I’d say, rather, that I believe they’re being cynical, because I don’t believe that they could articulate a close nexus between the National Anthem and police brutality. . . but they COULD articulate a close nexus between the National Anthem and TV network camera air time.
By way of example, in similar vein Sacheen Littlefeather represented Marlon Brando when he won the Academy Award for his role in The Godfather, declining to accept based on the standoff at Wounded Knee and, supposedly, the unflattering generic portrayals of Native Americans in film. This is at least a closer nexus, but the same general flaw emerges: the key element present were lots of cameras, not a close causation between the award show attendees and the decision to blockade Wounded Knee.
So I don’t doubt the general sincerity of either Littlefeather, Brando, or Kaepernick, but I believe they chose the venue for reasons other than its symbolic connection to the causes of the harms they inveigh against.
When O’Rourke says disagreement is ‘reasonable’, he’s not suggesting that all counterpoints are equally valid, he’s just approaching the question with respect for a point of view from which he intends to persuade the listener, because he feels it is limited and facile. That’s why he provides a fuller context of American civil rights actions in explaining his position. If you find his argument unpersuasive, perhaps posterity will be more kind, as it has been to the groups he mentioned.
Well, of course private property is the most essential of the so-called “human rights”, the rest are just embellishments and grace notes. Of course, they can “peaceably assemble to petition for a redress of grievances”, but not at an assembly convened for the sale of Doritos and Budweiser!
Yes, our Founders solemnly recognized the supreme importance of private property, they came by this knowledge by direct experience of owning property themselves, and observing the moral rectitude and probity that arise from that experience. Indeed, they possessed not only their own natural, human rights but the human rights of the people that they owned.
Cameras and attention are the point, as is entirely reasonable – what is wrong with public figures using prominent events with lots of cameras to make a point about a thing in society they think is very morally wrong? If they think they can positively make an influence, then the cameras and attention are a good thing. I don’t see how this particular aspect (choosing an event with lots of attention) can reasonably be criticized.
It’s an implication that they’re doing it for the personal publicity, not for a cause greater than themselves. It’s a way to pretend the cause is illegitimate or trivial, as a way of avoiding discussing it.
It means he understands how such a limited point of view could lead a reasonable person to an invalid conclusion. It’s as if he’s arguing a case and allowing the jury to see his client from a perspective different than the one the prosecution is pushing, without insulting the jury’s intelligence or impugning their honesty.
I think the symbolism displayed by taking a knee during the anthem is deliberate and pointed, and the opposite of cynical. “American equality” -of opportunity and of the presumptions of innocence and of good faith- does not exist if it doesn’t exist for all. It certainly didn’t when the country was founded, as ‘luc’ illustrated above, and all movement toward such equality has come about through disobedient persuasion.
The athletes aren’t disrespecting American ideals when they kneel. They’re asking the country, and more strictly our legislative, judicial and law enforcement institutions to more fervently approach the realization of those ideals. And more, they’re expecting it to happen. That’s faith, right there, not disrespect.
The reasonable criticism here relates to the fact that this moment – the playing of the National Anthem – is done for symbolic reasons of its own. Choosing this moment for its high viewership and ease of access (the players are visible and the cameras are on them) makes sense for just the reason you say: cameras and attention are necessary for the desired exposure.
But because the event itself carries other symbolism, it invites the inference that the protest is directed AT that other symbolism.
a) the statement that reasonable can disagree about the issue of whether football players are disrespecting veterans by kneeling, or
b) the statement that football players aren’t disrespecting veterans by kneeling?
Because ISTM that part of the Trumpian take on this issue is that the kneelers are disrespecting veterans, and should be kicked out of the NFL on that account. Which certainly implies that there ISN’T any room for reasonable disagreement on the issue.
So I would argue that the very question of whether there’s room for reasonable disagreement is itself very much part of the national debate, and that Beto is taking a stand in saying there is.
That’s essentially what xenophon41 said: “O’Rourke says disagreement is ‘reasonable’,” but in fact believes “it is limited and facile,” which are in this context antonyms of “reasonable.”
So does O’Rourke believe disagreement is reasonable? If it is, how can it also be limited and facile?
I see it as bending a knee with head bowed to humbly beseech, not God, but the country itself to fix problems they feel are damaging to the people that live here. To claim that their request is somehow invalid because they choose a venue that reaches a greater number of the people they are beseeching is nonsense.
There’s a national crisis so they kneel during the National anthem. Or is that too inarticulate? Taking points off the validity of a protest because they are blatantly trying to get it noticed is pretty :rolleyes:
To believe that after being told otherwise is deliberate ignorance and totally unreasonable, and to push that belief after being told otherwise is totally dishonest.
Yes. It’s also what athletes do when another athlete - either a teammate or an opponent, it doesn’t matter, they’re all colleagues - is injured and needs help. It’s meant as a sign of respect and sympathy, and hope for successful treatment and recovery. Why would one not see the same intentions from them when directed toward the afflicted country they love? Especially when they come out and say so directly?
I understand it’s easier, and briefly more satisfying, to say instead that they just hate America, unlike we jingos who are loyal to its symbols rather than its spirit. But it’s still false.