Trump and NFL boycott

[Meadmaker]

'Hand over the heart' (for everyone) was added in 1942 (provided the flag was present). The 1976 amendment was to give the same guidance when the flag was not present.

It really is unnecessarily complex.

And holier than thou. At first, stand. Then, people start putting their hands over their heart, so everyone has to do it, and then some people do it only when the flag is there, but then others do it everywhere, and so that ends up getting into the code, and on and on.

I've always been a "hands by the side" person during the anthem. Now I might feel like I ought to be putting my hand over my heart. Bah! It's all humbug anyway.


And, if you don't do it, you're disrespecting soldiers, or something.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Plenty of people don't view things logically. This is not an argument for viewing things illogically.

Plenty of people don't know the difference between logic and rationalization, too. From a "budgetary perspective" it wouldn't matter if we have good government or bad government, provided the budget is the same.

 

[Ziggurat]

Plenty of people don't know the difference between logic and rationalization, too. From a "budgetary perspective" it wouldn't matter if we have good government or bad government, provided the budget is the same.

Well, no. First, bad government will generally negatively impact the economy and thus revenue, so the budget is generally NOT the same. Second, and more importantly, there are reasons other than budgets to object to bad government. But that's not relevant to a budget-only complaint. If you have complaints other than the budget for Pence's actions, then those complaints aren't impacted by a budget-only defense.

That's actual logic applied to the situation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow - strawmen, coming from you?

I didn't say paying normal tax rates is oppressive (Trump, or generally GOP fans, would be much more likely to feel this way, which underscores that Trump likely INTENDED for this message to sound oppressive), my claim is that threatening a tax hike to force submission in a topic wholly unrelates to fiscal issues is oppressive.

Secondly, you cannot in your right mind disagree that this threat ultimately targets the black players who originally protested racism. Abusing the owners as proxies cannot change that obvious fact one bit.

Stop the denial.

When you want to view everything through the lens of race, then everything looks like it's about race. It's a denial of a different sort, a denial that anything else could be at play here. That Trump might actually be targeting the owners directly, or that it's not just black players involved here.

 

[phiwum]

When you want to view everything through the lens of race, then everything looks like it's about race. It's a denial of a different sort, a denial that anything else could be at play here. That Trump might actually be targeting the owners directly, or that it's not just black players involved here.

Um, yeah, it's possible that Trump is just such a flag humper that he doesn't see the issue as being about race, I suppose. But there's no doubt that the issue is about race from the perspectives of the protestors, and explicitly so.

But, sure, maybe Trump just loves the flag, in a fairly vulgar manner at times, and this is what's driving him. Matter of principle, I'm sure. And that's why he's dragging the owners into it. Or something.

 

[Oystein]

When you want to view everything through the lens of race, then everything looks like it's about race. It's a denial of a different sort, a denial that anything else could be at play here. That Trump might actually be targeting the owners directly, or that it's not just black players involved here.

Since the kneeling protests were, from the very beginning, very explicitly intended to be understood against a backdrop of racism, it would be denial to scratch racism from consideration.

Especially given that we already KNOW trump is a racist. Remember: there are fine people marching with nazis who show the traitors' battle flag under which the US flag was attacked.

 

[johnny karate]

The president doesn't make tax policy, so it's not up to him anyways. And yes, as a matter of fact, I don't really care about someone losing something they weren't actually entitled to in the first place. Why do you?

It's that part where it was a threat issued by the President to punish speech he doesn't like.

The validity or significance of the threat doesn't matter. It's the fact that the President is explicitly making threats to suppress free speech.

Free speech used to matter to you.

That's one of many of your many posts in which you derided people defending the use of violence against Nazis and white supremacists.

I assume you weren't doing that because you're a big fan of Nazis and white supremacists.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Well, no. First, bad government will generally negatively impact the economy and thus revenue, so the budget is generally NOT the same. Second, and more importantly, there are reasons other than budgets to object to bad government. But that's not relevant to a budget-only complaint. If you have complaints other than the budget for Pence's actions, then those complaints aren't impacted by a budget-only defense.

That's actual logic applied to the situation.

If you mean to say, applied to the situation of needing a rationalization, that was my point. But your "budget-only defense" still doesn't "logically" address phiwum's complaint:

Quite right, but for the fact that you and I spent a small bit of taxes for Pence to make that political act in favor of his boss.

... unless, of course, you can convince him that looking at it only from a "budgetary perspective" is the "logical" thing to do.

 

[quadraginta]

It's that part where it was a threat issued by the President to punish speech he doesn't like.

The validity or significance of the threat doesn't matter. It's the fact that the President is explicitly making threats to suppress free speech.

Free speech used to matter to you.

That's one of many of your many posts in which you derided people defending the use of violence against Nazis and white supremacists.

I assume you weren't doing that because you're a big fan of Nazis and white supremacists.

"... hobgoblin of small minds."

 

[Ziggurat]

It's that part where it was a threat issued by the President to punish speech he doesn't like.

The validity or significance of the threat doesn't matter. It's the fact that the President is explicitly making threats to suppress free speech.

Free speech used to matter to you.

That's one of many of your many posts in which you derided people defending the use of violence against Nazis and white supremacists.

I assume you weren't doing that because you're a big fan of Nazis and white supremacists.

The use of violence against speech is always off the table for me. But this simply doesn't compare.

I've already said I don't like the idea of changing taxes based upon speech (but again, where were you when the IRS was persecuting conservative groups), something you seem to be ignoring. But this is basically an idle threat. It's not going to happen. And the fact that it's not going to happen very much matters, though I know you want to pretend otherwise. So does the fact that what is being threatened is still something within the democratic system, and subject to all the normal checks and balances.

Trump doesn't need to actually do it in order to win this fight (nor can he, since most of the tax benefits are at the state and local level). The NFL is doing plenty of harm to itself, through mechanisms I have absolutely no objection to (ie, people just tuning out).

 

[Ziggurat]

If you mean to say, applied to the situation of needing a rationalization, that was my point. But your "budget-only defense" still doesn't "logically" address phiwum's complaint:


... unless, of course, you can convince him that looking at it only from a "budgetary perspective" is the "logical" thing to do.

I don't need to convince him that looking at it from a budgetary perspective is logical. I need only note that that's the perspective from which he DID look at it. He is free to choose another perspective, should he wish to do so.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I don't need to convince him that looking at it from a budgetary perspective is logical. I need only note that that's the perspective from which he DID look at it. He is free to choose another perspective, should he wish to do so.

Really? Perhaps I read to much into then; I read it as a taxpayer complaining about spending tax dollars on a sleazy PR stunt to prop up a failing president's divisive, demagogic diversionary tactics, not about how much money it cost and what budget category it was recorded under. But even looking at it only from your weird "budgetary perspective," saying that it's the same as money spent for a vacation because the money would spent anyway is not a "logical" conclusion; it's an obvious rationalization.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? Perhaps I read to much into then; I read it as a taxpayer complaining about spending tax dollars on a sleazy PR stunt to prop up a failing president's divisive, demagogic diversionary tactics, not about how much money it cost and what budget category it was recorded under.

If you don't care how much it cost, then logically it isn't relevant that it cost any money at all. All that other stuff you list in the complaint is independent of expenditures, one can complain about it even if it was free. Bringing in cost to the complaint when the cost is irrelevant is really just an appeal to emotion, to make people feel like they're getting cheated.

But even looking at it only from your weird "budgetary perspective," saying that it's the same as money spent for a vacation because the money would spent anyway is not a "logical" conclusion; it's an obvious rationalization.

I'm not the one saying we should use a budgetary perspective. I'm just telling you what the logical consequences are of such an approach, since you seem to only be able to see the emotional consequences.

 

[johnny karate]

The use of violence against speech is always off the table for me. But this simply doesn't compare.

Suppression of free speech is suppression of free speech.

It’s good to know violence in the name of free speech suppression is off the table for you.

But it’s troubling to know that threats made against private citizens by the executive branch of the government in the name of free speech suppression are just fine and dandy.

I'll just leave this here for you:

The devotion to free speech of a lot of people here runs about as deep as a puddle.

I've already said I don't like the idea of changing taxes based upon speech (but again, where were you when the IRS was persecuting conservative groups), something you seem to be ignoring. But this is basically an idle threat. It's not going to happen. And the fact that it's not going to happen very much matters, though I know you want to pretend otherwise. So does the fact that what is being threatened is still something within the democratic system, and subject to all the normal checks and balances.

Uh-huh, great…

Here’s what you had to say when Twitter changed their rules in a manner you felt restricted free speech:

You seem to be arguing that as long as they didn't violate the law, then there's no problem, no reason for concern, and no reason to voice discontent.

That is illogical.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11142533#post11142533

So let’s recap where we are on Ziggurat’s Free Speech Suppression Spectrum:

Twitter changing their rules = Orwellian.

The President of the United States issuing threats against private citizens = Totally cool.

 

[Garrison]

IMO taking a knee isn't "disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country" in any case.

But in Trump's world that's worth spending all his energy on demanding they be punished for it. On the other hand American's carrying swastika's, chanting anti-Semitic slogans and causing public disorder is barely worth 5 minutes of his time, which give's Neo-Naz's something in common with disaster victims in Puerto Rico...

 

[BobTheCoward]

Suppression of free speech is suppression of free speech.

It’s good to know violence in the name of free speech suppression is off the table for you.

But it’s troubling to know that threats made against private citizens by the executive branch of the government in the name of free speech suppression are just fine and dandy..

There is no threat of suppression here.


Different president? Absolutely. But this is the same guy that gets angry about government not investigating things he can order investigated. He doesn't realize he has influence on tax breaks (that don't exist).

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppression of free speech is suppression of free speech.

No, Johnny, it isn't all the same. Revoking an invitation to a speaker is different than assaulting them. Both acts can suppress free speech, but there's a vast difference between them. It really isn't all the same, and to treat it as if it is basically trivializes violence. Not that I'm surprised that you would, at least if the violence is coming from your side.

But it’s troubling to know that threats made against private citizens by the executive branch of the government in the name of free speech suppression are just fine and dandy.

I never said it was fine and dandy. I'm just not going to get my panties in a twist over a threat Trump doesn't even have the power to carry out.

Here’s what you had to say when Twitter changed their rules in a manner you felt restricted free speech:

And? Are you reading this to mean that I thought there would be no difference if they HAD broken the law? Because that's not what it means at all. Nor am I saying that you can't have any concern about this. But (get this) being of concern doesn't mean it's actually oppression.

Speaking of which, I note a bit that you DIDN'T quote from that post:

I never used the word "oppressed". That's a straw man.

Huh. It's almost as if I didn't think what Twitter did was oppression.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no threat of suppression here.


Different president? Absolutely. But this is the same guy that gets angry about government not investigating things he can order investigated. He doesn't realize he has influence on tax breaks (that don't exist).

Yeah, I really don't get this contradictory belief that Trump is both monumentally incompetent but also about to turn the country into a dictatorship. The cognitive dissonance must be exhausting.

 

[Garrison]

Yeah, I really don't get this contradictory belief that Trump is both monumentally incompetent but also about to turn the country into a dictatorship. The cognitive dissonance must be exhausting.

You assume that the two things are mutually exclusive.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You assume that the two things are mutually exclusive.

They are.