National Anthem Solution

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Absolutely.  But I'm saying their interpretation and comment is likely the vehicle for the news.

 

How many people heard about the NFL anthem policy from independent reporters?  How many people heard about the NFL anthem policy from ESPN talking heads or SportsCenter personalities, or podcasters, or radio hosts, or sports blogs, or Twitter personalities?

 

I think the numbers aren't close, to be honest K-9.  That's just my opinion.

Where we hear about something is one thing. Basing our opinion on the opinion of others is entirely different. 

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Where we hear about something is one thing. Basing our opinion on the opinion of others is entirely different. 

I'm sure you're well-versed in the psychology of persuasion.  Of how certain words, or certain phrases can invoke certain emotions?  The connotation of language.

 

There is a difference between hearing "The new NFL anthem policy is X." and hearing "It's a disgrace that the new NFL anthem policy is X because it's unjust and unAmerican!"

 

We all like to think we're smarter than that.  That we're more objective than that.  That we are too strong, too grounded, to impervious to unconscious sway.   But most of the data out there suggests otherwise.   To quote Men in Black (lol), "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Edited May 25, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Do you have Forced Patriotism at your Office?

 

Bobby, we had "forced support of company bottom line" at our office.  I think the point that some have been trying to make is that the military has, in fact, been financially supporting the NFL, as an advertising and recruitment tool. 

 

"In 2015, Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake (R) and John McCain (R) revealed in a joint oversight report that nearly $5.4 million in taxpayer dollars had been paid out to 14 NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to honor service members and put on elaborate, “patriotic salutes” to the military. Overall, they reported, “these displays of paid patriotism [were] included within the $6.8 million that the Department of Defense (DOD) [had] spent on sports marketing contracts since fiscal year 2012.”

 

So for the NFL to support a patriotic display, could in fact be linked directly to their bottom line (ie, military support of NFL through flyovers, etc) and indirectly (Military recruitment advertising during televised football games)

[SoCal Deek]

There's an American flag flying in front of my local McDonald's.  Is that forced patriotism?  Should I not go in the restaurant?

[Rocky Landing]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

There's an American flag flying in front of my local McDonald's.  Is that forced patriotism?  Should I not go in the restaurant?

Will you stop with the straw man arguments?

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

Will you stop with the straw man arguments?

Just trying to add some logic to an otherwise totally illogical protest.

[MAJBobby]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Bobby, we had "forced support of company bottom line" at our office.  I think the point that some have been trying to make is that the military has, in fact, been financially supporting the NFL, as an advertising and recruitment tool. 

 

"In 2015, Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake (R) and John McCain (R) revealed in a joint oversight report that nearly $5.4 million in taxpayer dollars had been paid out to 14 NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to honor service members and put on elaborate, “patriotic salutes” to the military. Overall, they reported, “these displays of paid patriotism [were] included within the $6.8 million that the Department of Defense (DOD) [had] spent on sports marketing contracts since fiscal year 2012.”

 

So for the NFL to support a patriotic display, could in fact be linked directly to their bottom line (ie, military support of NFL through flyovers, etc) and indirectly (Military recruitment advertising during televised football games)

Looked at a couple of those contracts. Nothing in them would have allowed for and or gave any pressure on the NFL to act on this. And or nothing in thise contracts talk about how employees need to act during the anthem 

[Rocky Landing]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Just trying to add some logic to an otherwise totally illogical protest.

You're failing miserably.

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

There's an American flag flying in front of my local McDonald's.  Is that forced patriotism?  Should I not go in the restaurant?

 

Did you stop and pay respect or just drive by?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

Looked at a couple of those contracts. Nothing in them would have allowed for and or gave any pressure on the NFL to act on this. And or nothing in thise contracts talk about how employees need to act during the anthem 

 

This seems a little naive.

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Did you stop and pay respect or just drive by?

Do the employees take a knee before work each morning?

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This seems a little naive.

Just enforcement of a contract. It is really that easy. There are no specfic metrics in those contracts that DoD could or will enforce. They paid them for advertising. That occured. No way to enforce anything else in those contracts 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, BringBackOrton said:

I'm sure you're well-versed in the psychology of persuasion.  Of how certain words, or certain phrases can invoke certain emotions?  The connotation of language.

 

There is a difference between hearing "The new NFL anthem policy is X." and hearing "It's a disgrace that the new NFL anthem policy is X because it's unjust and unAmerican!"

 

We all like to think we're smarter than that.  That we're more objective than that.  That we are too strong, too grounded, to impervious to unconscious sway.   But most of the data out there suggests otherwise.   To quote Men in Black (lol), "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Is it your position that people base their interpretation and understanding of a news report on another person's opinion of that same report? I don't share the same level of contempt for people's ability to think freely. 

 

But you are describing something far more insidious; the purposeful exploitation of the subconscious to exert control over our decision making. That's been going on for decades as research has shown our susceptibility in that area. From subliminal suggestion to the propagation of mass media with less regulation, we are easy targets. The onus is on us to realize that and to guard against it. I think we can. 

 

I don't think the whole anthem controversy rises to that level, though. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

You're failing miserably.

How so?  The comments are drawing parallels to things you encounter every day...but have just never stopped to get upset about.  Why?  Because, if you were looking to get upset about things.....you would be upset all the time!  People need to chill.

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That's a valid point.   We've lived through that discussion 2x recently here in St Louis.

 

It's a bit beyond the scope of football-related political discussion I believe.

 

Fair, and why I tried not to delve any deeper than the current content. Didn’t want to spiral tooooo far.

[oldmanfan]

28 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Can you explain why the players are protesting during the national anthem?  Or do you simply accept that at its face? If they don't play the anthem...does that make this so-called 'social justice' issue disappear? 

To draw attention to their concern about policing in the African American community.

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Is it your position that people base their interpretation and understanding of a news report on another person's opinion of that same report? I don't share the same level of contempt for people's ability to think freely. 

 

But you are describing something far more insidious; the purposeful exploitation of the subconscious to exert control over our decision making. That's been going on for decades as research has shown our susceptibility in that area. From subliminal suggestion to the propagation of mass media with less regulation, we are easy targets. The onus is on us to realize that and to guard against it. I think we can. 

 

I don't think the whole anthem controversy rises to that level, though. 

I don't understand how you can believe in exploitation of the subconscious, and then say I hold contempt for people's ability to think freely.  How can the two issues be separate in your mind?

 

Keep in mind, it does not have to be purposeful to occur.

Edited May 25, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

To draw attention to their concern about policing in the African American community.

Believe me...I'm aware.  The 'problem' is that the target of their protest is way, way too general.  The flag and the anthem of the United States are not the symbol of your local police department.  They're targeting the wrong organization.  The federal government is not in charge of your local police department.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Is it your position that people base their interpretation and understanding of a news report on another person's opinion of that same report? I don't share the same level of contempt for people's ability to think freely. 

 

But you are describing something far more insidious; the purposeful exploitation of the subconscious to exert control over our decision making. That's been going on for decades as research has shown our susceptibility in that area. From subliminal suggestion to the propagation of mass media with less regulation, we are easy targets. The onus is on us to realize that and to guard against it. I think we can. 

 

I don't think the whole anthem controversy rises to that level, though. 

 

I can't speak for Orton, but it's my position that people have trouble distinguishing between news (such as reporting the facts of the NFL's anthem policy, comparison to NBA anthem policy, relevant Supreme Court decisions) and op-ed (opinions about said policy) because the distinction between the two has been blurred. - IMO deliberately blurred by television stations to gain market share and boost ratings.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I can't speak for Orton, but it's my position that people have trouble distinguishing between news (such as reporting the facts of the NFL's anthem policy, comparison to NBA anthem policy, relevant Supreme Court decisions) and op-ed (opinions about said policy) because the distinction between the two has been blurred. - IMO deliberately blurred by television stations to gain market share and boost ratings.

Bingo Hapless...if it bleeds it leads.