That is a social media strategy but nothing to do with protest.
You understand the whole idea of protest is that if someone else is telling you how to do it, and you do that, it isn’t a protest.
All of which is good. And I guess you make a reasonable point.
But the demonization of protesters implies an antipathy toward them as public persons, if not toward their cause. A black man marching in a part of the city one doesn’t go to is not a problem. A black man having opinions on one’s television screen, apparently, is.
I know they’re not protesting the anthem. But we conservatives have been incredibly successful in misrepresenting the reality of what’s going on and in making people think there’s something pernicious happening where there really isn’t. And since people are upset, well, obviously we need to do something to assuage the fears and confusion that we created, right?
On a slightly different note, I know that there’s no real voter fraud going on. But we conservatives have been incredibly successful in misrepresenting the reality of what’s going on and in making people think there’s something pernicious happening where really there isn’t. And since people are upset, well, obviously we need to do something to assuage the fears and confusion that we created, right?
I’m starting to see a pattern here…
You understand that there’s really no way to answer iamthewalrus’ question without running afoul of that rule you just announced?
To be fair, tuning in to a football game is also “opt-in.”
It also reaches a broader audience than those who already subscribe to that football player’s Twitter account and have already gotten the message. Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are great ways to preach to the choir, but not so great for getting a message out to the masses.
edited to add: If you say that Instagram, Twitter and Facebook is the route they should have taken, tell me if you are already subscribed to their accounts and would have heard the message that way.
Our national identity has belligerence and oppression of minorities as one of its pillars, and it always has. I see no reason why that shouldn’t be protested.
I don’t see that at all. You never know unless you try.
Except that all of those approaches will yield exactly the same result: some defect in the presentation will be found that will justify ignoring the message. Don’t do it at a sporting event. Don’t do it during rush hour. Don’t use that phrasing. Don’t associate with that person. When every attempt to address a problem is dismissed because of a problem with its form, it becomes clear that the actual objection is to its content.
I wouldn’t agree with that statement (although the poster you responded to might)
Listing methods of protest that would be unobjectionable is not the same as forcing someone to protest in a certain manner. There are obviously methods of protests that are more or less objectionable. Civil disobedience is certainly better than, say, lobbing malatov cocktails.
The problem with that line is that silently kneeling is so passive and non-disruptive that it boggles the mind that it’s listed as objectionable.
And, of course, my question was primarily rhetorical, since I don’t think that there really is such a method. That is, I’m sure that there are protests that you, Bricker think are reasonable. But there is no protest method that won’t get plenty of people to complain (disingenuously) that sure, those guys have the right to protest, but it’s so uncouth of them to do it this way, that they deserve the scorn that we’re heaping on them.
I’ve seen plenty of people get upset over peaceful marches in the street because it fouls up traffic. And I’ve seen plenty of bullshit about how actors and professional athletes should shut up about politics. And those complaints, just like the complaints about people kneeling while the national anthem is playing, have nothing to do with the method of protest, and everything to do with the protestors and the cause.
What do you think of lunch counter sit-ins as a method of protest? Those were certainly far more disruptive and disrespectful than quietly kneeling. They involved breaking the law, failing to follow the direction of police officers, keeping other people who might reasonably want to eat lunch there.
One that often comes to mind for me is the response Eartha Kitt got for speaking her mind, at the White House, about drafting folks to get shot maimed in Vietnam: lots of people said, oh, no, we don’t want celebrities going to the White House and saying things like that; it’s unacceptable, heaven forbid, perish the thought.
I disagree, of course; but, taking it seriously for the sake of argument, I’ve of course then seen celebrities who aren’t on the same page as the President come in for lots of criticism upon getting invited to the White House and just not going.
At which point . . . look, if something and nothing are both off-limits?
I agree with (and, indeed, have already said) the thrust of your point here, but I want to point out something: If being late for your job puts you at risk of losing it, and if you can’t get a job quickly and are living paycheck-to-paycheck as it is, you just might see someone slowing down your morning (or, if you work nights, evening) commute as being worthy of your ire.
Now, add to that the fact there are plenty of emergency responders who drive normal cars and don’t get lights and sirens and you can see real, specific complaints against that mode of protest which don’t boil down to some illusory and dishonest claim of “disrespect”.
There is a fairly consistent distinction to be made between, say, Martin Luther King’s actions, or Rosa Park’s actions, on the one hand, and the NFL player actions on the other. There’s a consistent way to approve of the former while disapproving of the latter.
I don’t know what others call it, but I think of it as the Victor’s Distinction.
That is, you can approve of Parks and King, because they won. Their civil rights struggle is safely in the past, and society has agreed that what they did was great and that they were heroes. Today if you blame Parks or King, you experience some serious social pushback. So if you adopt the Victor’s Distinction, you approve of what they did.
Colin Kaepernick? He hasn’t won yet. Black Lives Matter? The people who take down statues? They’re in the middle of their struggle, and you can condemn them without universal social pushback. So the Victor’s Distinction doesn’t require you to approve of them: you can criticize them all you like.
It’s convenient and consistent. Fifty years ago, those who adopted the Victor’s Distinction could approve of Harriet Tubman while disapproving of MLK, pointing out how he stirred up trouble in otherwise peaceful communities. A hundred and fifty years ago, those who adopted the Victor’s Distinction could approve of the Boston Tea Party while condemning Harriet Tubman for violating property rights–I mean, sure, maybe slavery should end some day, but stealing people from plantations wasn’t helping the cause at all. And in 1773 I’m certain there were people who approved of Pilgrims who left the land they were bonded to, but wagged their fingers at the hooligans throwing perfectly good tea into the Boston Harbor.
Lest we all forget, these players’ peaceful, free action of political messaging comes in the midst of a compelled action of political messaging which celebrates violence. If players kneeling for the Anthem isn’t acceptable, then neither is playing the Anthem in the first place.
This is closely related to Harington’s Epigram:
Treason doth never prosper? What’s the Reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
(Sir John Harington was one of Queen Elizabeth’s godsons, and inventor of the flush toilet. [trivia:] the slang ‘John’ for ‘bathroom’ may derive from Harington’s name.)
It is endlessly surprising to me how many people are blissfully unaware than King was one of the most hated Americans in America, maybe THE most hated, especially by conservatives.
Fantastic post.
Very closely related–good call.
One exception: “The North” were winners but nobody ever wanted to say this thing is really over. It’s still not.
Can’t quote Airman Doors, USAF:
Who said: “Our national identity has belligerence and oppression of minorities as one of its pillars, and it always has. I see no reason why that shouldn’t be protested.”
Thank you for posting this, it is the truth. No reason why, especially if the protest is non violent and nobody is hurt.
“But mah football game! But mah anthem!”
Give me a fucking break.