OK, we’re repeating ourselves at this point.
Okay. I haven’t seen you actually try and defend your characterization of him as unwilling to make big sacrifices once I brought up his big donation. But if you want to stop now, fine with me.
No, I addressed this.
He might be willing to make big sacrifices. I never said he was unwilling to make big sacrifices. What I said is that his protest - which is what he symbolizes to Nike and the public at large - did not involve an anticipated big sacrifice. The fact that he might have later gone on to give a million bucks is something else, and is not what putting him in an ad campaign is intended to represent.
I’ve all this said this before. I’m repeating it this once.
I think you’re wrong here, and the Nike campaign represents more than just a single, or a few, instances of protest, but rather what Kaepernick has represented for the past few years. Which includes protesting, advocacy, charitable donations, and more.
OK, but I think I’m not wrong here. So that kind of wraps it up, for now at least. 
I’m probably a lot closer to the target demographic of the advertising campaign, so I’d guess that the marketing heads at Nike care a lot more about what I think about the campaign than what you do. Do you disagree?
I have no idea. (Also have no idea if you have any idea.)
ETA: I should qualify that to say that to the extent that your demographic is “guy with extreme interest in all race-related issues, who is up on minute details of all such matter” then that’s probably not the demographic Nike is targeting.
Okay, then I’ll put it this way – young athletes (i.e. teens and 20s who play sports) are probably the main target of this campaign. I know lots of young athletes, and from talking to them, their view of the campaign is a lot closer to mine than yours.
Again, the dishonesty. First you suggested that the other poster does not know what s/he is talking about, [“(Also have no idea if you have any idea.)”], then you refer **dismissively **to knowing what s/he is talking about in reference to this issue. [“extreme interest … minute details”].
Dishonesty and a pervasive denigration and dismissal of other points of view and experiences.
It would appear that you’re confused as to the meaning of this discussion. Or perhaps just generally confused. Whatever.
This is a stupid comparison. Besides andros’s point about the deliberate uncharitableness of your characterization of Kaepernick’s actions as purely self-serving, the lawsuit aspect is not comparable between the two cases. Tillman voluntarily abandoned his NFL career and therefore had nothing he could possibly sue anybody over.
That doesn’t make Kaepernick’s lawsuit a betrayal of his principles or a proof of his selfishness. One can make a principled sacrifice by knowingly risking one’s career for a cause, and still seek redress if one’s career has been damaged deliberately and unfairly.
What if, for example, Pat Tillman had had some kind of temporary deferral on his NFL contract instead of simply leaving the NFL, and returned from his tour of duty to his football career only to find that he’d been ditched by his employers in violation of the terms of his deferral? Would you consider that it somehow cheapened or invalidated his sacrifice if he sued over it?
It’s like suggesting that someone who gives to charity can’t be robbed.
Again, just a dismissive attack when disagreed with.
The thread is about Colin Kaepernick’s protest; it is now discussing the Nike ad; someone had the temerity to disagree with you, and you got bitchy. I think I’ve got a handle on this.
Oh.
That’s kind of the point.
Right. It doesn’t make the lawsuit a betrayal of anything or proof of selfishness, so it’s fortunate that I’ve not said either of these things. But if his reaction to career harm is to sue over it that doesn’t suggest that he anticipated and accepted upfront this very career harm. Unlike Tillman who obviously did.
To be clear, since people seem to be having trouble with what seems like a simple concept. There’s nothing wrong with Kaepernick not being acquiescent to his suffering career harm. But the question here is not whether he’s a bad guy - the question is whether he’s a hero who stood up for his principles at a sacrifice for his career. This is very clear in the case of Tillman, but much much shakier in the case of Kaepernick.
It doesn’t surprise me that you would think so. Like many other people who don’t understand things, you don’t know enough to know what you don’t know.
It’s possible that if you paid close attention to exactly what point iiandyiiii was making and what my response was you might have a chance. But it’s possible that you wouldn’t anyway - I don’t know the source of your problem.
Again, just a random personal attack, no substantive rebuttal. You can’t rebut. All you can do is try to distract and dismiss, denigrate if there is any opening.
You don’t know what Kaepernick’s protest means, you don’t know what he means to a large group of people, and you can’t even grasp the point of a simple ad campaign.
OK, I guess it’s a stalemate.
Again, that argument only works if you’re deliberately conflating all different kinds of “career harm” into one undifferentiated category and claiming that principle or self-sacrifice requires the sacrificer to be equally accepting of every kind of it.
I repeat my question about the hypothetical parallel situation which you didn’t answer:
I thought this was clear from my earlier response. The answer to your question would be “no”.
But the thing with Tillman is that even your hypothetical Tillman was definitely sacrificing several years of his career for his cause, so that’s where he gets hero status. In the case of Kaepernick there’s no indication that he intended to sacrifice anything at all.
This only makes sense if you think that deliberately giving up qualifies as making a sacrifice, but deliberately running a risk does not. Even under that restriction, though, one can argue that Kaepernick voluntarily sacrificed his good name and reputation among the fairly large population of football fans who feel that good name and reputation require conformity to conventionally patriotic social gestures.
This might be reasonable to assert before the donation, but after the donation, it’s not reasonable to say that there’s “no indication” he intended to sacrifice something - there’s one big indication now, and it’s the large donation he made. Even if you’re not certain he intended that at the beginning, he at least may have, considering that he went through with it.