The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Protesting and Signal Loss [NFL/NBA etc. Protests]
I think americans just have this lazy need to belong at times. Like they see a twitter hashtag and don't want to be left out, so they do a skim assume its just another trump protest and sign on.
I mean lost in this shuffle is that Kaepernick was fired, he was fired from the nfl and then black listed. What Trump wanted to happen happened, and it was supported by all the smug sumbitches now "uniting" behind unity? I guess.
Its going to take the help of the individuals providing the signal loss, here, at some point in order for any real work to be done. The visibility needs to be there but not the point where the blob of people, who could be labeled as "follow" types or worse, dont turn off. Thing is you have these trickle efforts like kneeling or occupy.
But on the other side you have people fighting hard and dirty. And so it may be prudent and almost to the point where we, as a country, might need that push into ultra uncomfortableness, pushing through and losing all the signal, all the way through to in your face negative signal. In order to get in front of said "lazy" people.
While I agree that there was a lot of signal loss this weekend, I kinda think this provides more cover for players who want to refocus on Kaep's protest.
There was a lot of noise about Kaepernick's method of protesting and if he should be doing that in a different way when he was doing it originally. All this about defending the right to do that is good, but it overshadows the original point of why he was doing that. But I don't want to throw out a thing good thing people are standing up for, but I don't want it overshadowing the original more important issue either. Do we have to get through "it's okay to protest" before we can talk about the reason for the protest, or is it just a distraction to avoid from discussing racial tensions? I don't have a solution here.
I am always very uncomfortable with the idea that to be legitimate these sorts of protests/movements need a figurehead or leader figure. It feels like the great man falacy given form as political advice.
It's more about the organization and focus required to achieve change.
People can organize themselves just fine without edicts from on high. Authoritarian movements don't have a great track record out on the left.
The Occupy movement was rudderless and leaderless and had no specific underlying structure by design and was probably the most "lossy" protest movement I've ever seen.
It was the lo-fi Youtube upload of a shitty mp3 rip of protest signal quality
Contrast that with, say, the Civil Rights movement.
I'm not saying everyone has to agree, I'm saying there needs to be organization.
But the civil rights movement wasn't really any kind of centralized organization. It was schismatic and decentralized and had tons of local leaders getting things done completely independently of the figureheads.
There's a difference between organization and centralized authority.
Then I guess I'm struggling to see what the original version of the NFL protest was lacking in your model. They had a message and a plan and even altered it when they looked critically at results. The real problem here is the generalized anti Trump cooption, which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you start centralizing and conglomerating groups.
If the idea is that someone needs to exist that could correct the record in the real goals of the take a knee movement, I would counter that the people that jumped on to pee in Trump's eye should educate themselves before knee jerking to opposition because they are weakening not only the message they glommed on to but their open moral authority to do anything that isn't just #resist.
Anyway, in general given the reaction to Kaepernick's fucking tame gesture, both in the media, in politics and professionally, I'm not sure this whole wave of support isn't in some ways needed. It's good that people seem to be standing up for his right to make the mildest of protests.
Of course, maybe someone should fucking hire him to play football if they really mean what they are claiming.
Anyway, in general given the reaction to Kaepernick's fucking tame gesture, both in the media, in politics and professionally, I'm not sure this whole wave of support isn't in some ways needed. It's good that people seem to be standing up for his right to make the mildest of protests.
Of course, maybe someone should fucking hire him to play football if they really mean what they are claiming.
And this is the rub, and things like the SI cover reinforce. This was about Kaep's protest and he's still fired, not able to play in the NFL, and with this new phase of the protest effectively being erased from it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
To be fair, Trump is a crazed racist lunatic who is legitimizing and empowering racist police forces (and racist 'police' forces in the form of ICE), so it's not like these things are completely unrelated. Repudiation of him and his is a critical part of addressing police racism and accountability, especially for Black and Hispanic rights movements.
Anyway, in general given the reaction to Kaepernick's fucking tame gesture, both in the media, in politics and professionally, I'm not sure this whole wave of support isn't in some ways needed. It's good that people seem to be standing up for his right to make the mildest of protests.
Of course, maybe someone should fucking hire him to play football if they really mean what they are claiming.
And this is the rub, and things like the SI cover reinforce. This was about Kaep's protest and he's still fired, not able to play in the NFL, and with this new phase of the protest effectively being erased from it.
But it's about talent! Pay no attention to starting quarterback Joe flacco's 28 yard 2 int effort behind the curtain!
