What is the point of forced patriotism?

dudalb said:
The controversy has become not about what the protestors are protesting, but the protest itself.
And, frankly, the snide attitude of the left toward any display of patriotism is playing into the hands of the right. This has been a piece of idiocy that has been going on for some time.
George Orwell had some interesting things to say about how in his day the left's sneering on patriotrism was backfiring.
Click to expand...


Such as?


Who is doing this?
 
BobTheCoward said:
The full on racists don't offend me much. At least it is a conscious choice. I'm really bothered by people that say the millionaires shouldn't be complaining. I can't wrap my head around the fact they can't even make it to a few steps of thought. They can't even speak to the concept that people with money are able and willing to emphasize with the plight of others.
Click to expand...

"Others" isn't necessarily correct here.

Here's James Blake being tackled by NYPD out of nowhere.

Thabo Sefolosha's leg was broken by NYPD as well.

After police ordered people to leave a room in a casino that was cleared during an emergency, Seahawks playerMichael Bennet was attacked by the same police for...leaving the room.

And we've been discussing Sterling Brown's recent tasing over a parking ticket on this board.

But yes, this is about people who aren't famous, in addition to these and other cases.
 
dudalb said:
George Orwell had some interesting things to say about how in his day the left's sneering on patriotrism was backfiring.
Click to expand...


The Great Zaganza said:
Patriotism in the US is 99% stupid:instead of actually doing something for your country, you attack whoever you think doesn't praise it enough.
And Bonespurs is the archetype of this phenomenon.
Click to expand...


I think that dudalb should take a look at Orwell's distinction between nationalism (bad) and patriotism (good). I don't really agree with his attempt at trying to 'save' nationalism, but it is pretty obvious that US American patriotism is actually what he describes as nationalism.

Orwell on nationalism/patriotism:
The short version
The tl;dr version
 
pgwenthold said:
They are just doing it because the protests have been hurting their business, and they are only doing it to protect their revenues.
Click to expand...


But that is not true. That is just their spin.


They have lost just as many viewers because of their harsh reactions to the protests (and their blackballing of the protesters) than because of the protests.

The former is never talked about by the owners because it wouldn't help what they are actually doing. Which is being rich white racist owners.

IIRC there was a poll that asked people why they quit watching the NFL and only 3% said it was because of protests.

Also, and I'm pretty sure someone already pointed this out earlier, but TV ratings in general are down. And if you account for the average that TV ratings in general are down you find that ratings for NFL were actually up!! And on top of that, revenues in general are up now compared to the 2 years before the protests were a thing.
 
Here's some color photos from Nazi Germany. Note the prominent display of flags everywhere.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/color-photos-from-nazi-germany/

As a liberal, I don't "sneer" at excessive patriotism, it just scares me. I fully expect one of these days for there to be a military parade, with il Duce- er, Trump- looking on, stuffed in a bemedaled military uniform.

I do, however, sneer at his idiot supporters, which is about 40% of the country these days.
 
Last edited:
This is The End said:
But that is not true. That is just their spin.


They have lost just as many viewers because of their harsh reactions to the protests (and their blackballing of the protesters) than because of the protests.

The former is never talked about by the owners because it wouldn't help what they are actually doing. Which is being rich white racist owners.

IIRC there was a poll that asked people why they quit watching the NFL and only 3% said it was because of protests.

Also, and I'm pretty sure someone already pointed this out earlier, but TV ratings in general are down. And if you account for the average that TV ratings in general are down you find that ratings for NFL were actually up!! And on top of that, revenues in general are up now compared to the 2 years before the protests were a thing.
Click to expand...

Oh, make no mistake, the owners are using the "the protests are hurting our ratings and attendance" is mostly a smoke screen from the fact that the ratings and attendance issues are due to the fact that the product has been bad.
 
Ziggurat said:
When an employee is on the clock, I don't think it's unreasonable for an employer to insist that they not engage in political speech contrary to the interests of the employer. It's much more problematic when employers try to regulate speech of employees outside of work hours, but that's not what's going on here.
Click to expand...
Given the funding for this part of the entertainment appears to be from the government surely the government can't dictate a particular political stance can it? Sounds to me as if it is a breach of the USA government 1st amendment to fine someone for making an expression of difference?
 
Darat said:
Given the funding for this part of the entertainment appears to be from the government surely the government can't dictate a particular political stance can it? Sounds to me as if it is a breach of the USA government 1st amendment to fine someone for making an expression of difference?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought this up, because I have been wondering the same thing.

We know that institutions and businesses that accept government funding are required act in accord with government rules. Could it be argued to apply here as well?

For all those claiming that the NFL is a private business and therefore has the right to do what they want, then they need to stop taking government money.

Oh, I know, it's "advertising" money. But it's still government money being sent to private business. Call it a grant, a contract in exchange for services, or marketing, it's still government funding.
 
