• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump and NFL boycott

If the owners threaten to bench kneelers, I would hope that the players support each other and all kneel. When the owners can't field a team, some interesting things will happen.
 
Mandated, forced behavior of civilians involving an act that counts as speech; i.e, is considered an expression of opinion (thus the controversy), now to be enforced by the NFL, a publicly chartered company, in order to place direct, extremely assymetric economic pressure. Ah, right proper pre-1776 vintage thought! To be consonant with the measure, the US should also change the anthem to My Country, 'Tis of Thee, and the words back to God Save the (Orange) Queen. Bowing and curtsy lessons next.

Don't miss out on signalling compliance, this upcoming winter's fashion hit will be redcoats. Order yours now, straight from KGIII Crown Exports.
 
Galaxie said:
As I expected, that spineless-******* Roger Goodell has changed course:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/sports/football/nfl-goodell-anthem-kneeling.html
Click to expand...


The article includes a comment by Mike Ditka which exemplifies in just a few words one of the core issues fueling this dispute ... ignorance.

The controversy has spilled into the broader football community, with some former players lashing out at current players who refuse to stand for the anthem. Mike Ditka, a Hall of Fame player and head coach, said Monday that he did not believe that there had been any oppression in the United States in the last century. “All of a sudden, it’s become a big deal now, about oppression,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
For context, Ditka was 25 when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Meaning that he grew up in the same country with Jim Crow and either didn't notice or didn't view it as oppressive.
 
Cleon said:
For context, Ditka was 25 when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Meaning that he grew up in the same country with Jim Crow and either didn't notice or didn't view it as oppressive.
Click to expand...

Ditka's an old school football player. Nothing outside of football really existed to him. Spent his entire adult life in pro football where the visuals can give one the idea that there is no racism anymore despite him playing in the era when "blacks weren't smart enough to play quarterback". Ignorance is not much of an excuse, but for him it's somewhat understandable.
 
The President of the United States uses the power of his office to threaten the NFL into taking action against its players for exercising their right to free speech.

The NFL capitulates.


Nope, no oppression there. None at all.
 
johnny karate said:
The President of the United States uses the power of his office to threaten the NFL into taking action against its players for exercising their right to free speech.

The NFL capitulates.


Nope, no oppression there. None at all.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being insensitive, but I wouldn't describe this as oppression.

The rights of NFL players to express disapproval of police violence is fairly limited when it comes to their workplace, which includes the pregame show. I don't have much right to make political statements where I work. Now, I agree that it is the players' workplace which would make their statements most effective, but that doesn't mean that any free speech rights I've seen would be infringed if their private employers restrict that activity.

Sure, I'd like it if Trump didn't make statements about it. It's at best unseemly for a president to weigh in on such issues. The fact that he's president might make it a first amendment issue.

But I wouldn't call it oppression. Just like I don't call it oppression if public schools have dress codes. I call it ill-advised, needlessly restrictive, maybe even arguably a violation of the first amendment, but not oppression so much.
 
phiwum said:
Maybe I'm being insensitive, but I wouldn't describe this as oppression.

The rights of NFL players to express disapproval of police violence is fairly limited when it comes to their workplace, which includes the pregame show. I don't have much right to make political statements where I work. Now, I agree that it is the players' workplace which would make their statements most effective, but that doesn't mean that any free speech rights I've seen would be infringed if their private employers restrict that activity.

Sure, I'd like it if Trump didn't make statements about it. It's at best unseemly for a president to weigh in on such issues. The fact that he's president might make it a first amendment issue.

But I wouldn't call it oppression. Just like I don't call it oppression if public schools have dress codes. I call it ill-advised, needlessly restrictive, maybe even arguably a violation of the first amendment, but not oppression so much.
Click to expand...

No, it's not oppression when your employer places restrictions of your expression of free speech in the workplace.

It becomes oppression when your employer does so under threat from the government.

The government is suppressing your right to free speech through your employer.
 
johnny karate said:
The President of the United States uses the power of his office to threaten the NFL into taking action against its players for exercising their right to free speech.

The NFL capitulates.


Nope, no oppression there. None at all.
Click to expand...

No. Because he did not use the power of the office. Absolutely no power of the president were used.

Unless he asked for a written opinion of a cabinet member or something.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
No. Because he did not use the power of the office. Absolutely no power of the president were used.

Unless he asked for a written opinion of a cabinet member or something.
Click to expand...

The threat was issued as an official Presidential statement.

So yeah, he did use the power of his offfice.
 
NFL CUTS ONE TEAM...

The NFL announced today that for financial reasons due to the fallout over the recent protests they will be forced to downsize by eliminating one team from the league. They've decided to combine the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and form one team to be known as the TAMPACKS. Under the new format they will only work for one period and they will have no second string...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Official statements are not a power of the office. It isn't a power at all. They carry not legal impact.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

Presidential statements can hold legal weight and be used in court and as evidence in war crimes trials and UN resolutions.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Official statements are not a power of the office. It isn't a power at all. They carry not legal impact.
Click to expand...

They carry a reality impact regardless of legality.

Lynchings were not a power of the office, but they were carried out by law enforcement officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom