boycott the NFL

[Town Heretic]

I'll meet you halfway on some of this but conversely, I wouldn't call King David a study on character

It depends on when you're looking. Before Goliath? That's something. On a rooftop? That's another.

, nor do I think there is anything particularly brave about not standing for the anthem.

It takes personal courage to risk public condemnation and to jeopardize your career for a principal you believe in. Bravery is probably better left on the battlefield where the risk is physical, though you could argue he opened himself up for that as well.

The kid doesn't seem to think that far in advance, honestly.

He didn't wilt or retreat from the backlash. And he hasn't tried to "reform" the impression to find a team. He knew. He's not stupid.

That said, an offense is understood by all of us.

Then no offense happened here, since it wasn't the case that everyone shared that response.

I don't know of any law that says "thou shalt not call thine neighbor a [blank] (including Redskin)."

I've never suggested there was. There doesn't even seem to be much of a convention. Or, rather, it isn't widely shared. I don't call a people something steeped in the offensive, unless they want me to, like Nazis.

There is no kneeling before the flag w/o offense.

There's no kneeling without offending someone, but that's (again and again) in the head of the offended, and not by rational necessity a part of the person kneeling.

If the issue he knelt about was abortion I wonder what the response would have been. Different in many corners, I suspect.

Have to disagree. When service men and women who have seen sacrifices and made sacrifices, bring a symbol into an arena for the sole purpose of uniting and honoring those who have given to this country, many sacrificially above and beyond, no. It is NOT the right place or the right time.

No one group owns that flag. It's not a memorial. It's a symbol of our Republic, in principle and aspiration.

"You sat when men and women who DIDN'T die (yet!) brought in colors???? YOU UNGRATEFUL so-and-so!" Well, that is what was said by POTUS. The NFL? Reacted. Poorly. There is no honor in this. Can't be.

The president called Colin (if not by name) a phrase that shouldn't have proceeded from the mouth of the president, or anyone who values the rights our nation was founded in defense of. The president is a public servant, not a king. Else, supra.

I'd bet you were outraged by Trump's callous call more than the act of sitting during the color presentation. One offense MAY be more appropriate than the other.

Never try your hand in Vegas.

You were one of the 15%?

Setting aside the fact that she completely made up the number in pursuit of an insult to anyone who differed with her...no, let's not.

Most saw this is 'poor' role-modelling.

How would most of Sodom have defined virtue? Or, popularity isn't how much of anything worth anything is decided. Once it was popular to own people. Now some people are more upset about how someone brought an injustice to their attention than the injustice. What a world.

Oddly, you are against the South taking up a cause

Too ambiguous. I'm against Southerners championing an effort to honor a slave state that nearly destroyed our nation. Sure. I think it's a bad idea on any number of rational levels and I've set out why.

but then for a young man doing so, and doing it the wrong way.

This really isn't much of a parallel, the attempt to cobble it that peters out notwithstanding. I've never opposed an idiot's right to speak up for that former slave state. I oppose the idea. People here, you included, are focusing on the young man, and unfairly in any number of ways I've noted, not the idea.

What I've largely objected to are popular attempts to demonize him. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't like mobs much, especially at that work, even when I understand and share some of their feeling. And I think it's important to recognize the admirable in someone, even if I don't agree with them, where the matter is principal and the point in service to the good. Or as some mothers might say, his heart is in the right place, even if I don't agree with how he acted upon the impulse. I've set out the admirable and attempted to get some of you to reconsider the easy virtue in outrage that misses that point.

A wrong thing, and a wrong way of doing something 'perhaps right' aren't very far apart.

I think the only people who would use wrong that way are working a maze backwards.

Justice is served by neither.

Truth is largely served by honesty in appraisal. That will frequently offend. Some people seem to go out of their way to offend in its service. Zeal probably. Youth sometimes. And sometimes neither.

We NEED to show our appreciations for bravery (feigned or real), more reservedly

Again, I think bravery is better reserved for physical jeopardy. But it takes courage to stand up under this sort of derision and condemnation, to forfeit the thing you trained your life to be, and to continue in the face of that loss and barrage of character assassination. If you can't see that I can't help you.

You tend to like the Barabbas' of the world, at least, it seems to me.

That's only because you have too low an opinion of me or too high an opinion of yourself. I don't share your suspicion. I just think you're mistaken and too hard on the young man. It's fine to be the hero of your narrative (to believe yourself to be on the right side of it) until you find yourself insisting that the other fellow has to be the villain. He doesn't. Even if and sometimes especially when he's wrong, a little or a lot...or when we are.

 

[patrick jane]

That was dishonest, but predictable.


And that was unoriginal. So an extremist twofer then.

Town, most of your stances are noble, ethical, proper, just and well thought out. I think you have some grand ideals for the good of America, BUT unfortunately, most of the people you side with don't think like you. Free speech is under attack, rights are being threatened and the MSM, entertainment and some major sports are on the bandwagon. They only want to tear our President down and silence half the country. It's hard for me to believe that you can't see through the rhetoric.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town, most of your stances are noble, ethical, proper, just and well thought out. I think you have some grand ideals for the good of America,

PJ, if you honestly believe you have anyone who differs with you and whom you believe comes by that difference with the application of ethical and intellectual integrity then at the very least and for the sake of the causes you champion, especially where you differ, you have to do the same. That doesn't mean you have to be gentle, it doesn't mean you have to be genial, but it does mean you have to conduct yourself ethically in difference or own when you don't. Otherwise you will at best appear as a house divided against himself.

BUT unfortunately, most of the people you side with don't think like you.

I don't know about that, PJ. I think that most people who oppose abortion are pretty decent people. I side with them. People who want a quality education and life strike me as bedrock Americans. I stand with them. People who don't believe in memorials to a slave state or honoring those who fought for its continuance at the expense of the Union seem like solid folks to me, and I'm with them. And people who speak a principled difference, even where that difference stands between us are worth standing with on the right, and I do.

Or, I don't believe what you fear is true is true PJ, but I believe I understand why you think that it is... I suspect you have a way of thinking about the opposition in line with the combative rhetoric of our day and it's a thing that I interfere with, at least in moments like this, and so you grant an exception that allows me to fit into that belief. One of my grandfathers was Faulkner's racist. He hated the race but loved the individuals, finding exception before him to the rule that wasn't illustrated in his close acquaintances but that his otherwise facile mind insisted must be true.

I think that most people want the same things, to live peacefully and in safety, to be respected and loved, to follow their beliefs and let the other fellow follow his own. I believe that most people are more alike than they will ever be different. Or as Maya Angelou put it:

Human Family

I note the obvious differences
in the human family.
Some of us are serious,
some thrive on comedy.

Some declare their lives are lived
as true profundity,
and others claim they really live
the real reality.

The variety of our skin tones
can confuse, bemuse, delight,
brown and pink and beige and purple,
tan and blue and white.

I've sailed upon the seven seas
and stopped in every land.
I've seen the wonders of the world,
not yet one common man.

I know ten thousand women
called Jane and Mary Jane,
but I've not seen any two
who really were the same.

Mirror twins are different
although their features jibe,
and lovers think quite different thoughts
while lying side by side.

We love and lose in China,
we weep on England's moors,
and laugh and moan in Guinea,
and thrive on Spanish shores.

We seek success in Finland,
are born and die in Maine.
In minor ways we differ,
in major we're the same.

I note the obvious differences
between each sort and type,
but we are more alike, my friends
than we are unalike.

We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.

We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.

Free speech is under attack

From many sides. Many sides... But if you're willing to be among the people trying to shout down the kneelers or exact a price that makes it less likely the next guy will consider it, then how different are you from the people at Berkeley trying to shout down some right winger invited to speak there? How is the aim different? How is speech served?

I wish people would show up and protest civilly, voice their opposition and let their opposition speak, let every voice that can be heard be heard. I don't always feel that way, but I try to think that way. The better ideas, the right, will always find the march of history on its side. Defeats of the good are always and only a temporary human condition.

rights are being threatened and the MSM, entertainment and some major sports are on the bandwagon.