Darat said:
Given the funding for this part of the entertainment appears to be from the government surely the government can't dictate a particular political stance can it? Sounds to me as if it is a breach of the USA government 1st amendment to fine someone for making an expression of difference?
Click to expand...

The government didn't dictate anything. The NFL itself would levy the fines, and receive the revenue. Government wasn't involved in this decision, and won't be involved in the future except to possibly enforce a contract agreed to between the NFL and the players.
 
pgwenthold said:
For all those claiming that the NFL is a private business and therefore has the right to do what they want, then they need to stop taking government money.

Oh, I know, it's "advertising" money. But it's still government money being sent to private business. Call it a grant, a contract in exchange for services, or marketing, it's still government funding.
Click to expand...

No, they do not need to stop taking government money used to promote the military. There's nothing wrong with that. It is indeed a fee for services. The government sends money to private businesses all the time for goods and services. It's basically unavoidable.

The NFL has a problem with government funding, a massive one, but this isn't it. The real problem is the subsidization of stadiums by local governments. That's where the actual corruption comes in.
 
pgwenthold said:
Oh, make no mistake, the owners are using the "the protests are hurting our ratings and attendance" is mostly a smoke screen... from the fact that the ratings and attendance issues are due to the fact that the product has been bad.
Click to expand...


While I don't disagree with your "from", I just want to point out that there are many other "from"s as well.
 
This is The End said:
But that is not true. That is just their spin.

They have lost just as many viewers because of their harsh reactions to the protests (and their blackballing of the protesters) than because of the protests.

The former is never talked about by the owners because it wouldn't help what they are actually doing. Which is being rich white racist owners.

IIRC there was a poll that asked people why they quit watching the NFL and only 3% said it was because of protests.

Also, and I'm pretty sure someone already pointed this out earlier, but TV ratings in general are down. And if you account for the average that TV ratings in general are down you find that ratings for NFL were actually up!! And on top of that, revenues in general are up now compared to the 2 years before the protests were a thing.
Click to expand...

The NFL is facing a variety of problems, and it is hard to determine which is responsible for their current situation. No matter how you slice it, there are fewer eyeballs watching the NFL on TV these days, and that is definitely a problem, as in the past the number of eyeballs always went up year over year.

Obviously the league is also dealing with another public relations disaster these days with the CTE issue, and I don't mind admitting that is as big or even more a factor in my decision to watch less football (both college and pro) than the kneeling for the anthem.

But I do suspect that the kneeling is hurting the league. You mention revenues; how much of the increase was built into the existing contracts with the TV networks? Because right now the NFL is looking squarely at lower rights fees in the future, and this at a time when there is likely to be labor strife over the medical issues.
 
logger said:
Your post certainly is illustrative of what the left thinks of this country.

The founders loved Jesus too! ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is why they wrote a book about a human Jesus which eliminated any mention of a divine nature of the man. They loved the reality of a man called Jesus of Nazerene.

The Jefferson Bible(otherwise known as "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazerene"
 
turingtest said:
... The NFL wants their dollars and Trump wants their votes.
Click to expand...


Don't kid yourself, the only reason Trump wants their votes is because he's hand over fisting it transferring their dollars to his bank accounts.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I like this one the police said that the officer who detained Bennett did not have his body camera turned on at the time.

Isn't that always the way?

Even if it is they say it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Of course, and that's one reason why "body cams" alone aren't going to solve the issue, although they sometimes help individual cases. And neither will dashboard cameras.

(The other, as we've seen, is that man are happy to demonize anyone caught on camera being beaten or shot by police, so long as they have the wrong outfit/skin color/whatever, and many police unions are quite happy to help them along I'd argue the the DoJ should be involved, but I'm pretty sure Sessions dances with glee whenever a cop attacks a nonwhite person, and federal power is limited here anyway.)
 
Brainster said:
Obviously the league is also dealing with another public relations disaster these days with the CTE issue, and I don't mind admitting that is as big or even more a factor in my decision to watch less football (both college and pro) than the kneeling for the anthem.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. I like football (occasionally, 3 or 4 games a year and then playoffs) but knowing that their brains are being scrambled to an extent way past what I expected is sobering.

If I had a son, I would put him in chains before letting him play. Hell, just look at the non-head injuries in football. I have friends with knee, back, and neck issues just from high school football.

It won't end in my lifetime, obviously. Hopefully, it will slowly lose it's sheen.

ETA: This was a slight derail, but I think it is worth pointing out that the NFL is losing support for multiple reasons.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
When an employee is on the clock, I don't think it's unreasonable for an employer to insist that they not engage in political speech contrary to the interests of the employer. It's much more problematic when employers try to regulate speech of employees outside of work hours, but that's not what's going on here.
Click to expand...

And of course are required to back the political statements of their employer at all times and in all ways.

When will people learn that the NFL's "patriotism" is a fake as a testimonial on an infomercial?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom