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.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

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.

I posted my more detailed feelings about the issue earlier

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

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.

Because we don't interpret everything through our subconscious and will power exists in the conscious mind. 

 

I'm not saying the subconscious isn't a powerful influence over our behaviors; it's just not the only controlling factor. 

14 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.

I agree the distinction has been intentionally blurred, not to mention exploited, and consumers live in an ever expanding echo chamber. That doesn't mean we are incapable of discerning the difference. We most certainly are. The problem as I see it is choosing to make the distinction. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

25 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

This is the USA, my 2 grandparents fought in WW2 for my freedom to sit on my ass, stand up with a flag pole shoved up my a$$ and/or otherwise do as I choose. It's a free country where people have protected rights to protest and share their beliefs and freedom. That is what this country was founded on. Sounds like the people who are saying you should be forced to stand for the NA  #1 - need a history lesson on  what values and the vision for the country was founded on #2 - respect other peoples constitutionally free rights  #3 - instead of calling for the people who live in this country under those rules to leave, maybe, just maybe those who want to live contrary to  those protected beliefs should live and go live in one of the forcefully nationalized countries and most importantly #4 - turn of fu&K!ng Fox news...which by the way has nothing to do with actual and factual reporting of anything considered news.

Correct, it's a free country where people can share their beliefs about things like standing for the National Anthem and watching tv stations they wish to watch. 

 

Why would you look to indoctrinate them in your brand of flagpoleing, and only watching television that meets your standard of appproval?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[billykay]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

The reason this "protest" is so divisive is because anything race related gets divisive.  And that is exacerbated by the current sitting president.

Exactly. What do you think would have happened if Tom Brady, Eli, or Luck had decided to kneel in protest of police brutality or any other perceived issue. Do you believe that the guy in D.C. with the orange hair would have said anything? Do you think that he would have referred to them as " sons of bitches" ? I don't think so. So, in my opinion he did so for one reason only & it had nothing to do with patriotism. Those of you who insist that the kneeling has something to do with patriotism can still stick a flag pin in your lapel & act patriotic, just like I see  many politicians do.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

A sporting event need not be politicized.  Politics should be in public discourse, in the press, or remain in the locker room.

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Appreciate this, I knew there had to be some sort of distinction.

 

I worked at a large bank that required permission to do any media interviews. They had people for specifically that. THAT was their job.  Anything political and I’d be sent packing immediately. I don’t know where that might be in writing, but I wouldn’t even ask to read it - it’s just so obvious that it I’d just get up and go.....if I were ever that stupid. On my own time, I could have all the causes I wished, but NOT representing my employer.  

[Bruce_Stools]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Do you have Forced Patriotism at your Office?

I have forced “to stay in line and do what the f*** I’m told or I lose my job”

 

How about you?

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Its not the same thing at all. 

 

One, the german thing was government mandated, the NFL is the business owners decision.

 

Two, the team was banned for a year in Germany, the nfl team would be fined.

 

Three, they dont even have to stand, they can stay in the lockerroom if they dont want to stand.

 

Also, the NBA has a policy that requires people to stand, but of course the NFL is the bad guy. 

 

NBA's rule: (2) Players, coaches and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the National Anthem.

 

I'll grant you there is a difference, though not as large as you think. We have a president who uses this topic as bait for his base, then pressures the NFL to fall in line. Sure, the NFL could tell the Orange Emperor to pound sand, but it's not a good look to appear anti-American, which is how it's spun, thanks to the president's own propaganda network.

 

We just had an NBA player in Milwaukee tazed and arrested for being black in a parking lot at 2am. (And probably only got an apology for it because he's an NBA player.) Do you really believe black athletes don't have a reason to protest?

[Augie]

All this stuff about patriotism, racism, politics and freedom of speech is a basket of red herrings. The question is this: What is writing in the CBA, player contracts or any other formal agreement that allows or prohibits these activities?  Everything else is just a bunch of stuff people want to kick around and vent about, but it doesn’t matter what you think is right or fair. What’s in writing controls the situation until it becomes time to negotiate again. Then both sides will have to compromise and decide what they want the most. 

 

But feel free to continue taking your positions. I find it interesting. 

 

 

.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Augie

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

..the whole "to and fro" diatribe is a confusing mess......NFL 'membership" is a privilege and not a right.....as an employer, they can set the terms and conditions of membership by law as long as those terms are equal across all members.....our employers do the same damn thing.....if a "condition of employment" is standing for the national anthem, you subscribe and agree to that condition of employment regardless of point of view whether social or political.....if a "condition of employment " stipulates that you will not express political or social views while in the care, custody or control of the employer(ie. working hours)", it means you can do whatever you want when not on "company time"...probably a 1st Amendment thing...and as with the NFL, "conduct detrimental" is usually a term and condition of employment but excludes political or social expression which are NOT law violations versus getting a DWI during your personal time...

[MAJBobby]

1 hour ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

A sporting event need not be politicized.  Politics should be in public discourse, in the press, or remain in the locker room.

 

Then why play the Anthem before the games again?  Why accept money from the DoD again? Why have the support the troops things again?  

 

Or is it a sporting event need not be politicizes when I dont like the message??

54 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said:

I have forced “to stay in line and do what the f*** I’m told or I lose my job”

 

How about you?

 

So again no Forced Patriotism correct?

33 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

..the whole "to and fro" diatribe is a confusing mess......NFL 'membership" is a privilege and not a right.....as an employer, they can set the terms and conditions of membership by law as long as those terms are equal across all members.....our employers do the same damn thing.....if a "condition of employment" is standing for the national anthem, you subscribe and agree to that condition of employment regardless of point of view whether social or political.....if a "condition of employment " stipulates that you will not express political or social views while in the care, custody or control of the employer(ie. working hours)", it means you can do whatever you want when not on "company time"...probably a 1st Amendment thing...and as with the NFL, "conduct detrimental" is usually a term and condition of employment but excludes political or social expression which are NOT law violations versus getting a DWI during your personal time...

 

So was this condition of employment negotiated with their Collectively Bargined Employees?  Or decided on in a select meeting without even a formal vote?

Edited May 25, 2018 by MAJBobby

[mjt328]

Smart decision by the NFL owners, in my opinion.

 

 

1.  The NFL is a business.  They are in the business of making money.

 

2.  The anthem-kneeling controversy is very likely bad for business.  I can't speak for everyone else.  But the vast majority of people I have discussed football with over the last year have been furious with the players.  They feel the kneeling is a sign of disrespect for the flag and the country.  Now of course, I don't know how many fans actually followed-through on their promise to quit watching the NFL.  But the owners would be foolish to wait until ratings and ticket sales plummet before addressing the issue.

 

3.  People need to stop talking about "Free Speech" or accusing the owners of "controlling the players."  Those arguments are absolutely ridiculous.  The players are employees.  I don't know a single legitimate business that would allow its employees to engage in political protests on the clock.  And every single legitimate business is going to exert some level of control over the staff.  That is how employment works.  Employer gives money.  Employee does what they are told. 

 

4.  The NFL made the decision to continue playing the anthem, but will not force anyone to participate.  That's a good compromise.  All they ask is for players to stay in the locker room and not engage in a political demonstration.  That seems reasonable.

 

 

 

Bottom-line, keep politics out of sports.  Personally, I'm very Pro-Life and against abortion. 

But I wouldn't expect the owners to allow protests/demonstrations during games.  The players have plenty of time to engage in those activities on their personal time.

 

 

 

[Dr. K]

5 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Usin this thread as an example, most people who are screaming about forced patriotism don't understand what the First Amendment means sooo

I understand the first amendment. I don't question the right of the owners to make this demand of their employees. They would win in court. 

 

That does not make it justified, or smart, or right, or an example of patriotism.  

[boyst]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

No, they aren't actually.  They are logged as flight hours, but they aren't routine training. 

You know what I meant. Pilots have to have so many hours in the air

[Turk71]

What about all the people at home and in the bars who complain about players disrespecting the flag? Do they stand at attention in their living rooms? Do they stop ordering a beer or talking to friends to solemnly honor the national anthem? 

  I think the easiest solution for the NFL would be to have all players in the locker room during the anthem, with the players  free to protest in any way they see fit on their own time.

   Unfortunately a lot of people seem to respect the flag itself more than the freedom and rights of the Republic it represents.

[boyst]

6 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

What about all the people at home and in the bars who complain about players disrespecting the flag? Do they stand at attention in their living rooms? Do they stop ordering a beer or talking to friends to solemnly honor the national anthem? 

  I think the easiest solution for the NFL would be to have all players in the locker room during the anthem, with the players  free to protest in any way they see fit on their own time.

   Unfortunately a lot of people seem to respect the flag itself more than the freedom and rights of the Republic it represents.

This is another red herring to these arguments anout kneeling. They weaken and water it down so much that it's laughable. When simply put one doesn't outweigh another. 

[Bruce_Stools]

56 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Then why play the Anthem before the games again?  Why accept money from the DoD again? Why have the support the troops things again?  

 

Or is it a sporting event need not be politicizes when I dont like the message??

 

So again no Forced Patriotism correct?

 

So was this condition of employment negotiated with their Collectively Bargined Employees?  Or decided on in a select meeting without even a formal vote?

No sir, that is not correct.  If my boss says jump, I don’t even ask how high.  I jump or I’m fired.  If my boss says “I need you to take your lunch an hour late today”, I’m FORCED to oblige.  If my boss says something like “Here at company x, we have never and will not ever tolerate you kneeling during the national anthem. If you do choose to to kneel, exercising your own right to freedom of speech, our bottom line goes down and you will be asked to leave”, I will make damn sure I’m not caught kneeling during the national anthem if I value my job. 

 

Any other questions?

 

And I, again, have ask you about your job.  Can you do whatever you please at anytime when you are on the clock???

 

How does this not make sense to people??????

Edited May 25, 2018 by Bruce_Stools

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

So was this condition of employment negotiated with their Collectively Bargined Employees? 

 

Good question.  Pretty much as I read it,  it was so negotiated.  If it isn't specified in the CBA that the NFL Clubs can't, then they can:

 

Section 3 Management Rights:
The NFL Clubs maintain and reserve the right to manage and direct their operations in any manner whatsoever, except as specifically limited by the provisions of this Agreement.

 

 

 

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good question.  Pretty much as I read it,  it was so negotiated.  If it isn't specified in the CBA that the NFL Clubs can't, then they can:

 

Section 3 Management Rights:
The NFL Clubs maintain and reserve the right to manage and direct their operations in any manner whatsoever, except as specifically limited by the provisions of this Agreement.

 

 

 

THE question. Really the only question. 

[SoCal Deek]

Is the irony lost on everyone here?? Some people are upset that others are ‘protesting’ other people’s protest.