NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy

[Victory Formation]

I don't support kneeling but I support locking arms to show unity amongst the players, I think that's pretty powerful.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Sky Diver said:

Not standing for the flag is disrespectful to:

 

1. Those that have sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

2. The celebration of what unites as a people.

3. Our democratic tradition.

4. Our salute of the principle of justice.

5. Future generations who we should be setting an example for.

 

Certainly, I "get" that's your viewpoint.

 

And in lieu of that viewpoint, kneeling is an 'effective' protest (in the sense of attracting attention) because it "touches the heart of the existing order" in the minds of some.

That is why IMO it should be allowed.  In the words of Justice Jackson (W Va vs Barnett): " freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." 

 

I also believe the owners have the right to mandate the behavior of their employees "on the job" and require that players on the sideline stand, as long as there is a reasonable option to avoid "compelling speech" such as staying in the locker room.

 

As for disrespect, I don't share your viewpoint.  We have freedom to express differing views, that our armed forces fought for, how can expressing that freedom be disrespectful when it's what they fought to preserve?  How can setting an example of peaceful protest and civil disagreement be a bad one for future generations in a democracy? 

 

But I respect your right to hold your viewpoint and the right of people who feel they don't want to watch a game where that's part of the scene.

[SouthNYfan]

5 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Plainly the players and teams primary intent was not to address the issue. It was not to communicate their viewpoint and to build a base from which to improve things. That is very plain. 

 

Because if you are trying to communicate a message in a professional way with a purpose in mind, you accept feedback about how your message is being received.

 

They did not do that. They are STILL, not doing that.

 

They got VERY robust feedback that a good portion of the audience was interpreting their message as one of being disrespectful to the flag, or the country, or the military. Or in a number of other ways that are not what they are supposedly trying to accomplish. 

 

So if the intent was to communicate they would have tried different way to get the message out clearly AND to build a base. Instead the kept on and divided their potential base.

 

I have learned to pay attention to what people do and not what they say. 

 

  And what has actually been done is, they did what they did and got 90 million dollars pledged to an activist organization that has been created for the purpose.  So it was a shake down in terms of what actually happened, when you take the words away.

 

Those are the actual facts so far. Im wondering what the actual facts will turn out to be moving forward, as opposed to what all sides will say about what happens.

 

 

 

 

 

Kaep initially sat during the anthem.

A player on his team, a veteran army ranger, spoke with him and said he felt sitting was disrespectful, and asked him instead to kneel, as that would get his point across but still be respectful, so that is what he did.

He adjusted it and was open to this adjustment.

You missed that "actual fact".

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

Not standing for the flag is disrespectful to:

 

1. Those that have sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

2. The celebration of what unites as a people.

3. Our democratic tradition.

4. Our salute of the principle of justice.

5. Future generations who we should be setting an example for.

And you accuse me of bringing emotional appeals to the discussion? LOL! 

[Boatdrinks]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

It has to with symbols meaning more than the very rights they represent. I’ll leave it at that. 

No, it doesn't . It's far more complex than that. It's more about a viewpoint of debatable merit and a " problem" the scope of which is quite minute compared with many ( most) others. This viewpoint is being rammed down the throats of a fanbase in attendance to see a sporting event and be entertained by such. Those doing the ramming are choosing to do so on the company dime. It's far more nuanced than simply about rights. If this were taking place on a random street corner on a Sunday morning that take may be valid. In this case it's not. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Certainly, I "get" that's your viewpoint.

 

And in lieu of that viewpoint, kneeling is an 'effective' protest (in the sense of attracting attention) because it "touches the heart of the existing order" in the minds of some.

That is why IMO it should be allowed.  In the words of Justice Jackson (W Va vs Barnett): " freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." 

 

I also believe the owners have the right to mandate the behavior of their employees "on the job" and require that players on the sideline stand, as long as there is a reasonable option to avoid "compelling speech" such as staying in the locker room.

