or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 391

post #5851 of 6081
If the players are only there to play football then they should not play the anthem at all. If they make a point of playing it and having people stand, then using it to protest is fair game IMO.
post #5852 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post

If the players are only there to play football then they should not play the anthem at all. If they make a point of playing it and having people stand, then using it to protest is fair game IMO.

But the players are not the only actors in this scenario. There's those people that pay the bills and most of them expect it.
post #5853 of 6081

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

it's not unreasonable to think a 28 year old multi, multi millionaire that throws a ball for a living is a bit disingenuous to take the venue that made him so rich as his place to protest.

 

This sounds like it may not be as much the venue, but more about the protestor. He's gotten very rich at a young age by playing football. Correct. He's using the venue that made him rich to protest. Correct. People who become successful frequently use the very thing that made them successful as a platform to promote unrelated causes they believe in. Why is that a bad or disingenuous thing?

 

The NFL has given him an opportunity to become wealthy in this country. That's a good thing, right? Land of opportunity and all that jazz. He's not protesting the NFL. I'd have more issues if the NFL made him wealthy, and he was protesting the NFL by using the NFL as a platform. That would feel disingenuous. 

 

Isn't it really that he's using a platform (i.e. the NFL) that not only has allowed him to be successful in this country, but also is a platform that has an audience of tens of millions of people? That's what this is really about. Unlike pretty much every other person in the country, he has the benefit of a captive audience of tens of millions every week. What other protestor can say that? If you're gonna protest, a venue with a captive audience of tens of millions seems like a pretty effective place to start.

 

I may not agree with his message, but it seems like a pretty smart move in terms of getting your message out.

post #5854 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

Quote:

This sounds like it may not be as much the venue, but more about the protestor. He's gotten very rich at a young age by playing football. Correct. He's using the venue that made him rich to protest. Correct. People who become successful frequently use the very thing that made them successful as a platform to promote unrelated causes they believe in. Why is that a bad or disingenuous thing?

The constant reframing is very subtle but ultimately taking over the conversation. This is not promoting a cause this is a protest. There's a clear difference between promotion and protesting.

I've also not said it was a "bad" thing as I'm attaching no moral character to it. I've already explained why I find it disingenuous in CK's case so you can accept it or not.
post #5855 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

But the players are not the only actors in this scenario. There's those people that pay the bills and most of them expect it.

Or you could take the more cynical view and say that what most of the audience "expects" is a bit of safe "controversy" and naughtiness that allows them to feel superior, argue pointlessly, and get all worked up. Not sure that either the NFL, nor the networks that now have people turning in the beginning of the broadcast to seem what particular teams, players, and coaches do during the playing of the anthem, are terribly upset about this. Brain trauma, domestic violence, wearing pink cleats and donating a few pennies to cancer, patriotism/protest -- it makes everyone involved feel more serious and relevant.
post #5856 of 6081
The funny thing is one of the guys arguing with me re: venue also argued extensively with me when I said we've got a systemic problem with policing and race. I wonder if he'd go tell CK we don't have a problem in our police forces with race?
post #5857 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Or you could take the more cynical view and say that what most of the audience "expects" is a bit of safe "controversy" and naughtiness that allows them to feel superior, argue pointlessly, and get all worked up. Not sure that either the NFL, nor the networks that now have people turning in the beginning of the broadcast to seem what particular teams, players, and coaches do during the playing of the anthem, are terribly upset about this. Brain trauma, domestic violence, wearing pink cleats and donating a few pennies to cancer, patriotism/protest -- it makes everyone involved feel more serious and relevant.

 

Well they don't want us to focus on how they take hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers to build giant stadiums that never have a positive ROI while everyone involved gets super rich.

post #5858 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

The funny thing is one of the guys arguing with me re: venue also argued extensively with me when I said we've got a systemic problem with policing and race. I wonder if he'd go tell CK we don't have a problem in our police forces with race?


technically you're arguing with me. 

 

in any case i don't have to agree with the message to support somebody's choice to exercise speech. obviously those 2 issues (legitimacy of speech vs legitimacy of message) share a nexus here but we can separate them comfortably i think. 

 

what i offered then and what i would offer to anybody now is that i'm not convinced that continuing to objectify race is all that constructive. on the other hand Piob would you tell Kaepernick that you sympathize with his cause but find him disqualified by his choice of venue?

 

EDIT: just to tack on to that observation re Dixie Chicks a little bit, they were flambeed and looking back it's not a particularly out-of-the-main comment that they made (these days at least). however this shakes out for CKs career or the NFL is obviously a different question than the future of the way that police interact with young black men (which i assume is the prime consideration here)


Edited by double00 - 9/23/16 at 11:44am
post #5859 of 6081

Guys, we have a Colin Kaepernick thread. Please use it. I am tired with arguing with Ataturk, suited, etc alone (though NorCal did join in)

post #5860 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Guys, we have a Colin Kaepernick thread. Please use it. I am tired with arguing with Ataturk, suited, etc alone (though NorCal did join in)

Okay, back to dealing with the systemic problems with race in policing.
post #5861 of 6081
My apologies to contributing to getting us off track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Also, I can't wait to find out how this guy was "disabled" as the media credulously reports.

I've heard no more than the guy's wife saying that he has TBI in the now released video. If true, TBI can be a very real disability. She was saying it in real time of the shooting, not just talking after the fact. I haven't seen documentation or anything, but that kind of excited utterance lends some amount of credibility to the claim of disability.

More importantly to the case itself, TBI could have been very relevant to how he was acting and could have impacted how officers viewed him and the situation. TBI can cause people to react unusually to stressful situations, like being encountered by a police. It also is important for officers to be aware that someone informing you of an individual's TBI could be very important to your analysis of the situation.
post #5862 of 6081
post #5863 of 6081
From the article this caught my eye:
Quote:
North Carolina recently passed a law that blocks the release of police recordings from body or dashboard cameras with limited exceptions. That law is set to take effect in October.

Nicely played, North Carolina.
post #5864 of 6081
Probably passed to help ensure people's privacy or some bull shit
post #5865 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

My apologies to contributing to getting us off track.
I've heard no more than the guy's wife saying that he has TBI in the now released video. If true, TBI can be a very real disability. She was saying it in real time of the shooting, not just talking after the fact. I haven't seen documentation or anything, but that kind of excited utterance lends some amount of credibility to the claim of disability.

More importantly to the case itself, TBI could have been very relevant to how he was acting and could have impacted how officers viewed him and the situation. TBI can cause people to react unusually to stressful situations, like being encountered by a police. It also is important for officers to be aware that someone informing you of an individual's TBI could be very important to your analysis of the situation.

I assume you know that lingering disability is really easy to fake after a real head injury, as there's often no way to prove or disprove the claims. I never said I doubted he claimed to be disabled before he was shot, I just suggested that I expected it to turn out to be BS. Jury's still out on that one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?