Trump and NFL boycott

[Darth Rotor]

From what I can tell, the protests of football players has literally nothing to do with the military.

As far as i can tell, you are correct.

I think they want to keep getting paid, though.

Yeah. I don't blame them, the money's good.

That being said, wouldn't it be more effective if they refused to play? This kinda feels like the celebrity version of slacktivisim at this point.

Or, they are trying to give CK's original protest momentum.

With particular reference, as I understand it, to the "justice" system.

As far as I understand, that was CK's original motive.

The first ones to kneel are certainly much braver than the recent ones. They had the most risk and did it anyway.

Yes. Interesting take on it, but that doesn't mean that those who later followed weren't feeling it, sometimes is takes someone to do something before similarly minded people realize that acting may do some good. (See very revolution in history?)

 

[Ziggurat]

You use the term "virtue signalling" to dismiss others' expressions of political and moral opinions.

Again, this is not so. For example, I don't consider expressing opinions which are unpopular in your social circles to be virtue signaling, for reasons that should be obvious. I also don't consider expressions which contain significant effort and reasoning to be virtue signaling. To be virtue signaling, it must be popular in your social circle (or the circle you aspire to), and it must be cheap and easy to do.

Many folk express opinions without laying their lives or livelihoods on the line (and arguably, some of the kneelers are putting their money where their mouths are) and tain't a damn thing shameful or dubious about it.

If you want to argue that I'm being too cynical, go ahead. Hell, I even described my own interpretation as being cynical. And you don't have to agree with me. But at least do me the courtesy of not trying any more straw men. It's a futile effort. There are more productive uses of both our time.

 

[varwoche]

Standing for the anthem: virtue signalling or simply abiding by social conventions?

Complaining about PC excesses: virtue signalling or expressing an opinion?

NRA stickers on your pickup truck: virtue signalling or expressing political support?

You use the term "virtue signalling" to dismiss others' expressions of political and moral opinions. It is dismissive and utterly biased in the way you use the term. Many folk express opinions without laying their lives or livelihoods on the line (and arguably, some of the kneelers are putting their money where their mouths are) and tain't a damn thing shameful or dubious about it.

While anyone with an iota of self-awareness would get this simple concept, special snowflakes see things differently because, well, their bunched-up undies are special.

 

[phiwum]

Again, this is not so. For example, I don't consider expressing opinions which are unpopular in your social circles to be virtue signaling, for reasons that should be obvious. I also don't consider expressions which contain significant effort and reasoning to be virtue signaling. To be virtue signaling, it must be popular in your social circle (or the circle you aspire to), and it must be cheap and easy to do. If you want to argue that I'm being too cynical, go ahead. Hell, I even described my own interpretation as being cynical. And you don't have to agree with me. But at least do me the courtesy of not trying any more straw men. It's a futile effort. There are more productive uses of both our time.

I offered no straw men. I seriously asked your opinion on those three activities. You snipped those questions and pretend they are strawmen, but the highlighted gives us enough to determine your answers anyway.[1]

Standing for the anthem: popular, easy to do, hence virtue signalling

Kneeling for the anthem: unpopular in almost every context, hence not virtue signalling. Maybe virtue signalling if one aspires to be a detested liberal protestor.

Complaining about PC gone wild: Popular in conservative circles, easy to do, hence virtue signalling when done in conservative circles (or aspiring to same). Not virtue signalling when done at UC Berkeley or Evergreen State.

NRA stickers: Again, popular in conservative circles, easy to do, so virtue signalling in Tulsa, not in Cambridge.

If my reasoning is mistaken, do let me know. I'm simply trying to apply the criteria you just gave in an unbiased manner. You needn't accuse me of strawmen, since you left the questions unanswered but provided criteria which seem clear enough.

[1] To be fair, you stated these as necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. Hence, only the negative results (e.g. kneeling is not virtue signalling) can be stated with confidence.

 

[Brainster]

The problem with this as a tactic is that it is attracting attention to the protests, but not to the thing being protested.

You know what I would like to see the players do, instead of kneeling for the national anthem? Make the entire post-game press conference about racism and prejudice in America. Refuse to answer any questions from white guys or that don't have to do with racism. Demand that the sportswriters spend a part of every column dealing with issues of race.

 

[phiwum]

The problem with this as a tactic is that it is attracting attention to the protests, but not to the thing being protested.

You know what I would like to see the players do, instead of kneeling for the national anthem? Make the entire post-game press conference about racism and prejudice in America. Refuse to answer any questions from white guys or that don't have to do with racism. Demand that the sportswriters spend a part of every column dealing with issues of race.

You're right that, especially after Trump became involved, the point of the protests has been lost. But your solution sounds dreadful. (Especially the racist treatment of white reporters.)

Honestly, taking a knee is a much, much less annoying form of protest.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think it's kinda funny how the criticisms of the protesters are a mix between "they aren't doing enough," and "protesting the anthem is just too much!"

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think it's kinda funny how the criticisms of the protesters are a mix between "they aren't doing enough," and "protesting the anthem is just too much!"

And according to CNN Trump got just what he was after. The public opinions are divided right along the conservative Maginot Line. Older people, particularly older white people and older Republican voting white people are largely lining up behind Trump's nonsensical jingoism. Democrats, blacks and young people are pretty strongly of the belief that the protests are a thing that should be done, or at least they have a right to do so.

Score another for the Nixon Playbook.

