… To touch is to heal
To hurt is to steal
If you want to kiss the sky
Better learn how to kneel (on your knees boy!)…
If only you adopted this standard everywhere, I might agree with your adoption of it here.
But of course you are quick to assert the existence of code words, even when the speaker tells you otherwise, in other circumstances. So I am reluctant to accept your proposed rule only when it benefits messages you endorse.
Calling an opposing view and its adherents “reasonable” or “well-intended” or other condescending terms, before dismantling them, is simple courtesy, meant to disarm rather than embolden them. It’s polite, genteel sarcasm.
Good thing I never brought up your name in that post then, eh?
:rolleyes:
You realize that if Beto had started off that speech with: “Fuck all the anti-protesters”, anybody who is offended by the kneelers is going to stop listening right there. He was using respectful, non-confrontational language to get his message out to a wider audience. And maybe change the tone of that conversation in the process.
If you are going to play lawyer here, at least try to be consistent. Where have I been quick to assert the existence of “code words”? I don’t recall using that term on a regular basis…if at all.
If you are referring to the symbolism of America being “great”, why do you think that symbolism can’t include what the kneeling players are doing? Why are they an “other” in your symbolism? A lot of people see american greatness in it. In fact the more we talk about it, and as legal time moves on, it’s looking like a last bastion of american greatness.
I don’t say you use the term – I say that you use the concept. I say that you discredit a speaker’s neutral explanations of his words in favor of your own negative interpretation of his words.
Here, in contrast, you urge the rule that the protesters’ words and explanation are entitled to automatic credulous acceptance.
All right then, Counselor, what is kneeling for the anthem “code” for?
Still no example to back up your claim.
edited to add: “Code words” has a specific definition, and it isn’t “having a different interpretation of what was said”. Show where I accused another of using “code words”.
No, you didn’t.
Reasonable people can disagree != all disagreements are reasonable.
If we don’t talk, how do we know which people are reasonable and which are not? If the reason someone doesn’t like people kneeling for the anthem is that they are afraid that the Smurf God will destroy all blueberries, I’d say they do not have a reasonable opinion, for instance.
If they think there’s a problem they should protest it alone, in their closet, with the door closed and the lights off. To raise concerns in public is counterproductive.
Is that a sly riff on Jesus’ advice to the Pharisees?
I apologize if I’m not following any sidetrack, I just got here. Thanks, OP for that link! What an awesome response to a common question. That’s the dude running against Cruz? I wouldn’t want to be in Cruz’s shoes with an opponent like that.
“I can think of nothing more American than to peacefully stand up or take a knee for your rights anytime, anywhere, anyplace.”
- Beto O’Rourke, in the very video that started this
To the extent the gesture has been ineffective, it is because folks like the Deflector-in-Chief have willfully refused to hear the players.
I tried to edit my post to say “Cruz’s shoeses” but I thought of it too late and missed the edit window. So if you all would be so kind, read my original reply as Cruz’s shoeses, please. I’ll make it up to you. Thanks.
But you did. Look at it again: your post #35 has my name in it, inside the quote box.
As a swing voting “RINO” I like starting with the notion that we can disagree. Compared to typical hyperpartisan demonizations it’s welcome to at least frame the issue in that way.
He focuses on the common, but misguided IMO, focus because of the question. He addresses whether it’s disrespectful. I support free speech, especially about the ideas I find objectionable. It’s not free if it’s limited to things that are considered respectful or inoffensive by everyone. Beto does hit that point. It’s not the core of the debate IMO.
I also support the legal right of employers to limit their employee’s speech and to require certain kinds of speech that might be construed as political during work hours. It has to be uniformly applied. If they were allowing a white supremacist player to protest the state of the US by offering the Bellamy salute, they absolutely would need to allow other/competing speech. If the national anthem is a venue for political speech at work then they can allow both or restrict both. The NFL owners are operating within the law to operate their businesses in a way that they think will maximize appeal to their customers and produce profit. They set the work rules for their businesses. Beto seems to have entirely skipped over that notion of freedom.
He emphasized unarmed in a way that implies that’s synonymous with unjustified. That’s legally incorrect. Being armed is not necessary to present a reasonable threat to life. Police, and others using self defense, don’t even require a belief that the other person is armed. It’s possible to present a reasonable threat to life even when clearly unarmed. Beto chooses language that both overstates the issue and, for many, has a lot of emotional loading. That makes me distrust his ability to be a part of rational solutions.
Wow, you have my sympathy, that sounds like a real heavy burden.