Protesting the national anthem

[RDKirk]

I am not personally offended. I simply understand the position of the people that are offended and I highly suspect that Kaepernick knew some people would be offended. That people are offended by an expression of political protest is no reason in itself to refrain from political protest, but I can't understand how anyone could take the position that they were ever unaware that an action they took, that was sure to cause some people to become offended, would offend some people.
As for the brou-ha-ha well what is the whole point of protest To cause people to be convinced one is correct on an issue an issue I would guess? Now to argue that Kaepernick was simply spouting vague emotion based platitudes would be using rational thought to try to oppose his clearly emotional appeals. This was my reaction rather than becoming emotionally involved and being offended by the act itself I examined what he was saying and noticed the vagueness of his emotion based argument. Those arguments seem to work to convince the people attracted to emotional appeals as they tend not to respond to reason even in the face of good evidence but rather will decide what they feel is more real than what they can prove. Therefore the argument that is then used in opposing an irrational emotional appeal is another irrational emotional appeal .So instead of a give and take argument where people truly discuss an issue you have an us vs them conflict of words with neither side listening to the other aka brou -ha-ha.

The point of a protest is to make people uncomfortable about something they've been comfortable about.

Now, if this had been a violent protest--like a riot or even blocking traffic--there would be some rationale for outrage as opposed to discomfort.

Kaepernick has not broken a window or even blocked traffic. This incredible outrage over a man merely kneeling is indicative of either idol worship or people who know he's right.

Never? I am curious how one could come to "never" on this. Not even "a time or two" or in "only in a particular instance " but the absolute" never". Meaning that in the whole existence of the country the US has not done anything benevolent. Then all the foreign humanitarian aid the US has consistently provided around the world is nothing? World War II opposition to totalitarianism a farce? Taking in and sheltering more refugees each year than any other country on the planet. Not simply shooting down people trying to sneak across one's borders as would be the case with most countries but even providing care and education for people who came here illegally and are breaking our laws 24/7 by remaining here illegally. If that is not being a good guy, then how would one categorize a country that did these things? Who would you consider a "good guy " on the world stage? Perhaps there are only "bad guys" and "even worse guys.

Don't mistake self-interest for benevolence.

And don't think that a good deed done here or there outweighs an overall preponderance for evil deeds. As a national entity of great physical and economic power in the world, the US has messed up a lot of countries and a lot of people for the sake of wealth and power.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

The point of a protest is to make people uncomfortable about something they've been comfortable about.

Now, if this had been a violent protest--like a riot or even blocking traffic--there would be some rationale for outrage as opposed to discomfort.

Kaepernick has not broken a window or even blocked traffic. This incredible outrage over a man merely kneeling is indicative of either idol worship or people who know he's right.

Well said.

Don't mistake self-interest for benevolence.

And don't think that a good deed done here or there outweighs an overall preponderance for evil deeds. As a national entity of great physical and economic power in the world, the US has messed up a lot of countries and a lot of people for the sake of wealth and power.

Yes, the U.S. has a very long history of warmongering (list of American wars listed here). I think it's an understatement to say that this country has messed up a lot of countries and a lot of people for the sake of wealth and power. The U.S. also oppressed, subjugated, segregated, marginalized, and discriminated against minorities for 188 years before its government finally began to recognize that minorities weren't inferior to white people and finally implemented the ideals of freedom, liberty and justice to them by means of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. And that was almost 100 years after the 89 years of legalized slavery was abolished in 1865. Not a very good track record for a nation that loves to perpetually boast of its freedom and liberties and how it was supposedly founded upon such.

So, all of this angry outrage and moral indignation over these NFL players not standing for the national anthem, in honor of this country and its flag, is really absurd to me, considering how this country has racially discriminated against minorities for the majority of its entire existence.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The point of a protest is to make people uncomfortable about something they've been comfortable about.

Now, if this had been a violent protest--like a riot or even blocking traffic--there would be some rationale for outrage as opposed to discomfort.

Kaepernick has not broken a window or even blocked traffic. This incredible outrage over a man merely kneeling is indicative of either idol worship or people who know he's right.



Don't mistake self-interest for benevolence.

And don't think that a good deed done here or there outweighs an overall preponderance for evil deeds. As a national entity of great physical and economic power in the world, the US has messed up a lot of countries and a lot of people for the sake of wealth and power.