To be fair, Trump is a crazed racist lunatic who is legitimizing and empowering racist police forces (and racist 'police' forces in the form of ICE), so it's not like these things are completely unrelated. Repudiation of him and his is a critical part of addressing police racism and accountability, especially for Black and Hispanic rights movements.
NFL owners who gave him tons of money now poo-pooing his comments and claiming they support a right to protest aren't really repudiating him, in my mind. They're glomming on to "movement" in the easiest way possible since there's already a swell of support for these players from people in the country.
When they spend some $$ on a Know Your Rights camp or donate to BLM or actually call him a fucking racist and say they won't donate to him? That's repudiation. That's trying to start addressing police racism and accountability. That's actual action that's worthy of actual praise and positive reinforcement.
This is a timely thread. My roommates and I had a discussion about this last night (they are undergrads so are closer to 18-20, and I'm older).
So two of my roommates are Latino from Texas and my third roommate is White from Texas and this sort of set the dynamic of the conversation. We had dinner and afterwards one of my roommates asked me what I thought about the protests because I am a veteran. My reply was "I just could not give less of a fuck what form protest takes in this instance because the anthem and the physical flag are not nearly as important as ideals." The third roommates stance was essentially "I don't disagree with the message behind the protest necessarily, but I don't understand why it takes this form". Which I think is probably a decent representation of younger 18-20 White kids who are on the fence or critical of this form of protest. The discussion delved into my experiences and observations as a White kid growing up in low income majority Black neighborhoods and going to majority Black schools and the experiences of my first two roommates who come from lower income majority Latin neighborhoods in Houston which ran counter to his experience. He also wasn't very knowledgeable about wider policy issues like affirmative action (which put him in the default position of seeing it as unfair gain for those who benefit), rent seeking in majority minority neighborhoods etc. Or that most criticism boiled down to tone policing rather than addressing the issue being protested.
And this is where I think the disconnect was for my third roommate, that he didn't experience or observe these issues even peripherally and just had no idea that his experience wasn't universal. Which is perfectly normal. Generally people assume their experience is universal. So it wasn't necessarily that he was racist or even ignorant or not "woke" or overly privileged, but that he assumed that his experience was universal. And I think this can cut both ways, that those who may have had experiences which put them on the other side also assume their experiences are universal thus anyone who disagrees is [insert negative label]. Do not mistake this as me advocating for those on the other side to educate or what have you, or that such an obligation exists. Rather I think this is something that should be considered when discussing why there may be resistance to this from younger members of the citizenry.
The reaction to protest always seems to be a criticism of the method of protest, rather than a frank discussion of the issue being protested. When you don't agree that the issue being protested is a real problem, you will automatically tend toward criticizing their tactics (the part that actually affects you) and you'll be more interested in doing that than discussing what you consider to be a fake or exaggerated problem.
I do think it's crucial to energetically and deliberately combat that attempt to reframe the discussion, whether it's deliberate or automatic.
It's not just that they think it's a fake problem. It's that they like the status quo(in this case racism) because it benefits them.
I think this is ascribing an explicit motivation that may not exist. I would wager that for most of even the open critics of this on the grounds that it's "disrespectful" they don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "We must maintain the status quo because I benefit from racism".
I think it more likely that, outside of explicit racism, it's a combination of assuming experience is universal and being uncomfortable with the realization that perhaps it isn't universal. It's the same reason people commit fundamental attribution errors when they ascribe motivations to other actors compared to their own actions. I think breaking it down into categories of "Right Side of History", "Explicit Racism", and "Implicit/Indirect Racism" isn't as helpful as looking at why those who aren't explicitly and/or openly racist may be prone to criticize this.
I think americans just have this lazy need to belong at times. Like they see a twitter hashtag and don't want to be left out, so they do a skim assume its just another trump protest and sign on.
I mean lost in this shuffle is that Kaepernick was fired, he was fired from the nfl and then black listed. What Trump wanted to happen happened, and it was supported by all the smug sumbitches now "uniting" behind unity? I guess.
Minor fact-check: Kaepernick wasn't fired. He opted out of his 49ers contract. The overall dynamics are largely unchanged, but Jed York did not fire/release/whatever Kaepernick because of his protest. (IIRC, the contract extension offer the 49ers made Kaepernick wasn't entirely unreasonable either. Kaepernick was the one who wanted out, and had restructured his contract to allow him to opt out, based on reports at the time.)
