:dubious: Again, nobody is saying that anybody “can’t” use anything. One company made a decision not to use one symbol, and didn’t say anything about how anybody else should decide on its use. So why does that upset you so much?
As for the conservative parody LGBT shirts, I don’t think anybody’s ever seriously going to consider that reactionary rightwingers have “hijacked” the acronym. For one thing, “LGBT” was already associated with anti-reactionary ideology much more strongly than the Betsy Ross flag was ever associated with anti-racism. For another, eventually even most of the reactionary rightwingers are going to be embarrassed about their Trump support, so they won’t want to keep using their version of the acronym.
Well, I don’t really care what happens to Nike, considering the way they treat the people who work for them. They deserve to lose money, if you ask me.
Could we at least come to an understanding in this thread that when we are saying that people “can’t” do this or that, we are not talking about a legal prohibition? Everyone understands this, but for some reason you need to keep beating down this strawman.
Who cares? This isn’t some court of law where you get to decide if I have standing. I’ve certainly worn it in the past.
You may not understand it, but if you can’t use a symbol in polite company because someone might be offended because some racists have used it, or because some of the founding fathers were slave owners, you’ve ceded that symbol to the racists - they’re the only ones who will still use it.
I’m not ignoring, minimizing or denying such connotations. Hell, I acknowledged them in the very post you quoted. I’m saying that saying “It’s a racist symbol” minimizes, denies and ignores the other good connotations that arose from the founding fathers. It’s neither lily white, or a stain on humanity. To pretend that it’s so terrible that people will be offended by its sight due to its problems with slavery without people like Kapernick leading them there is pretty damn silly in my opinion.
America fetishizes the constitution and holds the “founding fathers” to a standard of reverence that rivals godhood. You really don’t have to worry about people “ignoring the other good connotations” of these long-dead-white-men. As long as America exists they won’t be forgotten. You’ve got nothing to worry about.
Ehh, I’d generally agree. But when we’re in a world where a shoe company actually worries about putting an early version of the flag on their shoes for fear of offending folks, I’m not so sure.
…“a shoe company not doing something” is not cause for alarm. In case you didn’t know this: shoe companies don’t do things all the time. What is it, exactly, “you are not so sure” of? You think Americans are all of a sudden going to stop “worshiping” the founding fathers?
It wasn’t about the **fear **of offending folks. It actually **did **offend folks. Not that it matters, because as has been pointed out by others in this thread Nike is ultimately motivated by money. The Kapernick campaign was a huge success for them, and thanks to the voices of outrage I have no doubt that this will pay off for them as well.
Meh, “worship” is your bullshit word. I don’t worship them, they were imperfect men. And yeah, Nike was worried about losing money from fear of offending folks. If the had actually done it, they might have offended people, but they didn’t do it. It offends folks like myself with their manufacturing habits for years, but somehow that doesn’t make them fear losing money, so they keep doing it.
(Yeah, my bolding doesn’t mean anything, I’m pretty sure yours didn’t either.)
…yes! Yes it was! Congratulations on figuring out that I wrote the word “worship.” Thats what Great Debates is all about folks! Figuring out the important things.
You may not worship them, but you worry enough about “the other good connotations that arose from the founding fathers” to have concerns that a shoe business decided not to do something. If the other the other good connotations that arose from the founding fathers are actually good connotations then they will stand on their own. Nothing a shoe company will do will change that. You have nothing to worry about.
But they did offend people: and that person told them he thought it wasn’t a good idea. Nike also had every reason to fear that they would offend people who get offended whenever shoe-companies make decisions to not do something that may or may not offend people. And when Nike made the decision not to do something, those people ended up getting offended. The fear of not offending the easily offended did not stop Nike from doing something that ended up offending them.
Heh, everyone’s offended these days, huh? You can’t win. Meh, who cares, I’m ordering a Betsy Ross flag patch to sew onto my jacket. Worrying about who’s offended is for saps at this point.
Minor nitpick:If they did base their decision on Kapernick’s advice, he’s a person, not a people. Considering how well your last post was edited, you may be nearly as impaired as I am this holiday’s eve. Happy 4th.
The thing is, the only side being outraged in this situation are the people outraged that Nike would dare withdraw a symbol that is used by white supremacists.
Nike can’t avoid people being outraged, but they can make sure the side that is outraged is the side that they aren’t actively marketing to. Nike is clearly running an anti-racist ad campaign. So they chose not to offend the anti-racists. And, as a bonus, they get free publicity from all the offended people publicly announcing their offense.
To me, the “offense culture” problem seems to not be people being offended, but people being offended that people are offended, or being offended that other people’s offense is being taken seriously. I myself do not feel more offended than I used to be, and I doubt you do, either.
No, it’s just that more people are aware of other people’s offense, and then offended by it.
And so the corporate manipulation is complete: to get back at Kaepernick (who is wholly indifferent to
you and what you do) now you’re going to spend money on a flag you didn’t even really care about until this week. Then you’re going to wear it as a protest maneuver a thing, thereby politicizing it and enabling others to interpret it as something more than just our early nation’s flag. Some might see it as a symbol of anti-Kaepernickism, and some might think is synonymous to anti-anyone who dares to speak against racism.
Now you might insist these interpretations are wrong. “I’m just honoring our nation’s founding!” you might say, feigning doe-eyed innocence. But the thing is, these interpretations aren’t wrong. When you and a bunch of other angry white people start displaying this flag, it’s going to be real obvious you’re only doing it because 1) Nike has manipulated you into doing so and 2) you have a hard on for Kaepernick.
From one Doper to another, your smartest move is to not let yourself be Nike’s tool.
So your argument is that you don’t agree with CK’s campaign to oppose brutality against black men and therefore you hope that he gets brutalized?
The Left: Offended by systemic racism and violence against black men.
The Right: Offended by one football player quietly kneeling during the National Anthem.
The Left: Offended by symbology which may indicate sympathy with historical racist practices.
The Right: Offended because they can’t buy sneakers with a particular flag design.
Remind me again who’s creating new reasons to be offended by trivial shit?
Apparently you have me confused with some other motherfucker. I supported Kapernick’s protests (I don’t care if he noticed) until he came up with this horseshit, and I’ve cared about that flag for longer than I knew who he was. You don’t have to be a right-winger, have a hard on for Kapernick, or be easily manipulated to disagree with his and Nike’s position.
Nike didn’t want to offend anyone whose family from previous generations were slaves, so they decided not to put a shoe on the market. Big fuckin deal, it’s their company. The only outrage here is from unhinged “patriots” like the Governor of Arizona.