[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2017-October-13, 03:19, said:

In the world I grew up in, kneeling was considered the single most respectful gesture. That's why we kneel in church, or in front of the pope or the king. Why is it suddenly considered "disrespecting the flag" when African-American players do it?

Analogies often cause more problems than they solve and this is an instance. To make the analogy work we have to imagine a person in front of a king. The person refuses to kneel, saying "Where I come from we stand for the national anthem as a show of respect, so I will stand in front you.. Surely you will not see this as disrespectful". At least in some kingdoms this would be seriously dangerous.

When I am in a church, maybe for a wedding or funeral, I don't join in the call and response that sometimes occurs, but if the congregation is told to kneel I kneel. I am there for the wedding or the funeral, I am not there to engage in a discussion of religious beliefs. I greatly appreciate it if the pastor/priest/rabbi somewhere makes it clear that s/he realizes that not everyone attending this event shares the beliefs of the church. A few years back I was at a wedding where I thought the pastor was pretty clear that I, and probably quite a few others, were not all that welcome. I just let my mind wander to math or bridge.

I'm not big on forcing, or psychologically pressing, people to declare their piety or their allegiance or any particular belief. I prefer to say what I want to say about god or country or whatever at a time and place and in a manner of my choosing. If I were at a football game, which I have not been for many years, I think my attitude would be "I came to see the game, I am hoping it is ok by everyone if I do not, here and now, take any position whatsoever on whether any player or fan should or should not kneel or stand".

As for Donald Trump's involvement, it suits him. It's easy to take a loud position without actually knowing anything.

[y66]

Real Americans like Kaitlyn know what words like respect, patriotism and racism really mean and for whom and under what circumstances the first amendment applies and so they vote for men who do not respect women, who don't serve in times of war and who are clearly racists.

Trump has nothing on Kaitlyn when it comes to trolling people who don't share her nausea inducing values.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2017-October-13, 07:00, said:

Analogies often cause more problems than they solve and this is an instance. To make the analogy work we have to imagine a person in front of a king. The person refuses to kneel, saying "Where I come from we stand for the national anthem as a show of respect, so I will stand in front you.. Surely you will not see this as disrespectful". At least in some kingdoms this would be seriously dangerous.

To make it even clearer, imagine someone extending their right arm diagonally upward instead of holding their hand over their heart during the anthem. There was a time and place when that was the highest indication of respect.

Context is important.

[Winstonm]

From Vox: from a talk by Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian

Quote

Why, after all, do we strive for better policies today? Presumably it’s so that our lives can be improved tomorrow. But Trump reverses this. He anchors his discourse to a mythological past, so that voters are thinking less about the future and more about what they think they lost.

“Trump isn’t after success — he’s after failure,” Snyder argued. By that, he means that Trump isn’t after what we’d typically consider success — passing good legislation that improves the lives of voters. Instead, Trump has defined the problems in such a way that they can’t be solved. We can’t be young again. We can’t go backward in time. We can’t relive some lost golden age. So these voters are condemned to perpetual disappointment.

The counterargument is that Trump’s idealization of the past is, in its own way, an expression of a desire for a better future. If you’re a Trump voter, restoring some lost version of America or revamping trade policies or rebuilding the military is a way to create a better tomorrow based on a model from the past.

For Snyder, though, that’s not really the point. The point is that Trump’s nostalgia is a tactic designed to distract voters from the absence of serious solutions. Trump may not be an authoritarian, Snyder warns, but this is something authoritarians typically do. They need the public to be angry, resentful, and focused on problems that can’t be remedied.

[Zelandakh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-12, 15:09, said:

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson.

I would like to hear your take on why conservatives are objecting so strongly to athletes kneeling for the anthem (a form of protest specifically designed not to be unpatriotic after discussion with veterans) and have not objected to athletes sitting for the anthem, which Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing for over half a century. I know that JWs were at one time subjected to much abuse for this action, and I am certain that in some areas that remains the case, yet it seems that only with the recent protests has it become "unpatriotic" amongst non-extremists. The reason for that change might even help shed some light to you on the matter.

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-October-13, 02:34, said:

Suppose that a group of white players chose to kneel for the anthem. Their explanation:

“The America I know and love has ceded its sovereignty by agreeing to trade deals like NAFTA and by allowing so many illegal immigrants into the country. Our country’s greatness has been badly hurt, and so I kneel for America just as I would for an injured teammate, in the hope that she will someday recover and become Great Again”

Would the people objecting to the protest of black players similarly object to such a protest by white players? I very much doubt it!

The conclusion is that the objection is not really about kneeling during the anthem — it is about the reason they are kneeling. Basically the objection is that we ought not to care that unarmed black people are being shot by police, or at least we ought not to have to think about it when we’d rather be distracted by football. If this is not actual racism, it is at least a refusal to confront racism — essentially saying “that’s not my problem, I don’t want to hear about it, shut up and entertain me.”

When the KKK was out lynching people, there were a lot of white folks who weren’t in the KKK... but didn’t object, didn’t do anything about it, and were annoyed when black people (and some non-black allies) were marching because the marches were “disturbing the peace” and forcing them to confront an uncomfortable situation that they’d rather write off as “not my problem.” Were those white people racist?

It is all a matter of degree, I guess.

I think we need to take a step back about the national anthem controversy and really get intellectually honest about what is going on here.

The problem is our tacit rule that African-Americans are not supposed to dictate the terms or conditions under which a protest or an act of civil disobedience is supposed to take place. The PTB are supposed to do that.

Martin Luther King was not supposed to lead the Civil Rights Movement
in the 1960's as the collective nation at the time wasn't really ready to deal with the reality of accepting African-Americans as equal and fully participating citizens in the institutions of America. The time honored traditions of racism, segregation, and disenfrachisement were hard habits to break especially when they are endorsed by the government and reinforced by cultural tribalism.

There were times that many government officials asked MLK to stop his movement as he was creating civil unrest by trying to change a well understood, fully appreciated, and police-enforced white power structure. The notion was that the PTB knew when the appropriate time to cede power and rights to African-Americans would be; and that time would be on the 9th of never.

The unwritten rule is the oppressed have neither the power nor the resolve to determine when the timing is right to stage acts of civil disobedience. They should acquiesce to a dream deferred and play nice. They should go along to get along until the PTB feel comfortable giving what should have been a given in the 1st place.

So, employed athletes should know that the playing of the national anthem during a televised football game is neither the time nor the place to stage an act of civil disobedience. The American people don't need to be reminded of uncomfortable political realities at the beginning of a football game, especially when said matters affect about 15%+ of the population. The football game is supposed to be a time of recreation, relaxation, camaraderie, and a time for profit. And now we have African-American athletes injecting political concerns into a NFL franchise owned by rich white men. The line of thinking is that the government will handle the matter of police brutality and disparate treatment of African-Americans by police officers in due time and on its own schedule.

We don't need meddling uppity African-American athletes using a NFL broadcast as a platform for political commentary. PLAY NICE AND PLAY FOOTBALL DAMMIT!

Also, we don't need any malcontents, dissidents or MLK wanna-be's stirring the visceral racial pot by refusing to stand during the national anthem. They should thank their lucky stars they are in America and should show patriotism at all times even if they know people in their immediate or extended family who have been assaulted or abused by police officers. Their family member probably deserved it or provoked the officer to deliver a good ass whipping or put 15+ caps in the perpetrator's body.

Sarcasm included.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-October-13, 10:42, said:

I think we need to take a step back about the national anthem controversy and really get intellectually honest about what is going on here.

The problem is our tacit rule that African-Americans are not supposed to dictate the terms or conditions under which a protest or an act of civil disobedience is supposed to take place. The PTB are supposed to do that.