 

As for disrespect, I don't share your viewpoint.  We have freedom to express differing views, that our armed forces fought for, how can expressing that freedom be disrespectful when it's what they fought to preserve?  How can setting an example of peaceful protest and civil disagreement be a bad one for future generations in a democracy? 

 

But I respect your right to hold your viewpoint and the right of people who feel they don't want to watch a game where that's part of the scene.

But don't you see that you are deciding if it should be allowed or not, depending on if you think the reason for it is good or not?

 

Not as some kind of stupid insult but just to show the idea, is a Nazi salute OK during the anthem at an NFL game? If you wold support that they should be able to do that, then I would agree that your position is consistent. 

[Boatdrinks]

16 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Kaep initially sat during the anthem.

A player on his team, a veteran army ranger, spoke with him and said he felt sitting was disrespectful, and asked him instead to kneel, as that would get his point across but still be respectful, so that is what he did.

He adjusted it and was open to this adjustment.

You missed that "actual fact".

That is in the particular vet's opinion. It doesn't mean that opinion is shared by all. It's also not gospel simply because he is a vet. 

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Just curious here.  How do you know what posts/authors have received warnings from the mods? I've been trying to figure this out for years and today I find out that lo and behold it is possible.  Please let me know how this is done. PM is fine if you want to keep it between us.

 

Thanks!

It requires an experiment or communication to Know such things.  As to seeing other posters points I'mnot certain.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

No, it doesn't . It's far more complex than that. It's more about a viewpoint of debatable merit and a " problem" the scope of which is quite minute compared with many ( most) others. This viewpoint is being rammed down the throats of a fanbase in attendance to see a sporting event and be entertained by such. Those doing the ramming are choosing to do so on the company dime. It's far more nuanced than simply about rights. If this were taking place on a random street corner on a Sunday morning that take may be valid. In this case it's not. 

Viewpoint of debateable merit? Meaning what the players were protesting in the first place? 

[BadLandsMeanie]

17 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Kaep initially sat during the anthem.

A player on his team, a veteran army ranger, spoke with him and said he felt sitting was disrespectful, and asked him instead to kneel, as that would get his point across but still be respectful, so that is what he did.

He adjusted it and was open to this adjustment.

You missed that "actual fact".

 I didn't miss it. It was just not relevant to what I was saying. 

 

I made no mention of Kaep's first inclination. I was speaking about the widespread protest that became a focus in a widespread way. 

 

You missed that.

 

Always with the counter attack bringing in extraneous stuff.

 

Just to argue. Argue argue. What about the point I raised and the topic I was writing about? What about that?

 

Do they look to you like men who are trying to spread the message they say they are trying to spread? If so, how can you justify that it is an effective means, when so very obviously, the issue they are supposedly talking about is a distant second in the national conversation about what they are doing?

 

And what result has there been that is anything remotely close to the one result I mentioned, which was the NFL funding of the newly created organization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

47 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Somebody who stands for the flag, yet has a core belief that is against the entire principle that flag represents, such as being a white supremacist, cannot truly be respecting the flag.

I think that was his point.

Splitting hairs. Where is the line drawn? Criminals in attendance? It's just about societal decorum, there are likely many misfits and misguided folks in attendance at public gatherings such as football games. I guess one can be standing and at the same time not be truly respectful. To determine that would be ridiculous.  That's not what's being discussed here. 

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Viewpoint of debateable merit? Meaning what the players were protesting in the first place? 

Yes. 

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

 

Yes. 

Well, that I can at least understand.

 

If the players were protesting an issue that was merited in your opinion, would taking a knee during the anthem still upset you?

[SouthNYfan]

13 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 I didn't miss it. It was just not relevant to what I was saying. 

 

I made no mention of Kaep's first inclination. I was speaking about the widespread protest that became a focus in a widespread way. 

 

You missed that.

 

Always with the counter attack bringing in extraneous stuff.

 

Just to argue. Argue argue. What about the point I raised and the topic I was writing about? What about that?

 

Do they look to you like men who are trying to spread the message they say they are trying to spread? If so, how can you justify that it is an effective means, when so very obviously, the issue they are supposedly talking about is a distant second in the national conversation about what they are doing?

 

And what result has there been that is anything remotely close to the one result I mentioned, which was the NFL funding of the newly created organization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, not "argue to argue".

Kaep initially adjusting his position from sitting to kneeling from the advice of a veteran on his team shows he was not trying to be disrespectful.

It's fully relevant to the discussion at hand.

You're ignoring that part of it.

 

18 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

That is in the particular vet's opinion. It doesn't mean that opinion is shared by all. It's also not gospel simply because he is a vet. 

 

Right, it is that "particular vet's opinion" which is exactly the point that many are making.

"It's disrespectful to the vets"

No, it isn't to many vets.

Some feel it is, some feel it isn't, which was my initial point.

If he's a vet, and it is not disrespectful to him, then yes, it is gospel to him.

That's the whole point of all of this.

Some feel it is, some feel it isn't.

It's pretty close to split down the middle.

12 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Splitting hairs. Where is the line drawn? Criminals in attendance? It's just about societal decorum, there are likely many misfits and misguided folks in attendance at public gatherings such as football games. I guess one can be standing and at the same time not be truly respectful. To determine that would be ridiculous.  That's not what's being discussed here. 

Yes. 

 

I don't disagree with you, I was merely trying to point out that just because somebody stands for the flag doesn't mean they actually respect it, same as just because somebody kneels for the flag doesn't mean they disrespect it.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Well, that I can at least understand.

 

If the players were protesting an issue that was merited in your opinion, would taking a knee during the anthem still upset you?

Almost certainly yes. I can't think of anything where it wouldn't . Maybe someone else could , so I'll leave it at almost. Just not the time or place for protests. Plenty of other opportunities to do so outside of the job. 

[Sky Diver]

49 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Certainly, I "get" that's your viewpoint.

 

And in lieu of that viewpoint, kneeling is an 'effective' protest (in the sense of attracting attention) because it "touches the heart of the existing order" in the minds of some.

That is why IMO it should be allowed.  In the words of Justice Jackson (W Va vs Barnett): " freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." 

 

I also believe the owners have the right to mandate the behavior of their employees "on the job" and require that players on the sideline stand, as long as there is a reasonable option to avoid "compelling speech" such as staying in the locker room.

 

As for disrespect, I don't share your viewpoint.  We have freedom to express differing views, that our armed forces fought for, how can expressing that freedom be disrespectful when it's what they fought to preserve?  How can setting an example of peaceful protest and civil disagreement be a bad one for future generations in a democracy? 

 

But I respect your right to hold your viewpoint and the right of people who feel they don't want to watch a game where that's part of the scene.

 

Of course we should have the right to disrespect the flag, our national symbol, and everything it represents. Whether it’s right or proper and whether it is the correct way to protest social injustice is another matter.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Sky Diver

[LikeIGiveADarn]

I watch the NFL to get away from politics and all the other bull **** for a few hours every Sunday in the fall. Kap is free to bring politics into it if he wishes, just as I am free to disagree with that decision and not watch the NFL. This has always been my stance on the matter.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

37 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

It requires an experiment or communication to Know such things.  As to seeing other posters points I'mnot certain.

 

Experiment?  Do tell....

 

Communication, if someone tells you "I got a warning from the mods for that" fair enough, if they're a truthful chap they probably did

If they tell you "so and so didn't", how do they know that? "I heard it from a friend who...heard it from a friend who...heard it from another"

 

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

19 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Of course we should have the right to disrespect the flag, our national symbol, and everything it represents. Whether it’s right or proper and whether it is the correct way to protest social injustice is another matter.

 

Not everybody feels it's disrespectful.

How do you not understand this simple fact of the discussion?

[Sky Diver]

2 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Not everybody feels it's disrespectful.

How do you not understand this simple fact of the discussion?

 

Many do which is why it is a contentious issue.

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Many do which is why it is a contentious issue.

 

It's not to everybody, which is also why it's a contentious issue, yet you continue to call it disrespectful in your discussions as if it is a fact and all view it that way.