The Free Speech Straw Man and Failed Protest

Its not about free speech, they work for a private business, and the business has anthem regulations as far as being on the field and such.

Of course they have free speech rights, but not at work.

I cant just have a sit in or protest anything without expecting to get reprimanded in some way.

Why dont you try to protest on your employer's time, and let us know how it went?

Its up to the employer to allow or reprimand over conduct policy, and it wont be "racist" if they do.

Private business on the clock.... protest on your own time.

a reply to: FauxMulder

I didn't say they just started... in fact I said they've been doing it since last year. I'm saying it had lost attention until Trump opened his mouth. I'm saying owners and staff didn't get involved until Trump stated that players should be fired. The NFL as a whole didn't join the protest against an unequal justice system... they told Trump to GTFO.

a reply to: Kali74

So you agree? It's like I said. A failed protest that now has a totally different meaning. It now has nothing to do with police brutality, its all about Trump?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Its not about free speech, they work for a private business, and the business has anthem regulations as far as being on the field and such.

Of course they have free speech rights, but not at work.

I cant just have a sit in or protest anything without expecting to get reprimanded in some way.

Why dont you try to protest on your employer's time, and let us know how it went?

Its up to the employer to allow or reprimand over conduct policy, and it wont be "racist" if they do.

Private business on the clock.... protest on your own time.

There is huge a lack of professionalism there.

a reply to: FauxMulder

For the players that have been doing it all along, it's the same. The owners etc... standing with their teams this week? One shot deal to tell Trump they aren't going to punish their players for protesting.

I don't think it matters whether the protest is considered a failure or a success, it's about free speech.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FauxMulder

it's about free speech.

Thanks, that's what I thought. It now has a new meaning. Just like I said. The police brutality protest has failed I.E. no one is talking about the issue. It has been buried underneath free speech.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

There was no larger philosophical, political, societal, -whatever- point to it. They were "burnin' and a' lootin'.

Injustice met with injustice, seething cauldron of resentment boils over and you think its because of for liquor...

Some People took advantage of the situation to loot and burn. In LA during the initial stage of the 'riot', the news helos were broadcasting over and over to the local tv station, carrying it all live,

"There are no police visible, there is no response to the looting", i.e., come one and all, join in.

The looters and arsonists were a small percentage of the population. But the news media focused on that, so you think everyone did it.

a reply to: FauxMulder

No one was talking about it anyway til Trump decided to out of the blue.

a reply to: Kali74

There were plenty talking about it. Admittedly none with a soap box as big as a POTUS. So I can see your point.

But free speech has nothing to do with Kapernick or others that were doing it. Remember Kapernick said something along the lines of "I can't stand for a flag that represents the horrible treatment of people of color"?

That was the premise of this ongoing "protest". The flag represented oppression.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Yes the kneeling during the anthem is a protest against an unequal justice system. However, the owners standing or kneeling this week was not... that was about supporting their players against Trumps 'suggestion' of firing anyone taking a knee.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have infiltrated this thread to respond to your ''pulled'' thread in this issue. I found that thread to be thoughtful and civil. As this is basically the same topic perhaps the mods will not consider this drift.

In that thread you spoke of etiquette. I agree that etiquette as a social bond as a social standard is important for all people to recognize and hold to in a civil society. As I am not a proponent of the sports industrial complex, my viewing of these events is sparse and my knowledge of the goings on is limited.

From what I have seen from all of this recent kerfuffle I have seen very little if any lack of etiquette. What I have seen was almost what I myself have practiced over the last decades. When I attend any event that calls for the people to stand, put their hands on their chests and then pledge allegiance to the flag I do not. To pledge allegiance to the flag and all it stands for is not only pledging allegiance to the United States and all the good it does for its citizens and around the world but also pledges allegiance for to all the miss-deeds that have been committed around the world in the name of freedom and democracy but in reality have been acts of conquest and subjugation. I cannot and will not pledge to this record.

What I do do, is stand solemnly in solidarity with those who have given their arms, legs, sanity and lives to defend the freedoms I cherish. For me, not making that gesture is disrespect for warriors who protect us. It is also within the bounds of social etiquette that we both know is vital to our society.
But back to the football protests.

What these players have engaged in, from what I could see, was not really disrespectful. I did not see any of them picking their noses and flinging the boogers at the cameras. I did not see any of them spitting on the flag or dancing a jig as others made their pledges. What I saw was disgruntled men, standing and kneeling together in concert with one another. Quietly, and from what I saw, solemnly. While some were doing this solo, most were bound to each other in silent embrace.

Even Kapernink, who I guess was the first of this was not totally disrespectful. His taking a knee was, again from what I could see, was done solemnly and quietly. Then the media which thrives on anything different, blew it up and made it a big deal.

And while I saw protest on the part of recent players I am willing to accept their words on their motivation. Why?
Because the president of the United States found the issue to be one that fits his purposes and blew the whole thing completely out of proportion. He called at least one of them an SOB and called for him to be fired.
He has the biggest microphone in the world and he used it to attack and demean one man and demand that he be fired. With vehemence. With pompous arrogance. With unbridled self promotion. That is what I saw and heard, and apparently so did all those other men who found recourse in their silent and respectful kneeling.

Yes, I found those recent episodes of kneeling to be well within the bounds of etiquette, though varied, while at the same time found Mr. Trumps explosion to be totally lacking, by any definition, in etiquette.

