General US Politics

[Sias]

I dunno, but what I really dislike about the whole "don't bring politics into entertainment" line of thought is that politics and football have been connected all along, but most people just don't seem to be aware of that.

Various branches of the military spend millions of taxpayer dollars each year for what is either paid patriotism or military propaganda, depending on how you want to call it.

Quote

Contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts — 72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed — clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches͕ and puck drops. The National Guard paid teams for the “opportunity” to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the “opportunity” to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize wounded warriors. While well intentioned, we wonder just how many of these displays included a disclaimer that these events were in fact sponsored by the DOD at taxpayer expense. Even with that disclosure, it is hard to understand how a team accepting taxpayer funds to sponsor a military appreciation game, or to recognize wounded warriors or returning troops, can be construed as anything other than paid patriotism.

(Source is here: http://www.snopes.com/nfl-sideline-anthem/ )

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, Sias said:

I dunno, but what I really dislike about the whole "don't bring politics into entertainment" line of thought is that politics and football have been connected all along, but most people just don't seem to be aware of that.

Various branches of the military spend millions of taxpayer dollars each year for what is either paid patriotism or military propaganda, depending on how you want to call it.

(Source is here: http://www.snopes.com/nfl-sideline-anthem/ )

Don't bring politics into entertainment is different, to me, than bringing patriotism into entertainment.  Patriotism in entertainment is encouraged - look at the Olympics. 

Look, even if no layoffs happen just look at the numbers.  17+% less ticket sales means they need 20+% less low-income workers to provide food/beverages during the game.  It means 20+% less low-income cooks, cachiers, etc. to work the food stands.  The majority of these workers happen to be black.  The results of these protests claiming to stand against racial segregation is going to be more racial income inequality.   I don't care about intentions, I care about what actually happens.

It's actually a very similar issue to what's happening to college campuses.  Conservative speakers are being protested by a small group of people who don't want to hear "hate speech" when really they're just hearing what conservatives believe. Once the protest looks like it could be violent, the administrations shut down the entire event rather than shutting down the protesters likely because they are afraid of attacks from the media.  The protests often know very little about the speakers.  One example would be a teacher calling Ben Shapiro a member of the KKK before he arrived on the campus to give a speech.  Guess what?  Some protesting students started protesting him for his affiliation (which he didnt have) with the KKK despite the fact that he is a Jew.  Even more hilarious, is they seemed to think he supports Trump when anyone that knows anything about him knows he doesn't like Trump at all. 

The reason I say this is similar is because its clear to me that protesters in today's society are more interested in chanting random phrases (Shapiro Protests) or random acts (NFL Protests) than proposing actual changes to society that could be made.  You can't protest the gov't or society for something that individuals do.  It serves no purpose.  Protest legislation, don't just spout random words and phrases from the left.

I hate to say it, but if this is how society wants to act I think we should look into our protesting laws (if we have any).  The 1st Amendment simply doesn't provide enough instructions for those with no logical skills.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

Even if Trump is right about the NFL losing business/money, one has to wonder how this is even relevant. All Trump seems to care about ratings, or at least the ones he can cherry pick to "win", so to speak. 

How are they gonna propose "actual changes"? You think American politicians have a history of listening to the people that elect them? Why do you think congress approval rating is almost perpetually sub-20 percent? You say "do something legislatively and stop protesting", but the American political system is so broken that no change seems to be capable. It's not like they haven't had a chance to hear the publics concerns.

What does the last part even mean? I thought non-violent protesting was a cornerstone of what America is supposed to be? Those NFL protests seem extremely tame to me, considering. Doesn't matter if you don't think it's worthwhile.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

51 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

What does the last part even mean? I thought non-violent protesting was a cornerstone of what America is supposed to be? Those NFL protests seem extremely tame to me, considering. Doesn't matter if you don't think it's worthwhile.

That was more about the conservative speakers not being allowed to speak at their events.  People claim that protesting is their right by free speech but choose to protest in the same lecture halls as speakers and thereby discriminate against their ability to speak.  It doesn't matter that the majority of the people in the room have gone there to listen to what Shapiro has to say, all it really takes is a single individual to start screaming left phrases and he is suddenly not allowed to exercise his right to free speech and others are not allowed to listen.  It's clear people are confused by what "free speech" means - it doesn't mean everyone gets to say whatever they want whenever/wherever they want.   In fact, many of the protesters seem to think free speech only applies to people that agree with their viewpoint - its hypocrisy.  It's just further proof that protesters in today's society are made up of predominately uninformed people.

As for the actual changes, look at history.  MLK is highly regarded because he protested against segregation.  At the time, there were actual laws causing segregation.  His protests and speeches were able to bring about real change.  Today's version of MLK, just whines about how some people are racist.  It doesn't cite anyone in particular, it doesn't cite legislature, it doesn't cite statistics or facts.  It is literally just phrases - some of which are inaccurate or direct lies.

You know whose protest actually did bring about change?  Trump's.  He encouraged protests in the NFL and they're backing down.  Why did this work?  Because his protest was a little bit more sophisticated then awareness disguised as protests.  People knew what to do, and they knew why they wanted to do it - it was clear.

 

How are they going to propose actual changes?  Well there's petitions, letters to congress, having speakers talk about issues and legislature, fundraising for people proposing laws you agree with, encouraging people to vote for a particular governor, encouraging people to protest a particular law, donating your money to efforts dedicated to your views...  There's a million things they could do. Kneeling for the national anthem and not proposing a possible solution is not one of them.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

Maybe if what conservative thinkers speak out about is considered hate speech, maybe they should reevaluate their stance.

[Lushen]

27 minutes ago, The Geek said:

Maybe if what conservative thinkers speak out about is considered hate speech, maybe they should reevaluate their stance.

I consider your dismissal of conservative ideologies as hate speech.  Maybe you should reevaluate your stance.

Just joking, but you see the irony.  Conservatives make up roughly 50% of the nation, whether you like it or not.   We can play left/right games all we want.  The fact is, the left demonizes the right while the right demonizes the left.  Since I was just on the abortion thread, I'll use that as an example.

Left Says: A woman has a right to do what they want with their body.
Right Says:  A woman does not have the right to murder an unborn child.

Both of these viewpoints demonize the other side.  Conservatives are not "more evil" than liberals.  That is simply false, I have moral justifications for every social issue regarding why I side with the right and I guarantee you I can make a point demonizing the left's viewpoint on every single issue.  You may not agree, but my views are not "evil" you just don't understand my moral justifications or think they have the same magnitude as yours.  The reason the conservative speaker's speech I mentioned, Ben Shapiro's speech, was criticized as "hate speech" was "because he was a nazi" and "because he's a Trump supporter".  As I've said, both of these things are completely untrue.  The people claiming that he gives "hate speeches" knew just as much about him as I did yesterday - nothing.  At what point is this just plain harassment?  And by the way, the school administration gets behind the protests all the time which is totally not their place.

If anyone is interested in this topic, I'd recommend this video.  It's Ben Shapiro talking about this issue in depth in front of congress and he gets questioned from people with clear bias towards and against him so there's overall very little bias.  

Spoiler

Please actually watch it before commenting on it.  I am aware of the daily wires conservative bias, they don't even deny it.  But that doesn't discredit his viewpoints and he has some really great logical and knowledgeable points on this issue.

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

Well yeah, who do you expect the school to get behind?  The students who pay them tuition money or the poor oppressed rich guy they owe nothing to?

Both sides are expressing their right to free speech, they inevitably cancel each other out.

 

Also, by the way, my above post was more suggesting that instead of simply thinking "they call what I say hate speech because they're damn dirty libruhls who hate freeze peach" maybe instead think "what about my position could be thought of as hate speech?"

Because I can tell you that every time I see one of these guys complaining about people complaining about what they say, about 90% of the time what they're saying was actually hateful whether they intended it to be or not.  

[Lushen]

15 minutes ago, The Geek said:

Well yeah, who do you expect the school to get behind?  The students who pay them tuition money or the poor oppressed rich guy they owe nothing to?

Both sides are expressing their right to free speech, they inevitably cancel each other out.

 

Also, by the way, my above post was more suggesting that instead of simply thinking "they call what I say hate speech because they're damn dirty libruhls who hate freeze peach" maybe instead think "what about my position could be thought of as hate speech?"

If someone wants to call me a KKK/Nazi/trump-supporter and I'm a Jewish anti-Trump, non-racist I think I'd tell them to kindly fuck off and wouldn't consider anything they have to say because they are not going to do the same to me.  The problem is the students I was talking about are complete morons.  They had absolutely nothing to say and Shapiro even offered to talk with them about whatever they wanted.  The refused to look at him and continued to chant their bigotry remarks to the audience.  In no world were these intelligent human beings, they were literally complete idiots.  Yet they were able to force him to stop in the middle of his speech for 15 minutes (despite the audience telling them to leave) because they think the first amendment protects their right to stop others from practicing the first amendment.  

And FYI, here's another video of the same man giving a speech to high schoolers.  I've time stamped it so you only have to watch the short segment where the teacher gets boo'd for taking the liberal side.  Students aren't all liberals - teachers are all liberals.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7nbnhzae1o&t=1m0s

You can hear the majority of the audience finds what the teacher did to be repulsive and actually likes listening to Shapiro.  Teachers aren't liberal because students are liberal - teachers are liberal because they have gov't salaries.   BTW IIRC this is in California, where students typically have liberal bias.  But they found his points to be logical so they liked what he had to say.  Teacher didnt like it and tried to dismiss the students.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

You know there's more to being Liberal than just "muh big gubment" right?  Please tell me you aren't one of those "schools are brainwashing our kids with liberal ideology" types.  

 

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

As for the actual changes, look at history.  MLK is highly regarded because he protested against segregation.  At the time, there were actual laws causing segregation.  His protests and speeches were able to bring about real change.

MLK is only highly regarded nowadays. When he was actually out and protesting, his reception was very much the same as BLM, if not worse. Not to mention that MLK is often lionised and taken out of context to be propped up as some saintly and perfectly civil protester that didn't actually exist in order to attack current social justice movements.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Today's version of MLK, just whines about how some people are racist.  It doesn't cite anyone in particular, it doesn't cite legislature, it doesn't cite statistics or facts.  It is literally just phrases - some of which are inaccurate or direct lies.

So calling Conservatives KKK members/White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis based on the highly disturbing trend Right-Wing politics is taking in the US is completely unfair and demonstrative of how bad the left is, but this is your opinion on people protesting current civil rights issues? Methinks you should practice what you preach mate.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

How are they going to propose actual changes?  Well there's petitions, letters to congress, having speakers talk about issues and legislature, fundraising for people proposing laws you agree with, encouraging people to vote for a particular governor, encouraging people to protest a particular law, donating your money to efforts dedicated to your views...  There's a million things they could do. Kneeling for the national anthem and not proposing a possible solution is not one of them.

It's raising awareness for the issue, which is a perfectly valid way of advancing a cause. Just because people can also be doing the things you listed that kneeling during the anthem is pointless is completely arbitrary.

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lushen]

35 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

It's raising awareness for the issue, which is a perfectly valid way of advancing a cause. Just because people can also be doing the things you listed that kneeling during the anthem is pointless is completely arbitrary.

That's called raising awareness.  There are plenty of incredible programs for raising awareness for things like Drunk Driving, Suicide, etc.  We don't protest Suicide victims, we make people aware of the issue. The NFL is not raising awareness, they are protesting - in their own words.  Not to mention what they are protesting by kneeling has changed dramatically from "Police Brutality" to "Racial Inequality" to "Anti-Trump".  Kneeling is not a logical act of protest, it is the football equivalent of crying on TV about whatever is currently bothering you or will get you attention. 

35 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

MLK is only highly regarded nowadays. When he was actually out and protesting, his reception was very much the same as BLM, if not worse. Not to mention that MLK is often lionised and taken out of context to be propped up as some saintly and perfectly civil protester that didn't actually exist in order to attack current social justice movements.

So calling Conservatives KKK members/White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis based on the highly disturbing trend Right-Wing politics is taking in the US is completely unfair and demonstrative of how bad the left is, but this is your opinion on people protesting current civil rights issues? Methinks you should practice what you preach mate.

As I said, MLK protested Segregation and BLM is protesting...what exactly?  Racial inequality?  What does that mean?  Do they want socialism, do they want redistribution of wealth?  Do they want individuals to stop being racist?  I don't know.

I have no idea what that second paragraph is talking about.  What highly disturbing trend right-wing politics is taking?  Are you sure you're not attributing the alt-right to the right?  They're two different things BTW.  And before you cite Trump, I would like to point out that most conservatives don't count Trump among us.  He has quite a few liberal ideas that fullblown conservatives don't agree with.

37 minutes ago, The Geek said:

You know there's more to being Liberal than just "muh big gubment" right?  Please tell me you aren't one of those "schools are brainwashing our kids with liberal ideology" types.  

 

Yea...I just hope there's more to being a Liberal than bringing up points I didn't mention. I never said anything about "big government".

As for schools brainwashing our kids, some of that is entirely true, some of it isn't.  Do I think there's a secret cult of liberals who have gotten together and talked strategies for brainwashing kids?  Absolutely not.  Have I experienced liberal teachers who have tried to weave politics into their lectures?  Yea.  Have I experienced conservative teachers?  Nope, can't name one.  Did I actually watch the video I linked where a teacher tried to stop a conservative speaker's speech despite the fact that kids liked it?  Yea.  And there's the other point I brought up about a school administration in another scenario told their peacekeeping police that if the protesters are removed the event will have to end forcing Shapiro to either wait for the protesters to get bored and leave or cancel the event based on a small minority of people who weren't forced to be there.  I also see a problem with schools that set up safe spaces for people offended by conservative viewpoints but they don't set up a safe space when liberals share their views. 

The notion that liberal bias in schools isn't an important issue is identical to the notion that there is a secret society of liberals brainwashing our kids.  Hell, in the first video I linked you can see this issue was brought up in congress.  It is being taken seriously by serious people, if not by you.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

What do you mean by "inserting liberal politics into lessons"?  Examples, please.

I went to an extremely liberal school and the only time where what could be considered a "liberal viewpoint" was brought up in lecture was when the class was pretty much exclusively about things only liberals care about (namely climate change and conservation).

[Time the Crestfallen]

39 minutes ago, Lushen said:

That's called raising awareness.  There are plenty of incredible programs for raising awareness for things like Drunk Driving, Suicide, etc.  We don't protest Suicide victims, we make people aware of the issue. 

How you decided this is a valid comparison is beyond me.

39 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The NFL is not raising awareness, they are protesting - in their own words.

What is protesting, if not raising awareness by voicing discontent? Explain to me how protesting isn't a method of raising awareness.

39 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Not to mention what they are protesting by kneeling has changed dramatically from "Police Brutality" to "Racial Inequality" to "Anti-Trump". 

Yes, because it's different people doing the kneeling. Unless you're expecting me to be pissed that different people might use the same method of protest to raise awareness for different issues, I don't know what you expect me to be mad about here. Furthermore, the only explicitly 'Anti-Trump' kneeling is the most recent one which, as you're aware, would be a direct response to Trump saying people who kneel for the anthem should be fired.

39 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As I said, MLK protested Segregation and BLM is protesting...what exactly?  Racial inequality?  What does that mean?  Do they want socialism, do they want redistribution of wealth?  Do they want individuals to stop being racist?  I don't know.

BLM is protesting systemic racism against black people within the criminal justice system. It says this in the very first paragraph of the wikipedia page. You saying this tells me you haven't even bothered to even try and understand what BLM is about before condemning it.

39 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I have no idea what that second paragraph is talking about.  What highly disturbing trend right-wing politics is taking?  Are you sure you're not attributing the alt-right to the right?  They're two different things BTW.

First of all, while I'm not saying that the Alt-Right is representative of the entire right-wing political spectrum, I'm absolutely not discounting their influence. To suggest I do so is disingenuous and reeks of No-True-Scotsman fallacy.

Secondly, even without counting them, right-wing politics in the US has become increasingly focused on scapegoating immigration, as well as being Anti-LGBT, Pro-Dominionism and dog-whistling to the worst aspects of the right. You can tell me about conservative voters all you want, but this is what is happening at the government level i.e. where the policy and agenda is decided.

39 minutes ago, Lushen said:

And before you cite Trump, I would like to point out that most conservatives don't count Trump among us.  He has quite a few liberal ideas that full-blown conservatives don't agree with.

He has a majority support amongst conservatives and blew every other conservative candidate out of the water during the elections. I'm not saying every conservative voter is a part of the r/t_D cult of personality, but the numbers absolutely don't agree with this statement.

Also, I never thought I'd see the day where someone would criticise Trump for not being conservative enough, but here we are.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lushen]

You just proved my point.  People are protesting whatever the hell they want.  It used to be an act of patriotism.  You didn't protest the country because you hated one of the laws, you protested the law because you loved the country.  Nowadays, it's made up of people who are willing to change the meaning of their protesting outlet to match whatever is currently going on.  Hands up don't shoot is a lie.  But who cares?  It now means something else.  Kneeling was originally one man who thought that it was appropriate to wear socks depicting all cops as pigs.  But who cares?  Now it means being anti-racist.  Oh, what's that?  Trump made a tweet?  Quick - let's change it to anti-Trump.  This is like protesting Target because you hate Wal-mart.  The national anthem never had anything to do with police brutality.  The national anthem has nothing to do with Trump.  Why do you have to ruin the national anthem for your political agenda?  How is it morally acceptable to discourage veterans who see the kneeling insulting to their service because <insert liberal word of the day here>.  I am an avid supporter of protests.  But I think the protesters should be intelligent and protest in the right place at the right time.  Like I said, you don't protest Target because you hate Wal-mart. 

BLM also claims that they are now about police brutality in general and stand up for whites and blacks.  But the wikipedia article claims something different.  You can see why I'm confused.  Like the protests, they just change it whenever they think it's convenient.  I fail to see the morality of an organization demonizing one of three occupations I can think of where you directly risk your life for someone else.  I just don't see it.

As for Trump, most full-blown conservatives I've talked to don't like Trump.  Again, just because you support a candidate doesn't mean he was your #1 pick.  He wasn't mine, I would have wanted a more conservative president.  

 

I think its funny how easy it is for you to say the alt-right has influenced the right but probably won't mention that SJWs and Antifa have effects on the left.  Nope, only conservatives are capable of evil. 

48 minutes ago, The Geek said:

What do you mean by "inserting liberal politics into lessons"?  Examples, please.

I went to an extremely liberal school and the only time where what could be considered a "liberal viewpoint" was brought up in lecture was when the class was pretty much exclusively about things only liberals care about (namely climate change and conservation).

My Writing for Engineers teacher my final year of college made anti-trump side comments consistently.  She also liked to talk about how she couldn't vote that year because she lost her green card in Mexico.   The day after the election, she didn't teach class "because she was upset".

In High School everything you're taught is liberal.  There's the "Everybody Wins" philosophy.  Climate change is taught in mandatory classes.  Heck, Bill Nye the Science guy is one of the most liberal figures getting kids to believe in Climate Change despite only having a bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering.  Affirmative Action is liberal ideology at its finest and actually its a small taste of socialism.

The people viewing this thread are composed primarily of young people.  And what a coincidence, I'm like the only conservative here.  And yet the country is 50/50.  And you think liberal bias is not affecting the youth at all?

I mean, I just showed you two extremely informative videos on this issue and you're asking for my examples?  Watch those videos, he knows a lot more about this stuff than me.  He spent the last couple years of his life living a life where liberals don't want him to speak.  

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[ping]

It seriously boggles my mind how people get so riled up about a piece of cloth and a moderately catchy tune. Then again, I don't consider patriotism to be a intrinsically positive character trait.

Lushen, the president of the united states called a sportsman a "son of a bitch" and asked an organisation to punish members that use their right to voice their opinion. This is not about whether or not you find their protest tasteful. That really doesn't matter at all. It's about the president trying to restrict the first amendment.

Also, "climate change" is not a political agenda. The political agenda would be "We should probably try not to flood the Netherlands".

[Time the Crestfallen]

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You just proved my point.  People are protesting whatever the hell they want.

<snip>

Your point doesn't make any sense. I point out that expecting methods of protests to be exclusive to singular issues is a stupid thing to expect, and apparently that proves your point? Furthermore, people aren't protesting 'whatever the hell they want'. It started out with police brutality and then expanded into the broader and more general topic of racial equality (as most, if not all social justice movements do), and then became a protest towards Trump for one incident because he said doing it should get you fired. Both of these things are either a) a natural progression into other issues or b) topical and relevant to the current political climate. But sure, 'whatever the hell they want'. Excuse me while I kneel during my country' anthem because I think F/GO's gacha rates are brutally unfair.

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The national anthem never had anything to do with police brutality.  The national anthem has nothing to do with Trump.  Why do you have to ruin the national anthem for your political agenda?

The national anthem is a demonstration of national pride. Kneeling during the anthem as a protest is saying 'I cannot take pride in my country when it allows X to happen'. Not everything is meant to be interpreted literally.

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I am an avid supporter of protests.  But I think the protesters should be intelligent and protest in the right place at the right time.  Like I said, you don't protest Target because you hate Wal-mart. 

And when is the 'right time and right place' by your standards?.

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

BLM also claims that they are now about police brutality in general and stand up for whites and blacks.  But the wikipedia article claims something different.  You can see why I'm confused.  Like the protests, they just change it whenever they think it's convenient.  I fail to see the morality of an organization demonizing one of three occupations I can think of where you directly risk your life for someone else.  I just don't see it.

No, I don't. Police brutality is a facet of racial inequality. BLM has its origins in protesting police brutality, but has expanded to talking about many other forms of racial inequality. Saying that they 'change when it's convenient' is incredibly disingenuous and further demonstrates you aren't even trying to consider where they're coming from.

Also, of course protests against the police. The police have a long history when it comes to the oppression of African-Americans and other minorities. What are they supposed to do, ask them nicely to stop brutalising and profiling them?

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As for Trump, most full-blown conservatives I've talked to don't like Trump.  Again, just because you support a candidate doesn't mean he was your #1 pick.  He wasn't mine, I would have wanted a more conservative president.  

Again, Trump slaughtered every other candidate in the GOP primaries. It wasn't even close. Your personal experiences mean nothing compared to numerical evidence.

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I think its funny how easy it is for you to say the alt-right has influenced the right but probably won't mention that SJWs and Antifa have effects on the left.  Nope, only conservatives are capable of evil.

So now you're attacking me based on something that:

a) I haven't even said

b) Is wildly off-topic

c) Doesn't even refute the point I made, in favour of whataboutisms.

d) Straw mans my position.

Come up with an argument that doesn't rely on meaningless buzzwords and logical fallacies, then we'll talk.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, ping said:

It seriously boggles my mind how people get so riled up about a piece of cloth and a moderately catchy tune. Then again, I don't consider patriotism to be a intrinsically positive character trait.

Lushen, the president of the united states called a sportsman a "son of a bitch" and asked an organisation to punish members that use their right to voice their opinion. This is not about whether or not you find their protest tasteful. That really doesn't matter at all. It's about the president trying to restrict the first amendment.

Also, "climate change" is not a political agenda. The political agenda would be "We should probably try not to flood the Netherlands".

I will agree with your first two paragraphs.  I don't really care about the national anthem personally. That being said, some veterans think that by disrespecting the flag and the anthem you are disrespecting their service.  I find that distasteful, especially when the protesters aren't even protesting the lyrics or history of the national anthem.  It actually originated from a guy who simply doesn't like this country.

The biggest thing here is how everything is getting politicized.  Culture is supposed to be a unifying factor of our society.  People can watch without arguing about politics.  But I think the left ruined it.  I don't think it was the general 'left' but it is what I would describe as the "alt-left".  The elitist radicals that need to turn everything into a political issue, of which there is a conservative equivalent.  And again, plenty of conservatives like me don't think Trump's comments were appropriate, myself included.  But it all started with the left.  And it escalated to the point of no return with the left.  Trump is easy to ignore, ESPN and the NFL encouraging players to not stand for the nation anthem crossed a line.  I just don't see the point in a politicized ESPN/NFL.  

The most conservative viewpoint of climate change is that it "may exist".  I think most of us, myself included, believe that it "probably exists".  But none of us are willing to cause mass layoffs of coal workers in favor of "clean energy".  I personally would be fine with switching over to nuclear, but most Liberals (and people in general) are against Nuclear 'just cause' it seems to me.  We just don't think climate change is a greater threat to our well-being than other things.  Most climate scientists, to my knowledge, don't claim to know a rough percentage of how much climate change is happening because of humans and most don't claim to know what the world would look like today if we never engaged in dirty energy.  The 97% consensus has been debunked many times and there are quite a few cases where climate scientists in other countries are caught falsifying data so it's very hard for us to get behind.

[The Geek]

Coal is dying on its own buddy.  Climate change research didn't do that.  Obama didn't do that.  It's the free market conservatives supposedly love that is killing coal.  Other energy sources are simply more cost effective and have a better image.  Natural gas is coal's biggest enemy nowadays.

[ping]

50 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I will agree with your first two paragraphs.  I don't really care about the national anthem personally. That being said, some veterans think that by disrespecting the flag and the anthem you are disrespecting their service.  I find that distasteful, especially when the protesters aren't even protesting the lyrics or history of the national anthem.  It actually originated from a guy who simply doesn't like this country.

The biggest thing here is how everything is getting politicized.  Culture is supposed to be a unifying factor of our society.  People can watch without arguing about politics.  But I think the left ruined it.  I don't think it was the general 'left' but it is what I would describe as the "alt-left".  The elitist radicals that need to turn everything into a political issue, of which there is a conservative equivalent.  And again, plenty of conservatives like me don't think Trump's comments were appropriate, myself included.  But it all started with the left.  And it escalated to the point of no return with the left.  Trump is easy to ignore, ESPN and the NFL encouraging players to not stand for the nation anthem crossed a line.  I just don't see the point in a politicized ESPN/NFL.  

You kinda make those veterans sound like they need a safe space. :D Anyhow, didn't Kaepernick start kneeling instead of sitting exactly because he didn't want to disrespect veterans?

I highly disagree with your second paragraph, not only because the term "alt-left" creates a false equivalence. How is the president of the US easier to ignore than ESPN and NFL? Why did they "cross a line"? Before Trump felt the need to make this a national affair, it was merely the protest of a private citizen. The NFL reacted to that, so I find it weird to put the blame for the escalation on them. You can't just pretend that what the most powerful man in the US (and on the planet, although that doesn't matter in this particular case) has to say on any issue is irrelevant. The US president is not a regular citizen.

[blah the Prussian]

16 hours ago, Lushen said:

 

As for the actual changes, look at history.  MLK is highly regarded because he protested against segregation.  At the time, there were actual laws causing segregation.  His protests and speeches were able to bring about real change.  Today's version of MLK, just whines about how some people are racist.  It doesn't cite anyone in particular, it doesn't cite legislature, it doesn't cite statistics or facts.  It is literally just phrases - some of which are inaccurate or direct lies.

Okay, hold on a second. I agree that it's more difficult to protest what's happening right now because there isn't an easily identifiable law you can point to and say "this is what needs to change". But BLM is absolutely protesting against something specific and tangible: the perceived lack of accountability of police officers who commit abuses, as well as the problem of racism within police departments, particularly urban ones. You can agree or disagree that these are actually problems but they most definitely have a specific goal; they aren't "whining" about racism in general.

 

Edit: and art and entertainment is always political, and there's nothing wrong with that, whether it's Shakespeare showing Macbeth as being wrong for betraying his King, the Empire in Star Wars being strongly inspired by Fascism, Father in Fullmetal Alchemist embracing science to an excessive degree, or Frodo risking corruption by the One Ring(metaphor for power) in LOTR, politics must ultimately be a part of entertainment if we want out entertainment to mean anything. Otherwise all you get is generic, harmless, un controversial crap.

Edited September 30, 2017 by blah the Prussian

[Tryhard]

11 hours ago, Lushen said:

That was more about the conservative speakers not being allowed to speak at their events.  People claim that protesting is their right by free speech but choose to protest in the same lecture halls as speakers and thereby discriminate against their ability to speak.  It doesn't matter that the majority of the people in the room have gone there to listen to what Shapiro has to say, all it really takes is a single individual to start screaming left phrases and he is suddenly not allowed to exercise his right to free speech and others are not allowed to listen.  It's clear people are confused by what "free speech" means - it doesn't mean everyone gets to say whatever they want whenever/wherever they want.   In fact, many of the protesters seem to think free speech only applies to people that agree with their viewpoint - its hypocrisy.  It's just further proof that protesters in today's society are made up of predominately uninformed people.

As for the actual changes, look at history.  MLK is highly regarded because he protested against segregation.  At the time, there were actual laws causing segregation.  His protests and speeches were able to bring about real change.  Today's version of MLK, just whines about how some people are racist.  It doesn't cite anyone in particular, it doesn't cite legislature, it doesn't cite statistics or facts.  It is literally just phrases - some of which are inaccurate or direct lies.

You know whose protest actually did bring about change?  Trump's.  He encouraged protests in the NFL and they're backing down.  Why did this work?  Because his protest was a little bit more sophisticated then awareness disguised as protests.  People knew what to do, and they knew why they wanted to do it - it was clear.

Ben Shapiro is more respectable, but I could fully understand why universities wouldn't want trolls who just say things to get a reaction like Milo or Ann Coulter coming there to speak. Once again, free speech mainly applies to the government. If the university or college want to stop a conservative speaker from speaking at their premises at any point, they more or less have a right to do so.

I could easily point to those people that I saw before as being hypocrites too:

On 25/09/2017 at 1:09 PM, Tryhard said:

Reading some general comments it seems more are flirting with outright authoritarianism than I at first thought - the same that would rant against "PC culture" and think that waving confederate flags and nazi demonstrations should be protected under free speech are the same who rage against a less than stellar reaction to American patriotism and want those people to be pushed to be fired by a federal government.

I think waving a confederate flag is more of an affront to American patriotism if you actually care about that.

These guys are the equivalent of the college kids who don't really know what liberalism is that you are picking on - the uninformed conservatives who also don't see the hypocrisy of their own actions.

The NFL seem to be choosing to stand by a business decision - it's their right. There was the same thing back when people boycotted Chick-Fil-A because the CEO came out in support of anti-gay organisations (and how the profits of Chick-Fil-A went to these organisations). The same when companies come out in favour of LGBT rights, and all the bigots decide to get a stick up their ass. They probably lost business from that but that's what they wanted. Unfortunately (in my opinion), companies are deciding to become more political and have more political opinions (even though it might not be held by a majority of the hierarchical workers), and this didn't start with ESPN.

11 hours ago, Lushen said:

How are they going to propose actual changes?  Well there's petitions, letters to congress, having speakers talk about issues and legislature, fundraising for people proposing laws you agree with, encouraging people to vote for a particular governor, encouraging people to protest a particular law, donating your money to efforts dedicated to your views...  There's a million things they could do. Kneeling for the national anthem and not proposing a possible solution is not one of them.

There was a certain protest that did many of these things, it was called Occupy Wall Street. It was generally either cracked down upon or disregarded and ignored by the government because it doesn't benefit their interests before it has more or less dissolved - and that was under democrat leadership, too. With some help from the intelligence agencies:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

Making actual change is hard, but you just want to downplay anything you see because then the issue will "go away" and then you don't need to see people kneeling in a football game.

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

I will agree with your first two paragraphs.  I don't really care about the national anthem personally. That being said, some veterans think that by disrespecting the flag and the anthem you are disrespecting their service.  I find that distasteful, especially when the protesters aren't even protesting the lyrics or history of the national anthem.  It actually originated from a guy who simply doesn't like this country.

7 hours ago, ping said:

It seriously boggles my mind how people get so riled up about a piece of cloth and a moderately catchy tune. Then again, I don't consider patriotism to be a intrinsically positive character trait.

I have also seen veterans who say that they had their service precisely so people could protest in this way, even if they disagreed with it. So it wouldn't be all veterans who would be taking disrespect from this, or more accurately, taking offence because it's such a inconsequential thing to begin with that you can easily ignore. 

Me either. Most other countries view America drilling the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and national anthem into children from a very early age as jingoistic more than anything. I think it is rather silly to play it before every non-national football game to begin with.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

 

...Well it Looks like I'm going to have to start my Saturday Morning Calling Out Bullshit...

On 9/30/2017 at 0:20 AM, Lushen said:

That was more about the conservative speakers not being allowed to speak at their events.  People claim that protesting is their right by free speech but choose to protest in the same lecture halls as speakers and thereby discriminate against their ability to speak.  It doesn't matter that the majority of the people in the room have gone there to listen to what Shapiro has to say, all it really takes is a single individual to start screaming left phrases and he is suddenly not allowed to exercise his right to free speech and others are not allowed to listen.  It's clear people are confused by what "free speech" means - it doesn't mean everyone gets to say whatever they want whenever/wherever they want.   In fact, many of the protesters seem to think free speech only applies to people that agree with their viewpoint - its hypocrisy.  It's just further proof that protesters in today's society are made up of predominately uninformed people.

As for the actual changes, look at history.  MLK is highly regarded because he protested against segregation.  At the time, there were actual laws causing segregation.  His protests and speeches were able to bring about real change.  Today's version of MLK, just whines about how some people are racist.  It doesn't cite anyone in particular, it doesn't cite legislature, it doesn't cite statistics or facts.  It is literally just phrases - some of which are inaccurate or direct lies.

You know whose protest actually did bring about change?  Trump's.  He encouraged protests in the NFL and they're backing down.  Why did this work?  Because his protest was a little bit more sophisticated then awareness disguised as protests.  People knew what to do, and they knew why they wanted to do it - it was clear.

 

How are they going to propose actual changes?  Well there's petitions, letters to congress, having speakers talk about issues and legislature, fundraising for people proposing laws you agree with, encouraging people to vote for a particular governor, encouraging people to protest a particular law, donating your money to efforts dedicated to your views...  There's a million things they could do. Kneeling for the national anthem and not proposing a possible solution is not one of them.

First lets make something very clear. It is not the method of protest you find objectionable. It is the message.

They protest in the streets. The hater says: “This is rioting. This is lawlessness. They’re ruining their communities. They're disrespecting the police. If these people want to be taken seriously why don’t they protest peacefully somewhere where it won’t cause a public nuisance?”

They protest by taking the knee during the national anthem. The hater says: “Inappropriate. This is not the right forum. They’re ruining football. They’re disrespecting the flag. If these people want to be taken seriously, why don’t they go out into their communities and protest what they’re really mad at—the police?”  

You will never be satisfied; not unless they shut up and stop protesting. Because you don’t think they have a legitimate complaint. You think that THEY are the problem, not the response. You do not accept that there is unaddressed racial inequality in this country, insufficient legal protections against police misconduct, and an intersection between the two that is THE pressing civil rights issue of our day. That message—to you—is an expression of disrespect for law enforcement and racemongering. You hear it and it doesn’t matter where you hear it or how its communicated. You don’t like it.  

You wanna talk MLK??? Okay, Lushen. Lets talk MLK.

MLK’s protests had lower support among White Americans in his day then the NFL protests have today among White Americans in 2017. It was only after his lifetime—AFTER the injustice he was protesting was addressed and the next generation saw the prior law of his day for what it was in comparison to their own—that MLK became revered among Whites and Blacks alike as this great American Hero.

…in his day…

-They said he was protesting over NOTHING. There was no injustice. There was no inequality in the law. Blacks were just being treated the way people who commit more crimes and show more disrespect for authority should be treated in a fair country.  

-They said that he was causing racism and racial division. That he was making black people hate white people by telling them that they were being unfairly treated. That he was making white people hate black people because white people were very uncomfortable with these protests and saw it as black people blaming whites for their problems. That race relations in America would be better if people like MLK stopped agitating everyone with all this talk of racial injustice in America; that’s what was causing all the problems.

-They said even if he had a legitimate grievance, his METHODS were wrong. His protests were “unpatriotic.” His protests were disrespectful to law enforcement. He shouldn’t be saying the things he was saying about America. He shouldn’t be getting arrested. He shouldn’t be forcing his activism into public view. He was just hurting his own cause.

Dr. King was speaking specifically to people like you when he wrote his Letter from Birmingham Jail, following his arrest for refusing lawful directives from police officers during one of his early protests in Alabama:
 

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Some choice bits:

“You may well ask: Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

AND

“You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.”

AND

"Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation."

Again. Please read and review. I want you to understand how absurd it is that you would invoke—of all things—Dr. King’s memory, to defend the position you’re defending. Dr. King would have some VERY choice words about this position you are taking, if he were alive today to offer his thoughts on the matter.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Shoblongoo]

Andddddd I can't figure out how to double quote in one post. w/e. This is probably too long to be one post anyway, and its separate subject matter.

4 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

 I agree that it's more difficult to protest what's happening right now because there isn't an easily identifiable law you can point to and say "this is what needs to change".

Yes there is. What we want to be looking at are the laws governing the conduct of state and local police. Lawful use of force statutes. Professional liability standards. Rules of administrative procedure for responding to reports of police misconduct. Prosecutorial burdens of proof and defenses available at trial, where an officer faces criminal charges for wrongful deaths caused by inappropriate use of force.

Washington State, for example, has a proposed bill now to remove statutory protections which make it damn-near impossible to prosecute officers who kill people by way of police misconduct.

At a more local level; various municipalities are adopting ordinances that require their local police departments to wear bodycameras at all times while on duty, and establish a presumption of efforts-to-conceal-guilt where an officer accused of misconduct had his bodycam turned off and cannot produce footage from the moment of the confrontation in question. I think there's been some movement there recently in the State of California.

Ideally, the change-of-law we'd like to see when all is said and done is a professional liability standard for police that looks something like the professional liability standard for lawyers and doctors or any other profession. Not the unique set of privileges and immunities police and only police are given.

Like if a doctor abuses a patient under anesthesia. Or if a doctor makes a medical error that kills someone. That doctor is going to lose their license to practice and face severe legal consequences.

We don't do this because we hate doctors. We do this because  we respect the profession and the important work that it does enough to hold it to the highest professional standards, and keep sub-standard individuals who would besmirch the profession with their bad acts out of the profession.

Moreover, if we did not have these standards, we would have a crisis of confidence in the medical profession, due to an abundance of unpunished medical errors and wrongful deaths and no mechanism for distinguishing those who cause them from good doctors. The medical profession benefits from strict enforcement of these standards in that it continues to be held in high esteem. 

The same should be true of policing.
 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Ben Shapiro is more respectable, but I could fully understand why universities wouldn't want trolls who just say things to get a reaction like Milo or Ann Coulter coming there to speak. Once again, free speech mainly applies to the government. If the university or college want to stop a conservative speaker from speaking at their premises at any point, they more or less have a right to do so.

I'm glad Ben Shapiro is somewhat respectable even by liberal standards.  I never saw him before but recently I've been watching a lot of videos with things he said and he's the first person that matches my political ideologies exactly.  I have a few ideologies on certain things that I have never heard someone acknowledge before and I thought I was the only one to believe them and Shapiro usually ends up saying exactly what I have been.  

That being said, I will agree with you that most of the liberals causing these kinds of problems are our liberal youth.  That being said, aren't you concerned with the fact that this liberal youth will one day replace the future liberal ideology?  I honestly don't think conservative youth differs much from the adult conservative.  Yes there are alt-righters just like there's Antifa and other radical left groups but I think they exist in both facets whereas I think most liberals in their youth are becoming quite radical, especially in Ivy League and liberal high schools.  I don't mean radical as in violent but rather extremism against the white male and conservative speakers.

 

I'm just going to speak in general because if I multiquote every single person that has responded to me this post would be the longest in Serene Forest history.

Kneeling WAS about police brutality.  If you left it at that, fine.  But the fact that it just keeps changing to whatever the left wants at the time is what's concerning to me.  Players are not uniformly standing for police brutality.  Some of them are standing for police brutality, some of them are standing for racial inequality as a whole, some of them are "standing with their team", some of them are "against Trump".  There's no sense of unity, organization, or purpose in these protests other than to show that most football players are members of the left.  After Trump made his comments, the people that kneeled were not protesting police brutality.  I understand most people see the NFL/ESPN as private entities but understand the NFL still receives a lot of money from tax payer dollars.   This is why its not comparable to MLK - he was protesting legislature.

As for the MLK, I am very aware that he was not very popular.  Duh.  If he was popular from the beginning he would never have needed to protest,  My point is that he was protesting actual legislature.  The reason BLM struggles to find a sense of organization is because there's nothing to protest.  There are no laws intended to target racial minorities anymore.  They could propose reverse racism, but I don't see them do that either.  Protests are for society to see, courtrooms are for individuals. Heck, sometimes protests occur outside of courtrooms.  Fine, but protesting a general sense of racism does no good.

I think some people see every protest as a beautiful thing but there are countless scenarios where they are being led by completely uninformed people.  Just look at the DNC protests where a bunch of people showed up high to protest for Bernie Sanders.  Or Ben Shapiro being called a member of the KKK by screeching liberals.  In one speech, they pulled a fire alarm which forced the administration to cancel the speech.  Tampering with a life saving device is a felony, but acc't to these left youth "Someone pulled the fire alarm to stop this, because this is how the facists do it" which honestly doesn't even make sense.

 

10 hours ago, Magus of Flowers said:

So now you're attacking me based on something that:

a) I haven't even said

b) Is wildly off-topic

c) Doesn't even refute the point I made, in favour of whataboutisms.

d) Straw mans my position.

Come up with an argument that doesn't rely on meaningless buzzwords and logical fallacies, then we'll talk.

a & b) "First of all, while I'm not saying that the Alt-Right is representative of the entire right-wing political spectrum, I'm absolutely not discounting their influence."
c & d) So your solution to respond to my argument is to claim I did exactly what you are doing right at this moment.  I've said this before but logical fallacies are guidelines, not rules to live by.  If person A lies 1,000 times and person B has never lied, logical fallacies tell us this doesn't mean that person B isn't lieing right now.  But guess what?  Claiming that person A is probably the one lieing is a perfectly valid argument and the logical fallacy man would not have any logical skills to say otherwise.  Logical fallacies suggest you the fallacy cannot be PROVEN true, that doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.

 

@ShoblongooIt also doesn't say that the cop should use kill someone if arrest is an option.  The new specific law, as you paraphrased the old, doesn't mean anything different, it's just more words.  Police are still allowed to shoot to kill if they think its necessary and the individual has committed a crime 2a).  The reason for this activism is because Michael Brown was shot for 2c) so this new law would not have saved him.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lushen

[ping]

33 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Kneeling WAS about police brutality.  If you left it at that, fine.  But the fact that it just keeps changing to whatever the left wants at the time is what's concerning to me.  Players are not uniformly standing for police brutality.  Some of them are standing for police brutality, some of them are standing for racial inequality as a whole, some of them are "standing with their team", some of them are "against Trump".  There's no sense of unity, organization, or purpose in these protests other than to show that most football players are members of the left.  After Trump made his comments, the people that kneeled were not protesting police brutality.  I understand most people see the NFL/ESPN as private entities but understand the NFL still receives a lot of money from tax payer dollars.   This is why its not comparable to MLK - he was protesting legislature.

Again: Trump calles Kaepernick a "son of a bitch" and requested the NFL to fire sportsmen who make use of their right of free speech. If the meaning of taking a knee has changed, it is because Trump provoked it. Hadn't he chosen to attack Kaepernick, taking a knee would still be the indiviual protest against everyday racism.

The fact that the NFL receives subsidies might be questionable, but it's not relevant to this issue at all. Subsidies are absolutely common in every western country (including the US - or how do you think Trump would save the coal industry?) and do not make their recipients into state property or (on an individual level) governement employees.

Honestly, I haven't seen a compelling argument against this form of protest from you. It's literally just people kneeling, so nobody gets hurt, nobody gets insulted - they just express that they see injustice in the US. If you disagree with that observation, that's fine. I wholeheartedly believe that you would be wrong, but it's still fine. But in no way does that diminish the (legal and moral) right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion.