NFL’s Proposed National Anthem Rules

[Cow Poke]

I see the protesters largely as entitled rich guys making a mountain out of a molehill by playing identity politics. I agree that police should try to avoid shooting unarmed people with an abundance of melanin. Nearly everyone already agrees with that, however, so what is protesting going to accomplish?

It's going to generate far more heat than light, that's for sure. And, will become a prime example of "gee, it seemed like a good idea at the time...."

[carpedm9587]

I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand what in the world you mean by "sensitive" and "insensitive." Further, your buckets don't come close to capturing my position regardless of what you intend by those words.

"Sensitive" (in this context) means that they will react if the item in question (flag, anthem, police) is handled in a way they disapprove. So someone "sensitive" to flag issues will be upset if someone burns it in protest, or sits when the anthem is sung and the flag is raised. Someone sensitive to criticism of the police will get their back up if someone suggests they have some sort of flaw that needs to be addressed. Someone insensitive (again, in this context) doesn't get bothered by such things. The flag is a symbol - nothing more. The anthem is a symbol - nothing more. Someone can protest these things as a function of free speech. They may not like it, but it won't be a defining issue for them. And they are willing to criticize institutions like the military and paramilitary (and other service positions) without seeing it as "disrespectful."

I see the protesters largely as entitled rich guys making a mountain out of a molehill by playing identity politics. I agree that police should try to avoid shooting unarmed people with an abundance of melanin. Nearly everyone already agrees with that, however, so what is protesting going to accomplish? Black on black violence is orders of magnitude larger, yet that doesn't ever seem to be a priority. So I have no sympathy for the protesters or their cause, and I despise identity politics. I just want to watch football.

Your description provides no information to me for how you fit into the classification I offered. I can more easily tell if you answer these questions:

1) If the flag and/or anthem is used as a means of protesting (e.g., burning the flag, sitting during the anthem), do you automatically see the people who would do such things as disrespecting all of the men/women who served under that flag?

2) If there is a perception of a systemic problem in the military or paramilitary and that systemic problem is called into question, do you automatically see those making those criticisms as being disrespectful of the people who serve in those roles?

[Sparko]

Also, the NFL players specifically said it was NOT about police officers but about "social injustice"

• I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color..— Colin Kaepernick, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Aug. 26, 2016
• Sept. 11, 2016 I’m not against the military. I’m not against the police or America. I’m against social injustice. — Brandon Marshall, Denver Broncos linebacker
• Sept. 11, 2016 I come from a majority black community from Oakland, California ... so the struggle, I seen it. I still have some family in the struggle. All I'm saying is we want to educate those, the youth that's coming up. — Marcus Peters, Kansas City Chiefs cornerback
• Sept. 11, 2016 I want to make it clear that there is no disrespect to the military or to police officers — I'm not about that. I love everyone. I would like to keep moving forward in the right direction with everybody: equal rights, equal opportunity. From my position, it doesn't seem that it's happening. That's why I took a stand. — Jelani Jenkins, Oakland Raiders linebacker

Which is ironic coming from black players who are richer than 90% of the white people in the country, who could be actually helping their fellow blacks instead of driving around in Ferraris and living in mansions.

[carpedm9587]

This is ironic coming from you.

It was a tease, Sparko. CP said almost the exact thing to me just a few days ago. I think he knows I was kidding.


You truly appear to have developed a burr under your saddle with respect to me, Sparko. I hope you get that fixed at some point.

[Cow Poke]

It was a tease, Sparko. CP said almost the exact thing to me just a few days ago. I think he knows I was kidding.

I do.

[Sparko]

It was a tease, Sparko. CP said almost the exact thing to me just a few days ago. I think he knows I was kidding.


You truly appear to have developed a burr under your saddle with respect to me, Sparko. I hope you get that fixed at some point.

I know you were kidding. It was still ironic.

[Cow Poke]

I know you were kidding. It was still ironic.

It was.

[One Bad Pig]

"Sensitive" (in this context) means that they will react if the item in question (flag, anthem, police) is handled in a way they disapprove. So someone "sensitive" to flag issues will be upset if someone burns it in protest, or sits when the anthem is sung and the flag is raised. Someone sensitive to criticism of the police will get their back up if someone suggests they have some sort of flaw that needs to be addressed. Someone insensitive (again, in this context) doesn't get bothered by such things. The flag is a symbol - nothing more. The anthem is a symbol - nothing more. Someone can protest these things as a function of free speech. They may not like it, but it won't be a defining issue for them. And they are willing to criticize institutions like the military and paramilitary (and other service positions) without seeing it as "disrespectful."

Well, anything can be criticized. Whether the criticism is legitimate is another question.

Your description provides no information to me for how you fit into the classification I offered.

That's because it's not a very good classification. Also, I don't like being put in buckets.

I can more easily tell if you answer these questions:

1) If the flag and/or anthem is used as a means of protesting (e.g., burning the flag, sitting during the anthem), do you automatically see the people who would do such things as disrespecting all of the men/women who served under that flag?

Yes. It says that the flag is something to be despised and not worth serving. It necessarily delegitimizes those who serve or have served, regardless of the protester's intentions.

2) If there is a perception of a systemic problem in the military or paramilitary and that systemic problem is called into question, do you automatically see those making those criticisms as being disrespectful of the people who serve in those roles?

I don't think this sentence says what you're trying to say. In the case at hand, the perceived systemic problem (in the police, not the military or paramilitary) is being highlighted, not called into question. The person who started the whole brouhaha was undeniably being disrespectful of the police. Those who join him in protest are going to be colored by the actions of the one they emulate, and should be aware of that. I don't think they're necessarily intending to be disrespectful.

[Zymologist]

Who needs the NFL? The NBA and NHL playoffs have both been awesome this year.

With sumo like this, who cares about the NFL?

[Cow Poke]

With sumo like this, who cares about the NFL?

I absolutely refuse to look.

[Zymologist]

I absolutely refuse to look.

You're missing out on a heck of a match!

[Zymologist]

You're missing out on a heck of a match!

And with my contribution, the thread dies.

[carpedm9587]

Well, anything can be criticized. Whether the criticism is legitimate is another question.

Agreed.

That's because it's not a very good classification. Also, I don't like being put in buckets.

We're all in one bucket or another, OBP, whether we like it or not.

Yes. It says that the flag is something to be despised and not worth serving. It necessarily delegitimizes those who serve or have served, regardless of the protester's intentions.

Based on this, you are either in Group 1 or Group 2.

I don't think this sentence says what you're trying to say. In the case at hand, the perceived systemic problem (in the police, not the military or paramilitary) is being highlighted, not called into question. The person who started the whole brouhaha was undeniably being disrespectful of the police. Those who join him in protest are going to be colored by the actions of the one they emulate, and should be aware of that. I don't think they're necessarily intending to be disrespectful.

This answer is not clear enough to know for sure if you are in Group 1 or Group 2. I think you are most likely in Group 2. You do not appear to be a person who automatically equates criticism of service people with disrespect for them.

[rogue06]

Yeah. It kinda messes up the whole "kneeling is actually respectful" narrative that Carp was pushing earlier. It was always about disrespect.

And apparently garnering attention, which he wasn't getting nearly as much of as he did after he started kneeling.

[Terraceth]

You know, I was going to disagree with you, until I applied a little logic to the question. So it strikes me that, related to this issue, there are four kinds of people:

1. Sensitive to flag/anthem issues and sensitive to criticism of police
2. Sensitive to flag/anthem issues and insensitive to criticism of police
3. Insensitive to flag/anthem issues and sensitive to criticism of police
4. Insensitive to flag/anthem issues and insensitive to criticism of police

Groups 1 and 3 are a loss; they aren't going to listen to any criticism of the police because that is, in their minds, disrespecting people who put themselves on the line each day. For the record, it is possible to respect these people AND be critical of them. The alternative is folly, because it suggests that their sacrifice makes them immune to examination, which is a wide open door for corruption. That leaves Groups 2 and 4. Group 2 is going to do exactly what your criticism suggests. Group 4 will be made aware of the issue without raising the hair on the back of their necks.

So the question is, which group is larger and what proportion of them watch football. If Group 2 is larger and/or more of them watch football, this is not the best way to call attention to the issue. If Group 4 is larger and/or more of them watch football, this is a good way to call attention to the issue.

The original question also asked if this was the "best" way, and I hurriedly said yes without really giving it a lot of thought. I usually avoid superlatives because they are almost impossible to demonstrate/prove. In this case, it requires demonstrating that all other possible ways of raising awareness are less effective.

So I have to change my answer to "I don't know" on the basis of the analysis, supplemented by "probably not" on the basis of the superlative. Your analysis is a good one, and I answered too hurriedly.

Well honestly, the more I think about it, the more I feel that my mention of the form of protest completely outshadowing what was being protested was a real issue. I was reading through this topic and it wasn't until the mention of the police came up that I thought "oh right, that was what was being protested, wasn't it?" I completely forgot that's what it was even about! I doubt I'm the only one. Certainly, the news stopped asking "is police brutality a problem?" and started asking "should players always stand for the national anthem?" thereby removing the focus from the issue being protested. I wonder if it might have actually hurt the cause due to that.

I have to admit I have never watched it. Do you recommended it?

The Wire? It's pretty darn good good on the whole, and deserves most of the praise it gets. It's supposedly one of the most realistic depictions of police work on television, which is why I was asking for confirmation from Cow Poke about how true that was. There are some issues, though, like some parts where I thought it got overly preachy, and the last season is a notable downgrade in quality, but again on the whole it's really good. Also, it's HBO, so expect some gratuitous nudity (not all of the nudity felt gratuitous but a good chunk of it felt like it was just there for the sake of being there).