Martin Luther King was not supposed to lead the Civil Rights Movement
in the 1960's as the collective nation at the time wasn't really ready to deal with the reality of accepting African-Americans as equal and fully participating citizens in the institutions of America. The time honored traditions of racism, segregation, and disenfrachisement were hard habits to break especially when they are endorsed by the government and reinforced by cultural tribalism.

There were times that many government officials asked MLK to stop his movement as he was creating civil unrest by trying to change a well understood, fully appreciated, and police-enforced white power structure. The notion was that the PTB knew when the appropriate time to cede power and rights to African-Americans would be; and that time would be on the 9th of never.

The unwritten rule is the oppressed have neither the power nor the resolve to determine when the timing is right to stage acts of civil disobedience. They should acquiesce to a dream deferred and play nice. They should go along to get along until the PTB feel comfortable giving what should have been a given in the 1st place.

So, employed athletes should know that the playing of the national anthem during a televised football game is neither the time nor the place to stage an act of civil disobedience. The American people don't need to be reminded of uncomfortable political realities at the beginning of a football game, especially when said matters affect about 15%+ of the population. The football game is supposed to be a time of recreation, relaxation, camaraderie, and a time for profit. And now we have African-American athletes injecting political concerns into a NFL franchise owned by rich white men. The line of thinking is that the government will handle the matter of police brutality and disparate treatment of African-Americans by police officers in due time and on its own schedule.

We don't need meddling uppity African-American athletes using a NFL broadcast as a platform for political commentary. PLAY NICE AND PLAY FOOTBALL DAMMIT!

Also, we don't need any malcontents, dissidents or MLK wanna-be's stirring the visceral racial pot by refusing to stand during the national anthem. They should thank their lucky stars they are in America and should show patriotism at all times even if they know people in their immediate or extended family who have been assaulted or abused by police officers. Their family member probably deserved it or provoked the officer to deliver a good ass whipping or put 15+ caps in the perpetrator's body.

Sarcasm included.

This WaPo opinion piece echoes your sentiments:

Quote

With Pence’s stunt, Trump’s tweets, Jones’s edict and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s statement saying players should stand, the debate about players standing for the national anthem is no longer about the flag. This is not about the anthem. This is not about supporting the troops. This is about putting outspoken black people back in their place in America — subordinate, and silent about the racism, police brutality and white supremacy that affect our lives everyday. This is about controlling what are considered “acceptable” ways for black people to protest.

[cherdano]

By the way, having grown up in 1980s Germany I have very different associations and feelings about flags than most people. Back then, proudly displaying the German flag was widely frowned upon. And so most people wouldn't. And so, when you saw a house prominently flying a large German flag, it wasn't wrong to assume that the owners might be of the ultra-conservative kind. Ultra-conservative in the sense of dreaming of restoring German borders back to where they were in 1939, or 1940.
Now some of that changed. Call it a modest cultural reappropriation of the German flag. People enjoyed the run of Germany's team at the 1990 world cup, and bought small flags for their cars or for their toddlers. There were lots of newspaper editorials debating whether that was ok, and they decided it was. So nowadays, when you see someone displaying a large flag, you know that either a football game, or someone ultra-conservative, or a neo-nazi is around.

This is really just a long explanation for why I may have idiosyncratic views (by world-wide standards) on flags, anthems, and related ceremonies. (Like Germany, I've mellowed on the issue a bit over time, now they just make me cringe terribly.)

But... If you had told my 20-year old self that at big sporting events, there would be a huge patriotic display of the flag along with the anthem, and that everybody was expected to stand, and that those who didn't stand would risk losing their jobs, my 20-year old self would have considered that the beginning of fascism.

Well, I couldn't win an argument with my 20-year old self about that. Could you?