There's apparently no form of protesting that is acceptable for people of color to engage in, because regardless of what form it takes, talking heads will say that they shouldn't be expressing it in that particular way, why can't they do it in a different way?
The reaction to protest always seems to be a criticism of the method of protest, rather than a frank discussion of the issue being protested. When you don't agree that the issue being protested is a real problem, you will automatically tend toward criticizing their tactics (the part that actually affects you) and you'll be more interested in doing that than discussing what you consider to be a fake or exaggerated problem.
I do think it's crucial to energetically and deliberately combat that attempt to reframe the discussion, whether it's deliberate or automatic.
It's not just that they think it's a fake problem. It's that they like the status quo(in this case racism) because it benefits them.
Both of these attitudes exist, I think. There are people who think racism is over, or all but eradicated, and see this kind of protest as unnecessary whining. There are people who think discrimination against black people is right and proper because they are racist, though they may not necessarily consider their attitudes racist. And these two mindsets reinforce each other and bleed together--if you think other races are genetically inferior, then e.g. worse economic performance is a symptom of their essential attributes, not racism, and it's easy to ignore or dismiss accusations of racism and believe it's gone when you're benefit from a system of racist institutions.
But I think the OP is really as much about a "positive" skewing of a protest, though, one that supports it while diverting it away from its original goal, which is more insidious because fighting against it might cost support.[/b
Yes, 100%, that is what I am driving at.
The people who mean well, who are trying, but either don't get it or are sorta uncomfortable with taking that hard line a stance on an issue?
Gillian Anderson and David Duchoveny mean well here. But this right here? This doesn't help black people being murdered by police. This isn't about that. This is about pissing in Trump's eye. This is about defying an odious man they don't want to be President, and drawing a line on free speech and freedom of expression in America.
This is two white celebrities leveraging their celebrity to raise awareness in the most generic, toothless sense possible. It's turning a black man's protest against police brutality into the ice bucket challenge.
I think you have to differentiate between signal loss and messaging though. When kaepernick or anyone else takes a knee they aren't directly helping with black people being murdered by police. It's symbolic, and the idea is that it starts conversations which can inform and educate people.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to chastise people who are supporting your message, even if they aren't explicit about what your message is. I mean your criticizing a tweet that has 1 picture and 9 words. I can understand the desire for them to add a #BLM or similar, but I don't think it hurts the message to have the symbol repeated without context. So long as those who originate the symbol are still there to discuss it's intentions, I would go so far as to say you need the "band wagon" protesters who are caught up for other reasons but spread your message just the same.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The real issue here is now kneeling isn't about what Kaep originally stated
its about telling Trump to eat a dick.
That's true.
And that is sad.
On the other hand, its nice to see so many people telling Trump to shove it. So, I mean, the original intent is FAR more important. It is.
However, in the absence of that original idea, a whole bunch of people telling Trump to piss off is neat.
In my opinion even if you don't agree with the message of the original protester, then supporting their right and ability to protest is a viable, valuable and necessary cause when the President is calling for them to be fired on the spot. Trump didn't call for increased hostility against black people by the police. He called for everyone protesting the anthem at a football game to be fired. That calls for a response even if you don't agree with, or want to, protest yourself.
In my opinion even if you don't agree with the message of the original protester, then supporting their right and ability to protest is a viable, valuable and necessary cause when the President is calling for them to be fired on the spot. Trump didn't call for increased hostility against black people by the police. He called for everyone protesting the anthem at a football game to be fired. That calls for a response even if you don't agree with, or want to, protest yourself.
He definitely did that as well, but just not during this recent spate of idiocy.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
For a more substantive post: If the league cared at all they would end their contracts with the US Military. But this is entirely about money for them, so until it becomes monetarily infeasible to maintain those contracts (it never will) the best we can hope for from the league is glad-handing like this. It's not enough, but it is better than nothing.
In my opinion even if you don't agree with the message of the original protester, then supporting their right and ability to protest is a viable, valuable and necessary cause when the President is calling for them to be fired on the spot. Trump didn't call for increased hostility against black people by the police. He called for everyone protesting the anthem at a football game to be fired. That calls for a response even if you don't agree with, or want to, protest yourself.
He definitely did that as well, but just not during this recent spate of idiocy.
Yes, he certainly did. But this particular assault on our civil rights as a nation was "People who take a knee during the national anthem should be fired immediately, your first amendment rights do not extend to a quiet refusal to engage in a patriotic song". And that, unfortunately, is more important than the original purpose of the protest. And thus, 'the signal' that is most important is that you support the right to protest and will not stand by if people who refuse to stand and sing a magic song are fired.
