You may have missed the fact that Bricker is a giant, freaking idiot.
To you.
To a not-inconsiderable portion of the population, they look like defenders of a principled position.
I can certainly see the view that they are being idiotic. I don’t share it, but I’d call them quixotic, and not mean it as a compliment.
The socks don’t really make that distinction, though.
They’re justified in pointing out that his words are nuanced but his socks are not.
To draw an uncomfortable parallel, Trump said of Mexican immigrants that they are rapists and drug dealers, and some are nice people. He was rightly vilified for the statement. Kaepernik’s socks and his words do the same thing: make a blanket condemnation and then attempt to carve out an exception.
This is not exactly an argument remarkable for its cogency.
Actually, he’s remarkably intelligent. Just dishonest. To quote from Marvel comics, he’s the best at what he does, but what he does is not very nice.
The only claim of dishonesty you can level against me rests on your belief that I don’t believe what I’m saying.
And in that belief, you are mistaken.
Yeah, Trin, your claim was unsubstantiated and I think unfair. Bricker tends to focus on the stronger parts of the conservative argument, but so what? It’s not unusual. And for the past couple of years, he’s tacked on acknowledgments of other perspectives, to an extent which exceeds that of most posters here.
Your argument has been weakened though Bricker. The uniform regulation quite reasonably refers to game day. The socks were worn during practice and before the controversy arose. They were presumably dug up by those seeking dirt about the guy. Finally, while the blue socks portray piggies with police caps, they also look like pajamas. This is a fake outrage. Nobody would care or notice if the player never opted out of the pledge of allegiance.
But the problem that butthurt conservatives face is that there is social precedent for refusing to stand up for the anthem. Nobody gets bent out of shape about the Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal to salute the flag - anymore. They used to. There were 2 Supreme Court cases about it. But the JWs eventually prevailed and the experience made it into high school history textbooks.
So we are left with 2 conflicting American traditions. One says you salute the flag. The other says you are allowed not to. Don’t get me wrong. It’s the constitutional right of the Santa Clara cops to embody the butthurt. And it’s my right to laugh at them. Federalist paper 87 has an interesting take on this balance of perspectives.
Then again, there’s always another hand. The Santa Clara cops can threaten this hissy fit, but I speculate that after a couple of games they will quietly drop the boycott. I think that’s fair enough. Kaepernick makes his dubious splash, the Santa Clara cops make theirs.
Support our troops!
ETA: So I think, “Hurting the image of the team”, turns out to be the more convincing prong. And I speculate that precedent wouldn’t support that particularly well.
Misleading characterization. The letter was written by the Santa Clara cops’ police union. In contrast, the police chief urged his officers to, "… to put the safety of our citizens first. I will work with both sides to find a solution. In the meantime, I will ensure we continue to provide a safe environment at Levi’s Stadium.” The letter itself threatened an unorganized boycott: it did not promise anything: “If the 49ers organization fails to take action to stop this type of inappropriate workplace behavior, it could result in police officers choosing not to work at your facilities.”
The union isn’t organizing anything and made no claims about the breadth of its support on this issue.
I apologize to any Santa Clara officers mistakenly battered by my broad brush.
Vox article includes link to letter: Police union threatens to stop protecting 49ers games over Colin Kaepernick | Vox
Agreed completely. I don’t object to laughter, but only to the suggestion that the officers have a “protect and serve” duty to work the overtime.
But there were only 85 Federalist papers.
See, e.g., “Non-Stop,” Hamilton: An American Musical, music and lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda.
I agree with you. They don’t have any duty to serve this voluntary overtime. They also don’t have any right to tell other officers not to do it just because some of them are butthurt over the issue. It just outs them as petulant little children and bullies who aren’t getting their way.
Again, if police officers don’t like being smeared for the behavior of the bad actors in their midst, which they repeatedly insist are only a small number of their peers, then they should be taking action, and assisting others in taking action against those bad actors. Not protecting them and making threats (implied or otherwise) against those who insist on raising the point.
Petulant behavior on the part of police spokesmen and other officers only gives the strong impression that ALL of them are bad actors and they’re just covering each other’s backs.
I assume you agree the same is true for BLM and the leaders of the black community in general - they should be taking action against the bad actors in their group. And the petulant actions of BLM and their like make it appear that ALL of them are bad actors.
In support of which, I will wear socks with caricatures of black people portrayed as apes. Keep in mind that this means I am only condemning black people who violently resist arrest.
Regards,
Shodan
Cart before the horse. This comes first, and would eliminate the need for BLM to even exist in the first place.
(Sure is funny how the following just won’t be accepted by some)
Good luck with that.
But instead we have people in Milwaukee protesting the shooting of an armed, fleeing criminal.
Is this one of those “you first” things? :dubious:
Or just a lazy excuse for more of the same?
Yes, they do.
Not only do they have their own personal First Amendment right to tell other officers not to work, they have the union structure to work with.
This is not a strike – but when a union strikes, presumably each and every member is not in agreement with the decision. But the union acts anyway, and has every right to tell every member not to work.
Of course, those members in turn are free to quit the union or walk past the picket line. They simply pay a heavy social price for such a decision.
And are striking union workers also “petulant little children and bullies?”
If they’re striking because their feelings got hurt by someone’s rightful opinion about them, yes they are.
BLM is a loose collection of people with no agreed-upon hierarchy and little connection to each other except in ideology. Each person and group that feels the need to use the BLM banner as a focal point of protest does so of their own accord.
The Santa Clara police department is a government funded organization with a clear chain of command operating under well-defined rules and laws. As such, membership in that organization are beholden to each other and answer to the public in a way that BLM does not.
BLM has no obligation (though of course it would look nicer on their part) to speak out or take offense on behalf of bad actors in their midst. Attempts to tar one group with the actions of those people who misuse the BLM label is objectively wrong and smacks of lazy stereotyping. But cops are responsible and legally bound to report and take action at other cops within their department who break the law.
Do you understand the concept of “begging the question?”
This is a logical fallacy in which the premise of an argument includes the assumption that the conclusion is true.
In this case, one issue in play is the police belief that Kaepernik’s opinion is not “rightful.” You cannot assume the police are wrong in order to demonstrate they are wrong – this is begging the question.
I assumed you were arguing on principle. Is that not the case?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s fun seeing all the conservatives suddenly support unions. They were the horrible boogeyman before. But now that they are cops who want to punish the black guy for not standing for the pledge of allegiance or wearing socks that hurt their feelings, you suddenly support them.
Of course the cops have the right to do what they are doing. The Supreme Court decided that, even in their regular job, they have no duty to the public. It was an idiotic decision, but that’s where we are.
That doesn’t make it right. What they are doing is a form of intimidation, not protest. They are acting as police officers, as it is a police officers’ union making the statement. Not a security guard union. The police union considers it a police thing.
But, either way, you have to look at the actual actions. The actions of this guy are to not stand for the pledge, and to have some socks that say something offensive. The actions of the police/security guards is to allow other people to be hurt. It is to use the fact that they are de facto protectors as leverage to silence someone’s speech. They might as well have written “Nice place you got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
I support protests. I support strikes for adverse conditions. I do not support threats, and that is what this is. To be honest, if a police officer can’t take it when someone say “fuck the police,” then I think they are too dangerous to have on the force. The whole point of being a police officer is to protect those freedoms.
Yeah, it can sometimes feel like a thankless job. But that’s the price you pay for the authority you are given. We should not worship our authority figures, but hold them more accountable.
If we would have from the start, BLM would have never needed to exist, and thus this one guy’s protest would have never existed. Instead, they’ve made the guy into a rallying cry, giving him way more publicity than ever.