It is one thing to accept Trump at his word as so many do. Believing that he is an honest broker, expressing the views of all ''good Americans while holding to the image that those who disagree with him are ''bad''. Americans.
However I do not hold with any of that.

Mr. Trump was once in the the sports business as an owner in the USFL. It was his decision to take that league and rather than continue with it as a spring football league, move it to a fall football league so that it would then compete directly with the NFL. He lost that battle and his franchise along with that entire league went belly up. One more of his businesses went bust, not because of the competition, but rather because of his pour management decisions yet he, to my observations, continues to find blame elsewhere rather than in himself. It is no surprise that he and his grudge have now come back to the surface in his lashing out at the NFL.

So it is from that evaluation of Mr. Trump that I suspect that his motives to condemn the players for the ''disrespect'' was not due to them being ''bad'' Americans but rather that that tirade would sing well to his base while at the same time striking out at a former business rival who pulled his pants down in public and gave him a competitive ''spank down''.

But all in all, I hope this goes away soon, that the players do not escalate this coming week end and that Mr. Trump just keeps his mouth shut. We have more important things attend to.

Thanks for listening Le mis.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

There was no larger philosophical, political, societal, -whatever- point to it. They were "burnin' and a' lootin'.

Injustice met with injustice, seething cauldron of resentment boils over and you think its because of for liquor...

Some People took advantage of the situation to loot and burn. In LA during the initial stage of the 'riot', the news helos were broadcasting over and over to the local tv station, carrying it all live,

"There are no police visible, there is no response to the looting", i.e., come one and all, join in.

The looters and arsonists were a small percentage of the population. But the news media focused on that, so you think everyone did it.

Nope. I was there. For fourteen days. Picking these CRIMINALS up. We’re you?

Do you actually understand why the first police units withdrew??

It was an LT’s judgement that the line officers might use deadly force to protect themselves and others from the RIOTERS.

They tried to minimize loss of life as they were outgunned and outnumbered.

That shows restraint.

Something wholly lacking on the side of the rioters.

I’m unsure why exactly you’re excusing these actions when actual members of the “community” actually got off their asses in those early hours to do the right thing and help innocent truck drivers and shopkeepers. I know you weren’t there. I know you just want to excuse criminality and anything anti-anything, but I was there. As were upright citizens who realized that their “community” were reverting to savagery. Our experience differs from your sheltered one.

Lastly, a question... if you heard on the news that police were not in a specific area, would you go there to get new shoes, electronics and top shelf booze? Not sure exactly what that comment of yours even means.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Thing is ...

The flag ceremony is not even connected to police. It's meant to be one of those things that binds us all together and unifies us as fans and even opposing teams prior to what some might liken to ritual battle, no matter the sport. Things can and do get contentious particularly if you are talking about a rivalry situation, and among other things, the flag ceremony is a reminder of who gave us the freedom to enjoy the game we're about to watch and that despite the differences that may crop up on the field and in the stands, we should all be Americans.

To protest that, is to protest the very unity and equality these players say they want.

People want to come together over this, not be driven apart into even more divisiveness.

To blame Trump at this point is a red herring, we weren't happy with what was going on prior to this, and this just puts another straw on that camel's back and I heard a crack.

I just want to get away from reality for a few hours and watch some g-wd d-mn football, not political stunts and PC awareness.

Is that so wrong?

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Do you actually understand why the first police units withdrew??

It was an LT’s judgement that the line officers might use deadly force to protect themselves and others from the RIOTERS.

There was no rioting at that point. The police officers that withdrew were called to the scene initially to quell a disturbance and tried arresting a suspect. This action is what started to draw a crowd to gather at that place and time (one hpiur after the verdict). The incident had nothing to do with the verdict announcement.

They were withdrawn because the crowd became to large for them to handle if hostility erupted. They were not equipped with any riot gear or helmets to deal with that number of people, who at that time were hurling insults and little else.

This was covered in Rodney king riots, 25 years later.

Many people there tried to calm the building crowd, tried to protect some people, escorted one journalist to his car so he could leave . Later, during the mele in the intersection when people were getting assaulted and beaten up, again rescuers from that neighborhood stepped in.

The police were gathered at a bus depot , 'waiting for direction.'

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

if you heard on the news that police were not in a specific area, would you go there to get new shoes, electronics and top shelf booze? Not sure exactly what that comment of yours even means.

The coverage of the verdict switched to helo footage on that liquor store being looted, the reporter on board kept repeating, "the police are no where to be seen". This incited more people that were tuned into the verdict on tv to go outside and join in. The news reports incited the looting to grow. That was the worst thing to do at that time.

Still a small segment of the population. How many Angelinos you figure can fit inside one corner market?

As far as inciting the riot to grow, the media coverage jumped to that store being looted focusing on that exclusively. Might as well sounded the dinner bell (one hour after the verdict). You can try to convince me the authorities don't have it in their playbook to let the reaction to the verdict start and build to riot proportions. Good luck . The US excels at starting riots in other countries to foment insurrection and revolution; We wrote that playbook.

Imo, the media further inciting the riot was to distract from the not guilty verdict, letting 4 cops off for brutally beating an unarmed black man on the side of the road.

What america saw on their tv was a riot. Better to cover that instead of that verdict.

a reply to: Kali74

fascism

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Sounds like what Trump wants with the NFL if you ask me.

Already Posted here....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Please add further comments to the ongoing discussions in the above linked threads.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**