually impacted the bottom line for the NFL where I don't think the Tebow saga did.

I don't agree with the players, but I think the constant focus on it has done more to prolong the issue than make it stop.

 

[neeagle]

Are you saying that the current kneelers have not been asked to stop? I'll admit that I don't recall all the facts, but I don't believe that Tebow was ever fined or penalized -- it was just discussed in the press. In other words, Tebow was discussed in the press and faced no real punishment from the NFL -- the same as the current kneelers (except for Kap who has lost his job and while not an elite QB is certainly worthy and would otherwise have at least been signed as a back-up by some team).

I agree that treating the two situations disparately would by hypocritcal -- that is my entire point. I am not sure that the NFL has done that. I think that the liberals who criticized Tebow and praise the current kneelers (and the conservatives who praised Tebow and criticize the current kneelers) are hypocritical.

If he's not saying it, I will. Many teams have supported the kneelers reluctantly and the NFL, while not necessarily condoning their actions, have not prevented it either, and are suffering the consequences of allowing disruptive behavior for their employees on the clock.

Tebow was asked to stop and did face consequences, just not publicized because he showed humility and complied with their requests.

It's arguable if Kap would have been signed had all this extra curricular had not happened. He had no chance of regaining the job in San Fran and no other teams wanted him the years before despite being offered for trade. Maybe a dire need team like Houston would have taken him but again, arguable. A lot of his inability to sign is more so to do with his quality as a QB than a lobbyist.