I’m gonna write an alternative history novel where it became traditional to kneel for the national anthem and some rogue NFL players start standing in protest of something or other. It’s gonna blow people’s minds.
You’re being unfairly kind to Bricker. He’s either disingenuous or stupid, with this mix of incredibly simplistic dichotomies and nonsensical positions.
To the incredibly simplistic dichotomy: Reasonable positions can be suboptimal or in error. But Bricker clings to the pretense that a polite and politic line of a politician that “reasonable persons can disagree” is an excuse to pretend that all disagreements on all issues are “reasonable” and nothing is arguable. This is childish.
To the nonsensical position: Of course protests go where the eyeballs and eardrums will register them. This invalidates nothing.
If Bricker argues like this a courtroom, he must assume that the typical response is to think him a bargain-basement sophist, a non-persuadable simpleton, or a smug adolescent in a man’s body; and to bite one’s tongue rather than to call him names and be held in contempt of court.
That’s not remotely what I did. I accepted the concession that reasonable persons may disagree on this issue; in no way does that imply that all disagreements on all issues are “reasonable” and nothing is arguable.
Agreed. But since I didn’t claim it invalidated anything, this is hardly a difficult agreement to wrest from me.
The really profoundly stupid part of it is that “Beto” is a Spanish nickname for “Roberto”, and since Beto grew up in El Paso, that was his childhood nickname.
So he comes by it honestly, as opposed to somehow extracting “Ted” out of Rafael and then griping about some other guy’s honest nickname.
I could articulate a nexus between you bringing up camera time and the invalidity of the protest. I doubt you could articulate a nexus between bringing up the cameras and any other point.
That one will earn you a warning, foolsguinea. You should know better than to insult another poster.
Please don’t do it again.
Paraphrasing another poster, then accusing that poster of being dishonest based on one’s paraphrase breaks the prohibition against accusations of lying.
That will pick up a Warning.
[ /Moderating ]
The symbolism that it conveys to me is that the government/military was willing to pay the NFL to change decades long protocol and send their players out before games to rile up something that they could declare as “patriotism.” And now some people are upset that the created image of patriotism has been co-opted by a different group with less money.
::: shrug :::
(I am also at a loss to understand where the “disrespect” claim for this monetary display of alleged patriotism originates. Genuflecting is a sign of respect. No one (of whom I am aware) has turned their back on the flag, dropped trow, and mooned it.)
Then it would appear you missed the post in which I suggested the problem with choosing this moment because the cameras were present was the inference that the protest was tied to the patriotic expression of the anthem instead of the racial disparity in law enforcement. That doesn’t make the protest against racial disparity invalid; it merely weakens the clarity of the message.
I was not accusing you of anything-I was giving my own opinion on the subject of all those that promote the idea that they were being disrespectful to the flag despite being told otherwise by the protestors themselves. You already said that that you accepted what they were actually protesting, but that they were doing it in an effectual manner. My position is that the real problem are those that lie about what the protests are about, not the protestors themselves.
How would taking a knee when there is no audience to see their action nor hear their message strengthen that message?
I’m trying to imagine the headspace where a protest who harms no-one, inconveniences no-one, and which literally everyone can ignore with no further repercussions is somehow so important to be elevated to a national issue, or so disrespectful to get someone angry. I get how the response to that protest becomes a national issue when the president decides to wade into the culture war, but really? This is something people care about? This is something people worry about? Even if you’re missing literally all of the context of the civil rights movement, even if you have absolutely no idea what they’re celebrating, in what universe is this worth bringing up to your local politician?
That headspace is a dark, empty, angry place and I want no part of it.
It wouldn’t, which suggests to me that taking a knee has flaws as an unambiguous method of conveying a protest.
And your alternate suggestion is…?
I’m protesting this terrible argument.
You can’t tell, because I’m doing it alone, in my room, without telling anyone, but I’m definitely doing it!
This is how protests work, right?
Simple: It’s a distraction, like arguing about where Obama was born or whether Clinton “rigged” the primaries. It’s using a word like a smoke bomb, or perhaps a flashbang, to make a lot of noise and flashing light to ensure nobody can focus on what’s actually being discussed here.
It’s symptomatic of something I call Adult Syndrome: Being obsessed with status and deferential ritual. It’s playing the protocol game for blood. Everyone knows the protocol game, and it’s possible to play it honestly, and use it for good: You stand and are silent when a judge enters the courtroom, and that isn’t a problem because the same protocol ensures that the prosecution can’t talk over the defense, or brandish a large valise at a witness with exculpatory testimony.
However, when the Adult Syndrome rears its ugly head, the deformed protocol game it engenders is one the other person can’t win: Everything is disrespectful, and being disrespectful is immediately disqualifying. They are, after all, the Adult, and Adults must take children in hand to correct them when they’re disrespectful. The landscape goes from being a manicured garden where you must walk on the paths to being a minefield where mines spring up like wildflowers, spread on the slightest breeze.
The end is quite simple: Always being right, and never having to come up with any cogent arguments. It’s a way to shout down opposing arguments while never looking like a hooting ape putting on a dominance display.
I can’t say anyone at the SDMB qualifies, but it’s common enough in reality.
Does the fact that the right-wing press deliberately misrepresented what was being protested play a part in this?
Yes. A highly predictable part.
Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. Videos of the quarterback joining a #BLM march. Publicity by the same methods non-NFL celebrities use to reasonably decent effect.
Sure. That too.
It’s true that genuflecting is generally a sign of respect. But it’s equally clear that the protesters don’t intend to convey respect for the flag or the anthem. Their comments make that clear: they are kneeling to protest an issue, not to convey respect.
*All *forms of protest have flaws. Little in life is perfect.
Was marching in the streets during the civil rights protests are perfect form of protest?
No. One side saw it as protesting racism and one side saw it as uppity nigras who didn’t know their place.
This is the exact same thing.