It is understandable to want a break from politics every now and then because that's human nature but that's half the issue, white audiences demanding to be left alone by politics generally fail to account for the fact that black Americans do not have the similar privilege of being left alone by politics
People will let their morals slip to continue to root for sports. No matter the level of insufferable of the player/owner/coach. And no I am not talking about just that one team we have seen it many times throughout the years (Zeke, Rice, Big Ben, Kobe, etc).
I actively can't wait until all of the Steelers fans I saw the last couple of days saying they were burning their jerseys and terrible towels, swearing that they just lost a lifelong fan because of this are rooting for them next week/two weeks from now/the post season. And the Steelers' protest was much more subtle that most, they just tried to avoid it all by not coming out.
I really liked what Bob Costas has to say here. He talks about how sports, patriotism and the flag have been mixed together and talks about how patriotism comes in many forms, not just military sacrifice. And that Kaepernick in his own way is doing a patriotic thing.
From a Trump point of view, this is great! Trump basically started Boomer Gamergate (Trumpian's words, not mine) and the owners trying to play both sides:
Will only make everybody more angry at them.
I really liked what Bob Costas has to say here. He talks about how sports, patriotism and the flag have been mixed together and talks about how patriotism comes in many forms, not just military sacrifice. And that Kaepernick in his own way is doing a patriotic thing.
This is the weirdest thing
I literally cannot find a version of this video that will play audio
Not in that twitter imbed, not any of the three I found on youtube and not even the video on the CNN site itself where the ad that played before it had audio
Yeah. I went pretty quick from being a fan of the Steelers' actions to questioning them for precisely that reason, to now actively being angry with them.
A football player knelt in protest of the treatment of minority Americans by American police. This is patriotic as fuck, because he knew damn well who he worked for and that the repercussions could be an end to his career. He decided to do it anyway. Others also knelt in protest prompting Donald Trump to be an idiot.
Then -
A bunch of people in private industry told Trump to fuck off by doing a thing he didn't like. This second protest is about freedom of speech. I can respect a need to protect a right of expression even if you don't necessarily agree with everything expressed.
The only real shitbags are the owners who dumped millions into getting Trump elected. They should at least apologize or give a "my bad, here's an equivalent donation to the ACLU" speech before glomming on to a popular movement.
I really liked what Bob Costas has to say here. He talks about how sports, patriotism and the flag have been mixed together and talks about how patriotism comes in many forms, not just military sacrifice. And that Kaepernick in his own way is doing a patriotic thing.
This is the weirdest thing
I literally cannot find a version of this video that will play audio
Not in that twitter imbed, not any of the three I found on youtube and not even the video on the CNN site itself where the ad that played before it had audio
From the owners perspective this was always about playing both sides of the issue.
The NFL had its "unity" moment. Now they can all go back to doing jack shit, and calling anyone who protests from here on out a distraction.
It's not even both sides. Just the one side of making as much money as possible.
The people who just want to oppose Trump have even been pushing (though not in any organized way that I have seen) the idea that we should all do everything we can to support the NFL; watch every game, buy all the merch, etc. Which, fuck that noise. I was already boycotting for a number of reasons and I'm not going back because #resist can't hold their fire for one goddamn second to examine what's actually at play here.
I really liked what Bob Costas has to say here. He talks about how sports, patriotism and the flag have been mixed together and talks about how patriotism comes in many forms, not just military sacrifice. And that Kaepernick in his own way is doing a patriotic thing.
This is the weirdest thing
I literally cannot find a version of this video that will play audio
Not in that twitter imbed, not any of the three I found on youtube and not even the video on the CNN site itself where the ad that played before it had audio
I really liked what Bob Costas has to say here. He talks about how sports, patriotism and the flag have been mixed together and talks about how patriotism comes in many forms, not just military sacrifice. And that Kaepernick in his own way is doing a patriotic thing.
I saw this yesterday, and Bob Costas hit it out of the park.
From a Trump point of view, this is great! Trump basically started Boomer Gamergate (Trumpian's words, not mine) and the owners trying to play both sides:
Will only make everybody more angry at them.
I swear, the "flags are soldiers too" card never gets old. I'm annoyed that anyone dignifies it with a response, let alone a polite one. Maaaybe if they're a Vietnam vet, like the head of the VFW
“There is a time and place for civil debate, and wearing team jerseys and using sporting events to disrespect our country doesn’t wash with millions of military veterans who have and continue to wear real uniforms on real battlefields around the globe,” said Keith Harman, a Vietnam veteran who heads the 1.7 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars.