Seems like you're only considering half the glass on this one, PJ.

They only want to tear our President down and silence half the country.

I think a lot of people want this president silent and out of office. Many of them within his own party. Some want him reformed, either to their image or a better one than he presents.

It's hard for me to believe that you can't see through the rhetoric.

It was hard for my grandfather to believe a black man was his equal.

 

[Nihilo]

...I wouldn't call King David a study on character...

It depends on when you're looking. Before Goliath? That's something. On a rooftop? That's another.

'Pretty good quote. :thumb:

 

[Lon]

That's only because you have too low an opinion of me or too high an opinion of yourself. I don't share your suspicion. I just think you're mistaken and too hard on the young man. It's fine to be the hero of your narrative (to believe yourself to be on the right side of it) until you find yourself insisting that the other fellow has to be the villain. He doesn't. Even if and sometimes especially when he's wrong, a little or a lot...or when we are.

:nono: Disagree. It has nothing to do with my opinion of myself. Try again. You have to listen at least a little bit, not just tack on something from your own perspective. In this case, I see no warrant for the comment. The comparison was Barabbas and Kaepernick. Think more that we were brought up very differently concerning the flag. If you can't empathize on that point, then we are left to go separate ways, as they must. Such are very steeped.

 

[Lon]

'Pretty good quote. :thumb:

I liked it too. I should have said "role-model" somewhere in there (had prior). As far as the quote, agree.

 

[Town Heretic]

Disagree. It has nothing to do with my opinion of myself. Try again.

Well, that wasn't the only choice, but here's the quote again...actually, it was the worse in a series of mistakes you made late in our conversation without editing out. Here they are in order:

I'd bet you were outraged by Trump's callous call more than the act of sitting during the color presentation. One offense MAY be more appropriate than the other.

The thing to do there would be to ask me, if you really don't know. Assuming is self-serving, unless you believe being more upset by Trump would be the superior position. Do you?

If you'd asked I'd have said I wasn't outraged by either and gone from there.

You were one of the 15%?

There you accidentally dipped your toe in insult, which probably influenced my mindset by the end, given that figure came with an assertion and assumption by Tam that was insulting and fabricated.

The last actual polling I saw was four days ago. Sixty-one percent of the public doesn't agree with the president that NFL players should be fired for protesting, according to a CNBC poll (link). Twenty-seven percent say they should. A CNN poll on the right thing/wrong approach, from Sept. 30th, found 49% in the against column and 43% supportive of the players position (link). Broken down by race it's more uneven, with 59% of whites believing it was the wrong thing to do and 82% of blacks supportive. By party? Eighty-seven percent of Republicans say it's wrong and seventy-two percent of Democrats say it's right. I think it's more interesting that such a large section of either party and both races differ within their subset, that over 40% of whites don't agree that it's wrong and that nearly 20% of blacks don't side with the players.

I suspect that's a good thing all around. It shows that we aren't as monolithic as partitioned groups as some might suspect.

You have to listen at least a little bit, not just tack on something from your own perspective.

Well I have listened and responded to about every point you've made. The perspective ending on that is just peculiar to me, given how hard I'm having to work to get you to see another one and your insistence on approaching it from the worst possible reading. More so given I'd noted that the protest didn't set well with me, that seeing him the way I do now took a step outside of my inclination and perspective.

In this case, I see no warrant for the comment.

Which amazes me.

The comparison was Barabbas and Kaepernick.

If you meant that then you made a mistake in your presentation. Here it is again:

We NEED to show our appreciations for bravery (feigned or real), more reservedly: Both the right cause AND the right action. Barabbas was 'justly' fighting a war against Roman rule. The Lord Jesus Christ didn't lift a hand toward His oppressors. You tend to like the Barabbas' of the world, at least, it seems to me.

Colin is nowhere to be found unless you mean to compare Colin to Barabas. It still wouldn't clear my objection and the clear implication that you side with Jesus and I with Barabas. And that's self-serving and wrong headed unless, again, you believe that it's better to side with Barabas.

It's also wrong as assumptions go and off as an analogy, but that's another conversation. I wasn't angry with you, but I was disappointed by the tilt there at the end.