[ldrews]

With the way that we throw words and labels around I thought it might be useful to review the actual definitions of some of those words. From Merriam-Webster:

Socialism:
1 :any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 :a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Communism:
1 a :a theory advocating elimination of private property
b :a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized
a :a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official I ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b :a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c :a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d :communist systems collectively

Authoritarian:
1 :of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
had authoritarian parents
2 :of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
an authoritarian regime

Dictatorship:
1 :the office of dictator
2 :autocratic rule, control, or leadership
people suffering under his dictatorship
3 a :a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
Communism and dictatorship
b :a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
rising up against a military dictatorship
c :a despotic state
establishing a dictatorship

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2017-October-12, 23:48, said:

As to the actual posting, I don't recall hearing an enormous hue and cry about whites opposing these protests as being racist; rather I have heard lots of folks saying that they are very wrong

We have a different circle of Facebook friends. It's likely that one of mine picked up the one calling the NFL boycotters racist and the many of the rest of them shared it, giving me the impression that the opinion is prevalent among liberals.

FWIW, I think the NFL protesters are exercising their First Amendment right. The NFL boycotters are doing the same, but I don't think they understand the issue as most of them feel that the NFL protestors are anti-America and I just don't see that.

Also, while it may not surprise you that I agree with Trump a lot more than any of you do, I've gotta say that I don't agree with him on this one, and even if I did, I would be a lot happier if he worried more about issues like Puerto Rico and North Korea than tweeting about the NFL.

[Kaitlyn S]

y66, on 2017-October-13, 07:24, said:

Real Americans like Kaitlyn know what words like respect, patriotism and racism really mean and for whom and under what circumstances the first amendment applies and so they vote for men who do not respect women, who don't serve in times of war and who are clearly racists.

Trump has nothing on Kaitlyn when it comes to trolling people who don't share her nausea inducing values.

Nice. I knew I could get an intelligent discussion here.

I posted this because while I constantly hear the conservative side of the issue, something just didn't feel right about it and I wanted to hear the liberal side to see if it made more sense. Trust me, the conservative stance supporting a president who tweets wrong things instead of doing his job makes a lot more sense than "Kaitlyn is nauseating."

I do appreciate that at least a couple of you were willing to discuss the issue and avoid an ad hominem attack.

[y66]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-13, 21:24, said:

Nice. I knew I could get an intelligent discussion here.

I posted this because while I constantly hear the conservative side of the issue, something just didn't feel right about it and I wanted to hear the liberal side to see if it made more sense. Trust me, the conservative stance supporting a president who tweets wrong things instead of doing his job makes a lot more sense than "Kaitlyn is nauseating."

I do appreciate that at least a couple of you were willing to discuss the issue and avoid an ad hominem attack.

Something didn't feel right? What do "feel" and "right" even mean to a troll?

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-13, 21:24, said:

Nice. I knew I could get an intelligent discussion here.

I posted this because while I constantly hear the conservative side of the issue, something just didn't feel right about it and I wanted to hear the liberal side to see if it made more sense. Trust me, the conservative stance supporting a president who tweets wrong things instead of doing his job makes a lot more sense than "Kaitlyn is nauseating."

I do appreciate that at least a couple of you were willing to discuss the issue and avoid an ad hominem attack.

I usually do not give unasked for advice but ...

What strikes me is that you have not said much about what you think. Of course we can infer from your posting of a message by Ashley Johnson that you are in general agreement but mayne you agree with everything, maybe you agree with some but not all. Same with citing unnamed conservatives.

No doubt people will disagree with you if you say what you think. People disagree with me when I say what I think. I think that's the way to go. Ms. Johnson says: "Modern liberals are acting as if in a hypnotized trance when using the term. They certainly aren't thinking when utilizing it. It is a sad commentary on our nation when so many of our youth are hypnotized and not using their brains. Who is hypnotizing them? And what is their motive?" I see this as similar to calling large groups of people, whether the group be conservatives, republicans, rich people, poor people, whatever large group you choose, racists. Some liberals are probably brainless, and some conservatives are probably brainless. Some conservatives are probably racists, and some liberals are probably racists. I do not equate "conservative' with "racist". For example I very much like reading the columns of Michael Gerson. Among other things he describes himself as an evangelical christian which does not at all square with my view of the universe but I often find his views interesting and sometimes I find them to be in agreement with mine. He and I could talk. Otoh Ms. Johnson and I would probably not get along well.