So "never"" means " less than always never" now is that it. New definition? If the US even once did a good thing then it is not never. WHich countries have been messed up by the U S? I cannot think of one that was functioning at a perfectly reasonable level or even minding its own business that the US suddenly decided to "mess up" because of some pursuit of wealth and power for itself. Libya perhaps? Bosnia? Albania? Iraq? Afghanistan? Somalia? Western European countries ? Japan? Viet Nam? Maybe you mean to go back to the Philippines or Cuba? None seem to have been any less than messed up before US involvement. Even The Philippines and Cuba were at least no worse off after the US replaced their colonial masters and , unlike the norm in those situations , both were eventually peacefully set free from colonial captivity by the US. Nor does it seem that the US has gained any wealth or power by becoming involved in any of these foreign affairs. As far as I can tell every time the US has intervened outside its own borders the US has lost wealth and squandered its power in a futile effort to obtain some hoped for peace that eventually eludes it. If the US is pursuing self interest in these cases it has not been as good at being malevolent as much as it has in being masochistic. A country that is motivated by the pursuit of wealth and power ought to be in better financial shape for all its efforts than to be 20 Trillion in debt with a good chunk of that debt attributable to what you say is the pursuit of wealth and power and I would call wasting money and power trying to keep a lid on chaos and an even larger chunk attributable to its efforts to care for its poor, sick and elderly citizens and anyone else wishing to steal those things by coming here illegally. That is a strange way to go about pursuit of wealth and power in my view. What might have worked much better would have been to demand to the world back in the mid 1940's that if they paid the US large sums of money we would agree to slow down our nuclear weapons program. Probably not though,I mean how many countries would have, back then, been as stupid as the US has been in relation to North Korea and Iran.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course coming from an Atheist, who does not respect God.

No, the correct phrase is "does not believe in any gods". I don't show respect or disrespect towards things which I don't believe exist; it'd be a waste of time.

One who does not respect God aka Jesus Christ, they can disrespect anyone or anything and disrespect themselves, while doing so.

XD XD XD I make an effort to be respectful to people on here, to the point that some hold me at fault for it, arguing that I legitimize stupid arguments by giving them the time of day. How much I respect others has no connection with my views on deities whatsoever.

 

[Introverted1293]

I believe they have that right.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

No, the correct phrase is "does not believe in any gods". I don't show respect or disrespect towards things which I don't believe exist; it'd be a waste of time.

XD XD XD I make an effort to be respectful to people on here, to the point that some hold me at fault for it, arguing that I legitimize stupid arguments by giving them the time of day. How much I respect others has no connection with my views on deities whatsoever.

I think you gave a respectful response to what I consider a rather rude comment about you.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I believe they have that right.

Yes, they do, according to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source: The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Quietly kneeling instead of standing during the national anthem was indeed a peaceful assembly. It was a peaceful demonstration to clearly point out the fact that minorities in this country still endure blatant racism and discrimination based upon the color of their skin. The U.S. has made a few slow strides in racial relations since the Civil Rights Movement 53 years ago, but it's still plagued with its own legacy of racism, which its deep roots still manifests through racial profiling and police brutality against minorities with impunity, along with the continued existence of white supremacy groups.

 

[Introverted1293]

Yes, they do, according to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source: The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Quietly kneeling instead of standing during the national anthem was indeed a peaceful assembly. It was a peaceful demonstration to clearly point out the fact that minorities in this country still endure blatant racism and discrimination based upon the color of their skin. The U.S. has made a few slow strides in racial relations since the Civil Rights Movement 53 years ago, but it's still plagued with its own legacy of racism, which its deep roots still manifests through racial profiling and police brutality against minorities with impunity, along with the continued existence of white supremacy groups.

I am African-American myself. When my family moved into a neighborhood, a family moved out simply because we were African American. I don't know how she knows that they moved out simply because we were African American, but my guess is that the other neighbors told her so. Both of my parents happened to be white. And when my mom adopted us, her parents said that they would disinherit her. So I I know all of this too well.

However, before anybody goes off on me. I know that racism can exist between all Races. I know that there have been some circumstances where African Americans have committed crimes against people because they were white, and I'm not denying that. I am not denying that there are some African Americans who are racist as well. And I'm not blaming everyone who happens to have white skin.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think you gave a respectful response to what I consider a rather rude comment about you.

Overall, there are reasons to try to be respectful towards people in debates that have nothing to do with religious affiliation: mainly, it reduces ad hominems and makes people more willing to give thought to what you have to say. Plus, I am actually on here to improve my patience by exposing myself to people that are dynamically opposed to me on various issues and having polite discussion with them to the best of my ability.