What's the over-under for Sunday? Since the NFL can't risk cancelling the playing of the national anthem, will more and more teams keep the players in the locker room or tunnel. It seems the best political solution for the teams. Take the players reactions out of the playing of the anthem. Last week it was pretty clearly the teams' choice what to do. Might the NFL suggest that this just be made a permanent change. When the last notes, starting with "...land of the freeeeeeeeee" are hit, the crowd is programmed to erupt anyway. Have the teams hit the sidelines right after that and get down to playing some football.

(Meh? I like seeing the protest/kneel. I'm just speaking from the NFL point of view.)

 

[theprestige]

In this case, are the form/function the same though ?

I say they're not. This is an impression I first formed during the Occupy Wall Street protests. A lot of people are engaging a ritualistic aping of the mechanism of social change, without actually understanding or operating the mechanism itself. They're basically protesting for the sake of protesting, for the idea of doing something important. But they're not actually doing something important. "Cargo cult" seemed like an apt term, and I still like it.

And yes, of course I'm glibly denigrating the protestors. Theirs is a glib form of protest, which is kind of my point.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I say they're not. This is an impression I first formed during the Occupy Wall Street protests. A lot of people are engaging a ritualistic aping of the mechanism of social change, without actually understanding or operating the mechanism itself. They're basically protesting for the sake of protesting, for the idea of doing something important. But they're not actually doing something important. "Cargo cult" seemed like an apt term, and I still like it.

And yes, of course I'm glibly denigrating the protestors. Theirs is a glib form of protest, which is kind of my point.

I like the cargo cult analogy, but you guys are applying it to the wrong side.

Ya see, in Hollywood's America there was once this country that had nothing but happy white people living in suburban houses with 2.3 children and 1.2 cars with mommy in the kitchen in high heels and an a-line skirt and perfect makeup and perfectly coiffed hair while dad went off to some obscure middle management position that allowed him to get home every afternoon at 6:03. And there were no black or brown people and no unemployment and no large swaths of urban or rural poor. The biggest problem was that Eddie Haskell was a jerk.

And Jefferson Smith could sway the Congress of the United States to do the right thing. And John Doe could really be a part of a movement that conquered the big machine. And Mr. Deeds and Jefferson Smith... they all took on the forces of repression and came out ahead. "Cuz by golly this is Murka and a man can be anything he wants if he just works hard."

How's that for an illusion and belief that the reactionaries actually pray to and pray for. The return to a time that never existed. Cargo cult, indeed.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's kinda funny how the criticisms of the protesters are a mix between "they aren't doing enough," and "protesting the anthem is just too much!"

Think about it a little more, and you might not find it funny at all. They aren't doing enough to make the world a better place, and they're doing too much to make the world a worse place. The mix of criticism rightly expresses this sad situation.

 

[I Am The Scum]

they're doing too much to make the world a worse place

I legitimately do not understand what this phrase means. Does it entail the idea that kneeling during the anthem makes the world a worse place?

 

[erlando]

I'm not convinced it applies. First, football is an extracurricular activity. The only disciplinary action for players who don't comply is not playing. Extracurricular activities regularly impose more requirements on students than school itself. Second, they aren't being asked to salute or speak, but only stand. I'm not sure if that's enough to be considered compelled speech. Combine the two, and I can easily imagine the courts drawing a distinction where this is allowed even though the forced pledge is not.

Standing is saluting.

 

[Locknar]

This thread is specific to Trump and the NFL boycott, not "all things Trump". As a result, this thread has been set to moderated status for now.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[WilliamSeger]

A lot of reactionaries use terms like virtue signalling, social justice warrior, and identity politics to pretend that their smug indifference to racial injustice isn't really racism. They seem to think it's a mask, when it's more like a magnifying glass.

 

[Brainster]

You're right that, especially after Trump became involved, the point of the protests has been lost. But your solution sounds dreadful. (Especially the racist treatment of white reporters.)

Honestly, taking a knee is a much, much less annoying form of protest.

Somehow I don't get the feeling that avoiding annoyance is the idea. But you're right in one sense--the sportswriters would certainly find it annoying.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Standing is saluting.

At the very least, it serves the same purpose.

 

[phiwum]

Somehow I don't get the feeling that avoiding annoyance is the idea. But you're right in one sense--the sportswriters would certainly find it annoying.

The audience would also find it annoying and that's a poor way to generate sympathy for your position. (I'm sure you and I agree that BLM's blocking of freeways was just stupid, whether it generated ink or not.)

 

[NoahFence]

Sure, he's glibly denigrating the protesters. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

Seriously, what exactly do the protesters want people to do? There's no bloody way to tell from any of the protests what course of action we should take. What are their demands? Hell, do they even have any? And supposing they do, what's the imagined causal connection between the protests and the satisfaction of those demands?

How about talk about the *********** issue they're protesting instead of bitching about the manner in which they protest?

 

[dudalb]

The problem with this as a tactic is that it is attracting attention to the protests, but not to the thing being protested.

You know what I would like to see the players do, instead of kneeling for the national anthem? Make the entire post-game press conference about racism and prejudice in America. Refuse to answer any questions from white guys or that don't have to do with racism. Demand that the sportswriters spend a part of every column dealing with issues of race.

Race is not going away as an issue any time soon, no matter how much you might wish it to.
Racism is alive and well in America, and is making a comeback.
Sooner or later, if it wants to survive, the GOP is going have take it head on, because, long term the GOP cannot survive as a heavily white party with few minority members.
Anyway, as someone who did not approve of the kneeling tactic as a way to get your point across. this has moved beyond that. It has become about free speech. And I submit for the President to demand that a businessman fire him employee is a very dangerous precedent.