I have a hard time yelling at people like that, because some of them genuinely got a rough deal coming home from a nightmare they struggled to internally justify, only to find burning flags and angry protesters. So I can understand how flag-oriented protests might trigger a
“I stand for our flag and anthem, and I kneel for our fallen. That’s what patriots do.”
From a Trump point of view, this is great! Trump basically started Boomer Gamergate (Trumpian's words, not mine) and the owners trying to play both sides:
Will only make everybody more angry at them.
I swear, the "flags are soldiers too" card never gets old. I'm annoyed that anyone dignifies it with a response, let alone a polite one. Maaaybe if they're a Vietnam vet, like the head of the VFW
“There is a time and place for civil debate, and wearing team jerseys and using sporting events to disrespect our country doesn’t wash with millions of military veterans who have and continue to wear real uniforms on real battlefields around the globe,” said Keith Harman, a Vietnam veteran who heads the 1.7 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars.
I have a hard time yelling at people like that, because some of them genuinely got a rough deal coming home from a nightmare they struggled to internally justify, only to find burning flags and angry protesters. So I can understand how flag-oriented protests might trigger a
“I stand for our flag and anthem, and I kneel for our fallen. That’s what patriots do.”
Oh, fuck
You.
Jesus.
That's some terminal myopia right there.
Someone should remind him how the organization he heads originally treated Vietnam vets.
meh as far as I can tell, the players who have been originally involved in this (malcom jenkins et al) have been pretty darn organized, before Trump even opened his mouth about any of this, this letter was sent to Roger Goodell. IMO they just need to leverage the NFLPA or get themselves a publicist. They seem to have a clear idea of their objectives and how they can go about achieving them.
I am always very uncomfortable with the idea that to be legitimate these sorts of protests/movements need a figurehead or leader figure. It feels like the great man falacy given form as political advice.
It's more about the organization and focus required to achieve change.
People can organize themselves just fine without edicts from on high. Authoritarian movements don't have a great track record out on the left.
The Occupy movement was rudderless and leaderless and had no specific underlying structure by design and was probably the most "lossy" protest movement I've ever seen.
It was the lo-fi Youtube upload of a shitty mp3 rip of protest signal quality
Contrast that with, say, the Civil Rights movement.
I'm not saying everyone has to agree, I'm saying there needs to be organization.
But the civil rights movement wasn't really any kind of centralized organization. It was schismatic and decentralized and had tons of local leaders getting things done completely independently of the figureheads.
There's a difference between organization and centralized authority.
Then I guess I'm struggling to see what the original version of the NFL protest was lacking in your model. They had a message and a plan and even altered it when they looked critically at results. The real problem here is the generalized anti Trump cooption, which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you start centralizing and conglomerating groups.
If the idea is that someone needs to exist that could correct the record in the real goals of the take a knee movement, I would counter that the people that jumped on to pee in Trump's eye should educate themselves before knee jerking to opposition because they are weakening not only the message they glommed on to but their open moral authority to do anything that isn't just #resist.
That... that's my point?
That's what's being said? That is what I am talking about with signal loss and criticizing people like Duchoveny and Anderson, who mean well but are hijacking a black protest against racism in America to make it about #Resist in a general sense.
Colin Kaepernick is an activist, not just a dude spamming hashtags on Twitter. He puts the work in. He got organized. So do a lot of these guys. They aren't who I am criticizing?
At the same time, when you say to a well-meaning potential ally who is kinda being a dope that they need to educate themselves... whose job is it to help guide them? Because it gets insisted the onus is not on the oppressed minority to educate the privileged, and that's totally fair but... how they gonna learn?
Google it?
White people get told to shut up and listen, but they also get told that they aren't owed an education on shit their privilege made them ignorant to.
So... where to from there?
That's where, say, some kind of actual activism and structure and guidance could help reach out and educate and guide the signal.
Instead of memes and hashtags and post hoc lectures.
I am always very uncomfortable with the idea that to be legitimate these sorts of protests/movements need a figurehead or leader figure. It feels like the great man falacy given form as political advice.
It's more about the organization and focus required to achieve change.
People can organize themselves just fine without edicts from on high. Authoritarian movements don't have a great track record out on the left.
The Occupy movement was rudderless and leaderless and had no specific underlying structure by design and was probably the most "lossy" protest movement I've ever seen.
It was the lo-fi Youtube upload of a shitty mp3 rip of protest signal quality
Contrast that with, say, the Civil Rights movement.
I'm not saying everyone has to agree, I'm saying there needs to be organization.
But the civil rights movement wasn't really any kind of centralized organization. It was schismatic and decentralized and had tons of local leaders getting things done completely independently of the figureheads.
There's a difference between organization and centralized authority.
Then I guess I'm struggling to see what the original version of the NFL protest was lacking in your model. They had a message and a plan and even altered it when they looked critically at results. The real problem here is the generalized anti Trump cooption, which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you start centralizing and conglomerating groups.
If the idea is that someone needs to exist that could correct the record in the real goals of the take a knee movement, I would counter that the people that jumped on to pee in Trump's eye should educate themselves before knee jerking to opposition because they are weakening not only the message they glommed on to but their open moral authority to do anything that isn't just #resist.
That... that's my point?
That's what's being said? That is what I am talking about with signal loss and criticizing people like Duchoveny and Anderson, who mean well but are hijacking a black protest against racism in America to make it about #Resist in a general sense.
Colin Kaepernick is an activist, not just a dude spamming hashtags on Twitter. He puts the work in. He got organized. So do a lot of these guys. They aren't who I am criticizing?
At the same time, when you say to a well-meaning potential ally who is kinda being a dope that they need to educate themselves... whose job is it to help guide them? Because it gets insisted the onus is not on the oppressed minority to educate the privileged, and that's totally fair but... how they gonna learn?
Google it?
White people get told to shut up and listen, but they also get told that they aren't owed an education on shit their privilege made them ignorant to.
So... where to from there?
That's where, say, some kind of actual activism and structure and guidance could help reach out and educate and guide the signal.
Instead of memes and hashtags and post hoc lectures.
It also puts a more partisan lens on it than might otherwise be the case which further harms the chances of pressure accomplishing reform. "Stop police brutality" is at least theoretically supported by Republicans. "Fuck the Republican President" is not. Not that you can prevent Trump from inserting himself into everything anyway.
I think we're talking in circles, @Pony. I totally agree that organization on some level is necessary and good. I was initially reacting to the idea that movements need a single leader that is identifiable to outsiders, which is something that gets leveled at the activist class by people who just want someone to be mad at most of the time. I, myself, was lucky enough to do the activism thing professionally (for whatever that's worth) straight out of college for a number of years as part of a national organization that was itself rather rigidly heirarchical but which had no identifiable face to outsiders that weren't directly involved in the issues we worked on. It's pretty clear that we've crossed wires at some point and I'm fully willing to take the responsibility on that.
My main beef is with the idea that every group needs a public face and/or leader that can be contacted to make statements and edicts for everyone else in the group. There's a very strong desire by those in the media or who are otherwise just largely disengaged to make heroes and villains out of individuals when social movements and organizing are inherently a group activity.
The whole fuss about doing it during the anthem was deliberately done to make it so the topic wasn't even about the police brutality. Nobody is going bother actually addressing what the protest action was originally about as long as they can pretend to be outraged over something that doesn't even bring the actual issue up, because forcibly ignoring an issue until it falls out of public consciousness is a super-popular play from the systemic racism playbook.
Posts
Its going to take the help of the individuals providing the signal loss, here, at some point in order for any real work to be done. The visibility needs to be there but not the point where the blob of people, who could be labeled as "follow" types or worse, dont turn off. Thing is you have these trickle efforts like kneeling or occupy.
But on the other side you have people fighting hard and dirty. And so it may be prudent and almost to the point where we, as a country, might need that push into ultra uncomfortableness, pushing through and losing all the signal, all the way through to in your face negative signal. In order to get in front of said "lazy" people.
Then I guess I'm struggling to see what the original version of the NFL protest was lacking in your model. They had a message and a plan and even altered it when they looked critically at results. The real problem here is the generalized anti Trump cooption, which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you start centralizing and conglomerating groups.
If the idea is that someone needs to exist that could correct the record in the real goals of the take a knee movement, I would counter that the people that jumped on to pee in Trump's eye should educate themselves before knee jerking to opposition because they are weakening not only the message they glommed on to but their open moral authority to do anything that isn't just #resist.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Of course, maybe someone should fucking hire him to play football if they really mean what they are claiming.
And this is the rub, and things like the SI cover reinforce. This was about Kaep's protest and he's still fired, not able to play in the NFL, and with this new phase of the protest effectively being erased from it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But it's about talent! Pay no attention to starting quarterback Joe flacco's 28 yard 2 int effort behind the curtain!
NFL owners who gave him tons of money now poo-pooing his comments and claiming they support a right to protest aren't really repudiating him, in my mind. They're glomming on to "movement" in the easiest way possible since there's already a swell of support for these players from people in the country.
When they spend some $$ on a Know Your Rights camp or donate to BLM or actually call him a fucking racist and say they won't donate to him? That's repudiation. That's trying to start addressing police racism and accountability. That's actual action that's worthy of actual praise and positive reinforcement.
So two of my roommates are Latino from Texas and my third roommate is White from Texas and this sort of set the dynamic of the conversation. We had dinner and afterwards one of my roommates asked me what I thought about the protests because I am a veteran. My reply was "I just could not give less of a fuck what form protest takes in this instance because the anthem and the physical flag are not nearly as important as ideals." The third roommates stance was essentially "I don't disagree with the message behind the protest necessarily, but I don't understand why it takes this form". Which I think is probably a decent representation of younger 18-20 White kids who are on the fence or critical of this form of protest. The discussion delved into my experiences and observations as a White kid growing up in low income majority Black neighborhoods and going to majority Black schools and the experiences of my first two roommates who come from lower income majority Latin neighborhoods in Houston which ran counter to his experience. He also wasn't very knowledgeable about wider policy issues like affirmative action (which put him in the default position of seeing it as unfair gain for those who benefit), rent seeking in majority minority neighborhoods etc. Or that most criticism boiled down to tone policing rather than addressing the issue being protested.
And this is where I think the disconnect was for my third roommate, that he didn't experience or observe these issues even peripherally and just had no idea that his experience wasn't universal. Which is perfectly normal. Generally people assume their experience is universal. So it wasn't necessarily that he was racist or even ignorant or not "woke" or overly privileged, but that he assumed that his experience was universal. And I think this can cut both ways, that those who may have had experiences which put them on the other side also assume their experiences are universal thus anyone who disagrees is [insert negative label]. Do not mistake this as me advocating for those on the other side to educate or what have you, or that such an obligation exists. Rather I think this is something that should be considered when discussing why there may be resistance to this from younger members of the citizenry.
I think this is ascribing an explicit motivation that may not exist. I would wager that for most of even the open critics of this on the grounds that it's "disrespectful" they don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "We must maintain the status quo because I benefit from racism".
I think it more likely that, outside of explicit racism, it's a combination of assuming experience is universal and being uncomfortable with the realization that perhaps it isn't universal. It's the same reason people commit fundamental attribution errors when they ascribe motivations to other actors compared to their own actions. I think breaking it down into categories of "Right Side of History", "Explicit Racism", and "Implicit/Indirect Racism" isn't as helpful as looking at why those who aren't explicitly and/or openly racist may be prone to criticize this.
Minor fact-check: Kaepernick wasn't fired. He opted out of his 49ers contract. The overall dynamics are largely unchanged, but Jed York did not fire/release/whatever Kaepernick because of his protest. (IIRC, the contract extension offer the 49ers made Kaepernick wasn't entirely unreasonable either. Kaepernick was the one who wanted out, and had restructured his contract to allow him to opt out, based on reports at the time.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Context?
I'm going to guess he mistook this for the NFL thread and lost to a fantasy team with larry.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think you have to differentiate between signal loss and messaging though. When kaepernick or anyone else takes a knee they aren't directly helping with black people being murdered by police. It's symbolic, and the idea is that it starts conversations which can inform and educate people.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to chastise people who are supporting your message, even if they aren't explicit about what your message is. I mean your criticizing a tweet that has 1 picture and 9 words. I can understand the desire for them to add a #BLM or similar, but I don't think it hurts the message to have the symbol repeated without context. So long as those who originate the symbol are still there to discuss it's intentions, I would go so far as to say you need the "band wagon" protesters who are caught up for other reasons but spread your message just the same.
That's true.
And that is sad.
On the other hand, its nice to see so many people telling Trump to shove it. So, I mean, the original intent is FAR more important. It is.
However, in the absence of that original idea, a whole bunch of people telling Trump to piss off is neat.
Whoops. Yeah, way wrong thread.
Next time I'll get you, Larry Fitzgerald.
Next time.