 

[jgarden]

Town, most of your stances are noble, ethical, proper, just and well thought out. I think you have some grand ideals for the good of America, BUT unfortunately, most of the people you side with don't think like you. Free speech is under attack, rights are being threatened and the MSM, entertainment and some major sports are on the bandwagon. They only want to tear our President down and silence half the country. It's hard for me to believe that you can't see through the rhetoric.

There is nothing noble and ethical about this President, where he wants to take the country or the motley crew of "contemptibles" that support him!

 

[Lon]

Well, that wasn't the only choice, but here's the quote again...actually, it was the worse in a series of mistakes you made late in our conversation without editing out. Here they are in order:


The thing to do there would be to ask me, if you really don't know. Assuming is self-serving, unless you believe being more upset by Trump would be the superior position. Do you?

I'm aware you don't like him. Other than that? A guess. An important one? Not to my thinking. I was comparing things that were troublesome for the purpose of sharing both sides. As I said, I suspect that the nation may well be divided by the impression of the National Anthem and colors in the first place. For it, Trump's words, on the face of it seem callous and brutal, especially to the NFL. For those who saw 'sitting while soldiers present the flag' that was the outrage.

If you'd asked I'd have said I wasn't outraged by either and gone from there.

Could have. It wasn't really what I was after. I was more trying to see the "why's" of our respective corners (not necessarily that you were on the other side - you've already said you aren't for sitting during the anthem, just admiring another who did).

There you accidentally dipped your toe in insult, which probably influenced my mindset by the end, given that figure came with an assertion and assumption by Tam that was insulting and fabricated.

I'll take the reprimand, and with apology. No offense was intended, was just musing rather than actual 'guessing.' I was trying to compare points.

The last actual polling I saw was four days ago. Sixty-one percent of the public doesn't agree with the president that NFL players should be fired for protesting, according to a CNBC poll (link). Twenty-seven percent say they should. A CNN poll on the right thing/wrong approach, from Sept. 30th, found 49% in the against column and 43% supportive of the players position (link). Broken down by race it's more uneven, with 59% of whites believing it was the wrong thing to do and 82% of blacks supportive. By party? Eighty-seven percent of Republicans say it's wrong and seventy-two percent of Democrats say it's right. I think it's more interesting that such a large section of either party and both races differ within their subset, that over 40% of whites don't agree that it's wrong and that nearly 20% of blacks don't side with the players.

It is interesting. The percentage flux of blacks in the military is between 10% (2009), and almost 20% (2013). Such might reflect that 20% stat. Other factors, I'd expect, would be other public services. My brother, a fireman, football coach, teacher, has strong opinion regarding the flag and respect.

Well I have listened and responded to about every point you've made. The perspective ending on that is just peculiar to me, given how hard I'm having to work to get you to see another one and your insistence on approaching it from the worst possible reading. More so given I'd noted that the protest didn't set well with me, that seeing him the way I do now took a step outside of my inclination and perspective.

His socks and T-shirt threw me long before I'd come to any kind of other summation about him. His 'party' mindset also set me as someone I'm not really sharing any kinship with. After that, I wondered even about his ethnicity. Finally, because I'd always been around a more than healthy dose of 'respect and demands' of the flag, "if" there was any good to 'black lives matter,' it was well overshadowed at that point.

Which amazes me.

Barabbas wasn't a bad guy. He just was an insurrectionist. He doesn't make Malcom X look like a Sunday School teacher, he was a zealot for Judaism politically. To me, I was comparing, but in it is not back-handed compliment. For the most part, it is just that you choose the anti-hero. Me? I'm a John Wayne sort-of guy. The comparison then was you as a King David fan, me as a Samuel fan. More observation than anything. Sometimes, I admit, I don't know when I'm offending and more often than not, I've done so through absolutely no intention. I'm always looking for meaningful metaphors and similes. Sometimes, instead of illustrating something, they raise offense. As above, I apologize for offense.

If you meant that then you made a mistake in your presentation. Here it is again:



Colin is nowhere to be found unless you mean to compare Colin to Barabas. It still wouldn't clear my objection and the clear implication that you side with Jesus and I with Barabas. And that's self-serving and wrong headed unless, again, you believe that it's better to side with Barabas.

It's also wrong as assumptions go and off as an analogy, but that's another conversation. I wasn't angry with you, but I was disappointed by the tilt there at the end.

No, only that Jesus is our best example, hands down. I do see your point regarding Jesus, but it was more of the comparison for both of us. That should have been the comparison (both in need AND better off by the comparison). We may pick and choose our examples after Him. Me? I think Billy Graham is someone I stick up for with no holds. I tend to lift up well-known believers. It'd be fair to say I hold Jim Zorn, Steve Largent, and Tim Tebow, in esteem. Kaepernick isn't my go-to for either a stellar cause (given his socks and shirt choices), or for his gleaning role-model. Again, it was a comment about your gravitation toward anti-heroes, including Malcom X, etc. Even Martin Luther King's life-example, for me, was less than stellar. There have been black members of our society that I'd MUCH rather have streets named after. There are other black men that I admire much more because of their walk with their Savior and role-modelling. Now, before going to far this direction, all I'm trying to do is not bring up these (I 'think' you have strong opinions about them), but simply trying to reveal where the comment came from. It IS a difference. It is also a frustration BUT it was never my intention to disparage you over these. It was a passing observation from our times of discussion. They are all less then stellar. That was the intention of the comment. You may very well bust John Wayne to pieces (he was no saint). Rather I'm talking about his roles but even so, those are also characters that aren't stellar BUT they tend to be the heroes of society. I tend to root for the man in white. Flaw or other.... -Lon

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm aware you don't like him. Other than that? A guess.

No need to guess when I'm metaphorically standing right in front of you. I don't approve of him. Like? I don't put any real stock in that from this sort of distance, if that makes sense to you.

An important one? Not to my thinking. I was comparing things that were troublesome for the purpose of sharing both sides. As I said, I suspect that the nation may well be divided by the impression of the National Anthem and colors in the first place. For it, Trump's words, on the face of it seem callous and brutal, especially to the NFL. For those who saw 'sitting while soldiers present the flag' that was the outrage.

I can understand it, but I don't have that same visceral response. I find Trump's words and the kneeling itself inappropriate and I'd have handled both differently, but understanding the impetus I'm not outraged by them.

Could have. It wasn't really what I was after. I was more trying to see the "why's" of our respective corners (not necessarily that you were on the other side - you've already said you aren't for sitting during the anthem, just admiring another who did).

See, you're being a little careless with your language at the end. I admire the act of standing on principle. I don't know him. I'm not admiring him. I know a few things about him that I find disappointing and a few things that I find admirable.

I'll take the reprimand, and with apology. No offense was intended, was just musing rather than actual 'guessing.' I was trying to compare points.

No apology needed. I wasn't upset with you, only taking a strong exception...or having a cumulative grumble. :chuckle:

It is interesting. The percentage flux of blacks in the military is between 10% (2009), and almost 20% (2013). Such might reflect that 20% stat. Other factors, I'd expect, would be other public services. My brother, a fireman, football coach, teacher, has strong opinion regarding the flag and respect.

I wouldn't be surprised if more or most of that percentage with blacks was found in those serving or who had served. I'd expect more soldiers than not, white or black, to be disproportionately in the opposing the protest methodology column. When you think of how they begin and end a day and how insinuated those symbols are in their working lives, it makes complete sense.

His socks and T-shirt threw me long before I'd come to any kind of other summation about him.

I think a first impression and one from a distance can frequently be a hard thing to overcome. Especially when it is connected to a larger complaint.

For the most part, it is just that you choose the anti-hero.

I get that you see it that way, but it isn't how I'm approaching it.

Me? I'm a John Wayne sort-of guy.

So am I. To the point where I'd be surprised if there was a film of his I haven't seen post Stagecoach. My wife's family bought a book on him as a Christmas present for me. The Searchers remains my favorite western, The Quiet Man my favorite of his films. Red River, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, I could talk about Wayne until your ears fell off. My favorite as a kid and still one of them today.

The comparison then was you as a King David fan, me as a Samuel fan.

Okay, I'd take David between them, though mostly because of the shepherd.

More observation than anything. Sometimes, I admit, I don't know when I'm offending and more often than not, I've done so through absolutely no intention. I'm always looking for meaningful metaphors and similes. Sometimes, instead of illustrating something, they raise offense. As above, I apologize for offense.

And again, no need to. I really don't get upset in difference. I bristled because you were walking through another's insult and tracking it into our discussion, as much as anything. Nothing to worry about and no real offense taken.

No, only that Jesus is our best example, hands down. I do see your point regarding Jesus, but it was more of the comparison for both of us. That should have been the comparison (both in need AND better off by the comparison). We may pick and choose our examples after Him. Me? I think Billy Graham is someone I stick up for with no holds.

I tend to go local. Brother Chris. A Methodist minister who was a wonderful fellow and a great ambassador of Christ. So much so that when his body began to break down I told one of his sons it was like watching a vessel filled with light beginning to crack. Instead of being progressively useless, it let out more and more light to see by. I had him and his lovely wife singing happy birthday on my answering machine until my son inadvertently erased it. Lived well into his 90s.

Again, it was a comment about your gravitation toward anti-heroes, including Malcom X, etc.

I don't tend to so much esteem men I don't know personally as find things about them admirable. I will defend anyone against a charge that seems short of the mark to me, while understanding what we all are and what that ultimately means. I don't believe that the Malcom I speak of, the murdered man, was an anti-hero. I think he'd undergone a significant realization and reformation that would have galvanized and increased his importance as a voice in the movement of social justice for his people. I think his murder at the hands of the Nation of Islam was potentially a greater loss than King's.

Even Martin Luther King's life-example, for me, was less than stellar.

I can only think of one whose life wasn't.

There have been black members of our society that I'd MUCH rather have streets named after

King led a peaceful revolution for the right and dignity of his people. And he modeled that greater love we're taught by scripture in giving his life up in the cause. We know from his speeches and his private conversations that he understood the likelihood of his end. I think that warrants the tribute he's been given. His personal frailties don't detract from what he did...any more than Jefferson's, or Lincoln's.

There are other black men that I admire much more because of their walk with their Savior and role-modelling.

Well, if he was being honored as a pastor or compared as a Christian example, there might be cleaner rags to be had, without question. But rags they remain on any man and it's a confusing contest, to my mind.

You may very well bust John Wayne to pieces (he was no saint).

I think it's the same sort of thing. If you're looking for cleaner rags, he'll disappoint. Three failed marriages, a 20 year affair with Dietrich and a guy who avoided the draft in WWII while his friends Fonda and Stewart served. Disappointments to be had, but he was also a great actor, a troubled man, whose father died in failure and whose mother was a cold, horrible person. A man who quietly read and quoted Shakespeare and loved Dickens, and who drank and fought like a Hun. Like most people, he had the wonderful and the miserable in him. So he could have a mean and selfish streak and be widely known for an uncommon generosity.

Rather I'm talking about his roles but even so, those are also characters that aren't stellar BUT they tend to be the heroes of society. I tend to root for the man in white. Flaw or other.... -Lon

The thing I liked about his best characters is a lot of what I'm talking about here. His characters are frequently anything but heroes, especially early, but they have principle and a willingness to stand against anything and anyone who challenges it. True in Stagecoach, Red River, Valance, The Searchers, and the Quiet man, again, to name a few.

 

[Lon]

No need to guess when I'm metaphorically standing right in front of you. I don't approve of him. Like? I don't put any real stock in that from this sort of distance, if that makes sense to you.

Similar. I don't know Kaepernick. At the same time, I greatly dislike a protest during presentation of the colors (more than evident). It'd have to be something uncommonly exceptional (redundant) by an exceptional character to get me on board, and still with misgiving and reserve/frustration.

I admire the act of standing on principle. I don't know him. I'm not admiring him. I know a few things about him that I find disappointing and a few things that I find admirable.

Well. I don't. But I think that was clear and more-less what this discussion is about. For me, it rings more "spoiled child (only caring about own interests)" "disrespectful" "unacceptable behavior" "emoting, not problem solving" and even "bullying" which I detest in any form BUT believe there are better avenues. To me, it seems our discussion is along the lines of a kid reacting to a bully. We both agree that bully needs to be stopped, but the problem-kid in school isn't the best choice and didn't choose the best protest. In general, my reservation is full, yours partial. I'd put them both in time-outs and/or suspension. You might choose (would have to ask, just again ruminating with no intent beyond) to just oust the bully. I think there is something said for both but I prefer such only in the event of the kid that doesn't get into trouble. If he sticks up for a kid being bullied, I'm much more sympathetic. The other kid, 'perhaps' meaning well (in doubt), is a school problem and just upped the game

 

[Town Heretic]

Similar. I don't know Kaepernick... For me, it rings more "spoiled child (only caring about own interests)

You think many rich athletes are getting shot by police? Seems to me that he's mostly trying to help a lot of people not named Kaepernick.

"disrespectful"

Not inherently, no.

"unacceptable behavior"

Not in this country, no.

"emoting, not problem solving"

Protesting, not remaining silent.

and even "bullying"

Bullying by kneeling. lain: You're going to have to put some legs on that one.

To me, it seems our discussion is along the lines of a kid reacting to a bully. We both agree that bully needs to be stopped, but the problem-kid in school isn't the best choice and didn't choose the best protest.

Not how I'd do it, but I can understand how someone might see that differently.

In general, my reservation is full, yours partial. I'd put them both in time-outs and/or suspension.

My reservation is for me and how I'd do it. Him and how he chose to? Again, nothing more American than standing on principle at cost.

You might choose (would have to ask, just again ruminating with no intent beyond) to just oust the bully. I think there is something said for both but I prefer such only in the event of the kid that doesn't get into trouble. If he sticks up for a kid being bullied, I'm much more sympathetic.

He's standing up for a whole segment of people being bullied. He's just doing it in a way that offends some people.

The other kid, 'perhaps' meaning well (in doubt)

Hard to make a case for any other motivation.

 

[intojoy]

It depends on when you're looking. Before Goliath? That's something. On a rooftop? That's another.


It takes personal courage to risk public condemnation and to jeopardize your career for a principal you believe in. Bravery is probably better left on the battlefield where the risk is physical, though you could argue he opened himself up for that as well.


He didn't wilt or retreat from the backlash. And he hasn't tried to "reform" the impression to find a team. He knew. He's not stupid.


Then no offense happened here, since it wasn't the case that everyone shared that response.


I've never suggested there was. There doesn't even seem to be much of a convention. Or, rather, it isn't widely shared. I don't call a people something steeped in the offensive, unless they want me to, like Nazis.


There's no kneeling without offending someone, but that's (again and again) in the head of the offended, and not by rational necessity a part of the person kneeling.

If the issue he knelt about was abortion I wonder what the response would have been. Different in many corners, I suspect.


No one group owns that flag. It's not a memorial. It's a symbol of our Republic, in principle and aspiration.


The president called Colin (if not by name) a phrase that shouldn't have proceeded from the mouth of the president, or anyone who values the rights our nation was founded in defense of. The president is a public servant, not a king. Else, supra.


Never try your hand in Vegas.


Setting aside the fact that she completely made up the number in pursuit of an insult to anyone who differed with her...no, let's not.


How would most of Sodom have defined virtue? Or, popularity isn't how much of anything worth anything is decided. Once it was popular to own people. Now some people are more upset about how someone brought an injustice to their attention than the injustice. What a world.


Too ambiguous. I'm against Southerners championing an effort to honor a slave state that nearly destroyed our nation. Sure. I think it's a bad idea on any number of rational levels and I've set out why.


This really isn't much of a parallel, the attempt to cobble it that peters out notwithstanding. I've never opposed an idiot's right to speak up for that former slave state. I oppose the idea. People here, you included, are focusing on the young man, and unfairly in any number of ways I've noted, not the idea.

What I've largely objected to are popular attempts to demonize him. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't like mobs much, especially at that work, even when I understand and share some of their feeling. And I think it's important to recognize the admirable in someone, even if I don't agree with them, where the matter is principal and the point in service to the good. Or as some mothers might say, his heart is in the right place, even if I don't agree with how he acted upon the impulse. I've set out the admirable and attempted to get some of you to reconsider the easy virtue in outrage that misses that point.


I think the only people who would use wrong that way are working a maze backwards.


Truth is largely served by honesty in appraisal. That will frequently offend. Some people seem to go out of their way to offend in its service. Zeal probably. Youth sometimes. And sometimes neither.


Again, I think bravery is better reserved for physical jeopardy. But it takes courage to stand up under this sort of derision and condemnation, to forfeit the thing you trained your life to be, and to continue in the face of that loss and barrage of character assassination. If you can't see that I can't help you.


That's only because you have too low an opinion of me or too high an opinion of yourself. I don't share your suspicion. I just think you're mistaken and too hard on the young man. It's fine to be the hero of your narrative (to believe yourself to be on the right side of it) until you find yourself insisting that the other fellow has to be the villain. He doesn't. Even if and sometimes especially when he's wrong, a little or a lot...or when we are.

Personal courage from who's perspective? Hahahaha. Have you looked into the eyes of Kapernik? The man is a simpleton and a fornicator. You've got your moral heroism twisted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Personal courage from who's perspective?

Someone who wasn't invested in missing it. Or not as invested as many I'm reading around here. Though my initial response to his act wasn't supportive or appreciative, and while I still believe there are better methodologies in terms of protest, it takes courage to stand on principle when you understand it will cost you, when it invites a firestorm of negative appraisal and even character assassination. When it makes you a more particular target for bigots of various stripes, along with many who will take an equally principled objection.

Hahahaha. Have you looked into the eyes of Kapernik?

lain: What, you're an eye reader?

The man is a simpleton

He made a 38 on his Wunderlick. That's exceptionally intelligent.

and a fornicator.

If true that would put him in the mean, as most American males have sex outside of marriage.

You've got your moral heroism twisted.

I didn't call him a hero. I didn't even agree with his choice. But I don't have to in order to understand and to respect what he did (make a principled stand).

 

[Town Heretic]

From Yahoo News

NFL boycotters are bringing the league to its knees, as shown by the 26 percent increase in ratings for “Thursday Night Football” from Week 5 last season. Hey, wait …

\

And on Fox

Fox’s NFL coverage netted a 12.6 rating and 26 share, a 14% increase over its Week 4 coverage a year ago. The network broadcast one game nationally on Sunday and the ratings were about 20% better than CBS’ singleheader coverage in Week 4 of 2016.

Excluding Week 1, where both viewership and the ability to gather ratings were impacted by Hurricane Irma, Fox reported its ratings had increased 1% over a year ago.

 

[patrick jane]

From Yahoo News

\

And on Fox

To it's knees

 

[glorydaz]

To it's knees

Guess people want to see who they will need to be boycotting.

 

[Town Heretic]

To it's knees

Doubling over laughing at people who say the NFL is done?

 

[jgarden]

Those "awful" comments are seconded by over half this country. It's about time patriotic Americans boycotted something, and what better than a bunch of overpaid entertainers?

"The Donald" is held in such low esteem by the majority of Americans, that these "overpaid" players, coaches and owners in the NFL, have been elevated to fill the national "moral vacuum" left by this President, congressional Republicans and conservative Christians!

When the current Secretary of State refers to this President as a "moron," and then refuses to provide a clear denial, things are even worse than we thought!

 

[patrick jane]

"The Donald" is held in such low esteem by the majority of Americans, that these "overpaid" players, coaches and owners in the NFL, have been elevated to fill the national "moral vacuum" left by this President, congressional Republicans and conservative Christians!

When the current Secretary of State refers to this President as a "moron," and then refuses to provide a clear denial, things are even worse than we thought!

We know the truth jgard. BTW, That TDS is getting worse as time goes by, huh?