Btw, I had never heard of Ashley Johnson, but otoh until Cherdano mentioned him I had never hear of Ta-Nahesi Coates either.. As I have mentioned, when my high school psychology teacher suggested that I write a term paper on Freud I said "Who's Freud?". Ignorance may not be bliss, and I suppose it does not indicate purity either, but it is all around us. And take it easy everyone, I am not suggesting any sort of equivalence among these various people I hadn't heard of other than that I hadn't heard of them.

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-October-13, 10:42, said:

We don't need meddling uppity African-American athletes using a NFL broadcast as a platform for political commentary. PLAY NICE AND PLAY FOOTBALL DAMMIT!

I'm reminded of the way police would deal with civil disobedience during the Jim Crow era by telling blacks to "know your place, boy". This is essentially the same thing, but in a more circumspect manner.

[Zelandakh]

Just in case the news has not filtered over to America yet, the movement is now international.

[PassedOut]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-14, 17:54, said:

Just in case the news has not filtered over to America yet, the movement is now international.

German soccer team takes a knee before Bundesliga game ‘for a tolerant Berlin’

[Kaitlyn S]

y66, on 2017-October-14, 06:06, said:

Something didn't feel right? What do "feel" and "right" even mean to a troll?

Do you think that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, or do you think that I really agree with you and am posting garbage on purpose?

If you look at my "Bidding Problems for I/N players" series, I think you can eliminate the second option, for as a troll, wouldn't I try to confuse the novices by giving believable nonsense for answers? I think everyone will agree that this isn't happening. You could say it is happening but then you might be labelled the troll by the rest of the site.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-15, 11:23, said:

Do you think that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, or do you think that I really agree with you and am posting garbage on purpose?

If you look at my "Bidding Problems for I/N players" series, I think you can eliminate the second option, for as a troll, wouldn't I try to confuse the novices by giving believable nonsense for answers? I think everyone will agree that this isn't happening. You could say it is happening but then you might be labelled the troll by the rest of the site.

Part of the problem might be that you consistently hone in on the personal remarks while ignoring genuine questions and responses.

[Winstonm]

More than anything I've ever read, scene, or heard, this poll supports the idea that almost half of all Republicans live in a world of make-believe, of heroes and villains, a vision of the world disconnected from reality. I am convinced this is primarily the result of the emphasis of religious ideology supplanting the teaching of critical thinking and reason.

Quote

BY AARON BLAKE, THE WASHINGTON POST
OCTOBER 15, 2017 11:40 AM

There was a pretty striking finding in Thursday's Quinnipiac University poll: Fully 46 percent of Republicans - a plurality - said they would support a preemptive strike against North Korea.

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2017-October-15, 12:22, said:

Part of the problem might be that you consistently hone in on the personal remarks while ignoring genuine questions and responses.

That is a legitimate criticism. My reason for doing so is that answering the personal remarks is easy, where answering the genuine responses requires research. I appreciate the genuine responses, and both have to think about them, and make sure they don't coincide with ideas listed as "fake news" elsewhere. This takes time - probably a lot more time for me than you because where these ideas are second nature to you, many of them are ideas that would be considered bull manure by most of the people I converse with. I am currently at the stage where I considering that some of what is being said here has a lot of merit, despite being led to believe that it's liberal nonsense being spewed by people who wish to keep minorities down so that they can keep them dependent on government and will be reelected forever.

I hope you realize that it takes a lot of study to go from the mindset which I had to a mindset where I can read these posts and believe them.