He definitely did that as well, but just not during this recent spate of idiocy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, he certainly did. But this particular assault on our civil rights as a nation was "People who take a knee during the national anthem should be fired immediately, your first amendment rights do not extend to a quiet refusal to engage in a patriotic song". And that, unfortunately, is more important than the original purpose of the protest. And thus, 'the signal' that is most important is that you support the right to protest and will not stand by if people who refuse to stand and sing a magic song are fired.
I actively can't wait until all of the Steelers fans I saw the last couple of days saying they were burning their jerseys and terrible towels, swearing that they just lost a lifelong fan because of this are rooting for them next week/two weeks from now/the post season. And the Steelers' protest was much more subtle that most, they just tried to avoid it all by not coming out.
I really liked what Bob Costas has to say here. He talks about how sports, patriotism and the flag have been mixed together and talks about how patriotism comes in many forms, not just military sacrifice. And that Kaepernick in his own way is doing a patriotic thing.
Will only make everybody more angry at them.
This is the weirdest thing
I literally cannot find a version of this video that will play audio
Not in that twitter imbed, not any of the three I found on youtube and not even the video on the CNN site itself where the ad that played before it had audio
A football player knelt in protest of the treatment of minority Americans by American police. This is patriotic as fuck, because he knew damn well who he worked for and that the repercussions could be an end to his career. He decided to do it anyway. Others also knelt in protest prompting Donald Trump to be an idiot.
Then -
A bunch of people in private industry told Trump to fuck off by doing a thing he didn't like. This second protest is about freedom of speech. I can respect a need to protect a right of expression even if you don't necessarily agree with everything expressed.
The only real shitbags are the owners who dumped millions into getting Trump elected. They should at least apologize or give a "my bad, here's an equivalent donation to the ACLU" speech before glomming on to a popular movement.
Try this one;
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The NFL had its "unity" moment. Now they can all go back to doing jack shit, and calling anyone who protests from here on out a distraction.
It's not even both sides. Just the one side of making as much money as possible.
The people who just want to oppose Trump have even been pushing (though not in any organized way that I have seen) the idea that we should all do everything we can to support the NFL; watch every game, buy all the merch, etc. Which, fuck that noise. I was already boycotting for a number of reasons and I'm not going back because #resist can't hold their fire for one goddamn second to examine what's actually at play here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Unfortunately not
Just updated Chrome too. Amazon Prime, Netflix and other youtube videos all play fine
so weird
*edit* plays in explorer or edge or whatever the hell Microsoft is calling their browser these days so it's just a chrome issue apparently
I saw this yesterday, and Bob Costas hit it out of the park.
I swear, the "flags are soldiers too" card never gets old. I'm annoyed that anyone dignifies it with a response, let alone a polite one. Maaaybe if they're a Vietnam vet,
like the head of the VFW
I have a hard time yelling at people like that, because some of them genuinely got a rough deal coming home from a nightmare they struggled to internally justify, only to find burning flags and angry protesters. So I can understand how flag-oriented protests might trigger a
Oh, fuck
You.
Jesus.
That's some terminal myopia right there.
Someone should remind him how the organization he heads originally treated Vietnam vets.
That... that's my point?
That's what's being said? That is what I am talking about with signal loss and criticizing people like Duchoveny and Anderson, who mean well but are hijacking a black protest against racism in America to make it about #Resist in a general sense.
Colin Kaepernick is an activist, not just a dude spamming hashtags on Twitter. He puts the work in. He got organized. So do a lot of these guys. They aren't who I am criticizing?
At the same time, when you say to a well-meaning potential ally who is kinda being a dope that they need to educate themselves... whose job is it to help guide them? Because it gets insisted the onus is not on the oppressed minority to educate the privileged, and that's totally fair but... how they gonna learn?
Google it?
White people get told to shut up and listen, but they also get told that they aren't owed an education on shit their privilege made them ignorant to.
So... where to from there?
That's where, say, some kind of actual activism and structure and guidance could help reach out and educate and guide the signal.
Instead of memes and hashtags and post hoc lectures.
It also puts a more partisan lens on it than might otherwise be the case which further harms the chances of pressure accomplishing reform. "Stop police brutality" is at least theoretically supported by Republicans. "Fuck the Republican President" is not. Not that you can prevent Trump from inserting himself into everything anyway.
My main beef is with the idea that every group needs a public face and/or leader that can be contacted to make statements and edicts for everyone else in the group. There's a very strong desire by those in the media or who are otherwise just largely disengaged to make heroes and villains out of individuals when social movements and organizing are inherently a group activity.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar