Kaepernick Rejected...Fellow NFLers Whine

[Montrovant]

Not to Flo, hell no.​

What you and Flo do in the privacy of your bedroom is none of our business..​

As far as car insurance I guess you could say I go with the Flo....

 

[Pogo]

Now you're just being silly. There are all kinds of pointless activities and rituals that are part of any given culture. They often don't make sense, yet they remain. That's just the apparent reality of having human societies.

Of course there are, but if there isn't a valid reason behind them, then there isn't a valid reason behind them. And if that's the case it means they're optional. And if they're optional, then that means "the mob" does NOT have the right to force whatever the behavior is on OTHER people who may choose to opt out of it.

Again --- that's why I immediately ask these klowns to provide a logical basis for their demands that (in this case) everybody has to stand for this jingoism charade that has ZERO to do with what the audience came there for. And if we're at all honest about causations, the only reason that charade is in there is specifically because there IS an audience, and they're assembled there for a totally different purpose. Opportunism writ large.

To paraphrase a Sixties meme, what if they had a game and nobody played a national anthem? Would anybody notice? And if they did notice and complained that they wanted it, what would be the reasoning behind it? Again ---- it does not exist. And if it does not exist, then the mob has no right to demand it. That's probably as simple as it can be distilled to.

It isn't that the anthem is a sports event, it is that the anthem is part of professional sporting events.

Again --- No, it is not. In the example just stated above where they "forgot" to play the anthem, the game works the same way and the results count the same way too. It has no bearing on the game whatsoever.

It bears repeating that, until this fake Kaepernick "you will be outraged on command" story bubbled up, the general public wasn't even aware that the national anthem was played at football games at all. There would be no reason to expect that it would, specifically BECAUSE OF its complete irrelevance to playing the game. And it's not part of a typical NFL telecast. All of which describes a superfluous event that has no logical reason to exist.

In that, the fake 'story' at least did us a service by exposing that this national anthem charade is out there, in the same way two (Republican) Senators exposed the Pentagon staged-patriotism scandal. It's helpful to know that this crapola is going on. And yet none of this apologist mob wants to wag a finger at the government staging Jingo Theater on the taxpayer's dime, nor will they point that finger at the NFL for allowing it to take place in the first place, preferring to look right past all that and accuse the uppity player of "injecting politics into football" ----- when it was provably already there.

Holy hyperbole, Batman! Equating some people being upset at NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to lynchings is one hell of a stretch.

It's disingenuous to suggest I'm equating message board posters whining about somebody who won't go along with their coercion with lynching, witch burnings or any ot my other examples --- but this is the same exclusively emotion-based mentality that cannot be rationally justified, that leads to the witch burnings. The point here is not the end result ---- it's the thought process that produced the end result.

And clearly the "mob" isn't calling the shots, as the NFL has not implemented a rule that players must stand during the anthem.

The "mob" in this example is the body of complainants, posters here and in the general public ---- who want to control the behavior of others, with no valid reason for doing so. At this point I'm saying the same thing over and over so I'm pretty sure I'm consistent on this.

In fact, players continued to sit, kneel, and raise fists during the anthem well after Kaepernick stopped playing. It hasn't been limited to the NFL, either.

Indeed they did. That was a beautiful thing, for it shows that there still exist those who won't be coerced by a mob, or in that case directly, by a demagogue ("fire the sumbitches"). That's a healthy sign. And its opposite unhealthy sign is the body of authoritarian-passives who insist that 'all must conform". That's what we're up against. It's also what Donald Rump was trying to milk in Alabama, to an audience who largely just obediently swallowed whole without a single critical thought about what was going on there.

You want to defy the people who are upset about kneeling players? OK, watch the NFL, and buy NFL merchandise, I guess.

That would be irrelevant. I really don't care about the NFL or any particular player(s). My focus is on mob mentality, i.e. to what extent the general public is willing to not only just bend over on command but to then do the commander's bidding and demand that everybody else bend over too.

To quote post 196 above, "Fuck them all". That post is a perfect example of exactly what I'm pointing out --- a ocmpletely emotion-based diatribe with no rationality to get to its conclusion.

Or take this more succinct example:

You are obviously a liberal commie scum, and not a true Patriot like Donald Trump and his followers.

See what I mean? The emotion veritably drips off the page, with no logical content whatsoever.

And that's complete bullshit.

It is (again) the same way --- the same thought process --- that the mob who accosted Earnest Starr was drunk on. That would be the mob who were charged with nothing while Starr got hard labor. You can plug in any example you like, light or heavy -- obviously not all of them result in a lynching, not all of them result in people being herded to gas chambers, not all of them result in whiny message board posts about a football player who won't go along with a specious pretense, not all of them result in a hard-labor prison sentence for refusing to kiss a flag ---- all different results. But they all got to where they got via the same highway.

Another example -- for six decade "the mob" of public standards banned black players from baseball. "The mob" declared it was wrong, and enforced it until Branch Rickey jabbed a thumb in the eye of the mob and said, "fuck that, meet Jackie Robinson".

(Okay Branch Rickey didn't really talk like that; I'm paraphrasing)

And when Robinson arrived he was opposed by that same mob, in the stands and on the field. The thumb had to remain in the eye of the mob until it backed down.

That mob never had a valid reason behind its mobbery. All emotion with no logic. "Because we've always done it this way" is in no way a valid reasoning.

Happily the mob had to suck it up and accept reality but for the previous six decades it called the shots and excluded black players. For no good reason whatsoever.

Whelp --- I'm on the side of Branch Rickey. At some point some sentient being has to stand up and say --- "wait --- why are we doing this?"

 

[Dschrute3]

DO YOUR JOB!

Live like the rest of us do. Just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, does't mean he's special. He can do his political protesting on his own personal time. If he can't do that, he doesn't deserve a job in the NFL. Period, end of story.

You know, the reason he was able to get a job with an NFL team is because he IS "special". Are you capable of running as fast and throwing a football as well as him? Are you capable of the physical fitness that is required to do his job?

If you were, you would be in the NFL. Many people want to play for a professional football team, but the problem is, not many are capable of the physical fitness requirements.

Kaepernick earned his place in the NFL. Too bad that some of you idiots are incapable of seeing that, as well as too bad that you don't understand what the First Amendment stands for.

He's his own biggest problem. He's immature and unprofessional. It's why he could never advance his game to the next level. And no, just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, doesn't mean he's better than you and me.

At best, the kid is now a bench warmer. But i can understand why teams don't wanna bring him in. Why bring a whiny Snowflake in as a backup QB? They can find numerous QB's to fill that position. Football is a business. They don't want immature unprofessional folks. Why pay someone to be a problem? I'm fine with protesting, just do it on your own personal time. When you're at work, just do your job. Period, end of story.

What you're (deliberately) misstating is that he's not "doing" a damn thing. He's refusing to do something. Something expected by coercion, for no good reason, that has ZERO to do with what he's actually there to do.

You're whining because here's guy who refuses to be a sheep, something for which you don't have the stones.

Immature and unprofessional. That sums him up. At best, he can only be a bench warmer now. He perfectly epitomizes the entitled Democrat Snowflake mentality. Businesses don't want them.

 

[Montrovant]

Now you're just being silly. There are all kinds of pointless activities and rituals that are part of any given culture. They often don't make sense, yet they remain. That's just the apparent reality of having human societies.

Of course there are, but if there isn't a valid reason behind them, then there isn't a valid reason behind them. And if that's the case it means they're optional. And if they're optional, then that means "the mob" does NOT have the right to force whatever the behavior is on OTHER people who may choose to opt out of it.

Again --- that's why I immediately ask these klowns to provide a logical basis for their demands that (in this case) everybody has to stand for this jingoism charade that has ZERO to do with what the audience came there for. And if we're at all honest about causations, the only reason that charade is in there is specifically because there IS an audience, and they're assembled there for a totally different purpose. Opportunism writ large.

To paraphrase a Sixties meme, what if they had a game and nobody played a national anthem? Would anybody notice? And if they did notice and complained that they wanted it, what would be the reasoning behind it? Again ---- it does not exist. And if it does not exist, then the mob has no right to demand it. That's probably as simple as it can be distilled to.

It isn't that the anthem is a sports event, it is that the anthem is part of professional sporting events.

Again --- No, it is not. In the example just stated above where they "forgot" to play the anthem, the game works the same way and the results count the same way too. It has no bearing on the game whatsoever.

Holy hyperbole, Batman! Equating some people being upset at NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to lynchings is one hell of a stretch.

It's disingenuous to suggest I'm equating message board posters whining about somebody who won't go along with their coercion with lynching, witch burnings or any ot my other examples --- but this is the same exclusively emotion-based mentality that cannot be rationally justified, that leads to the witch burnings. The point here is not the end result ---- it's the thought process that produced the end result.

And clearly the "mob" isn't calling the shots, as the NFL has not implemented a rule that players must stand during the anthem.

The "mob" in this example is the body of complainants, posters here and in the general public ---- who want to control the behavior of others, with no valid reason for doing so. At this point I'm saying the same thing over and over so I'm pretty sure I'm consistent on this.

In fact, players continued to sit, kneel, and raise fists during the anthem well after Kaepernick stopped playing. It hasn't been limited to the NFL, either.

Indeed they did. That was a beautiful thing, for it shows that there still exist those who won't be coerced by a mob, or in that case directly, by a demagogue ("fire the sumbitches"). That's a healthy sign. And its opposite unhealthy sign is the body of authoritarian-passives who insist that 'all must conform". That's what we're up against. It's also what Donald Rump was trying to milk in Alabama, to an audience who largely just obediently swallowed whole without a single critical thought about what was going on there.

You want to defy the people who are upset about kneeling players? OK, watch the NFL, and buy NFL merchandise, I guess.

That would be irrelevant. I really don't care about the NFL or any particular player(s). My focus is on mob mentality, i.e. to what extent the general public is willing to not only just bend over on command but to then do the commander's bidding and demand that everybody else bend over too.

To quote post 196 above, "Fuck them all". That post is a perfect example of exactly what I'm pointing out --- a ocmpletely emotion-based diatribe with no rationality to get to its conclusion.

And that's complete bullshit.

It is (again) the same way --- the same thought process --- that the mob who accosted Earnest Starr was drunk on. That would be the mob who were charged with nothing while Starr got hard labor. You can plug in any example you like, light or heavy -- obviously not all of them result in a lynching, not all of them result in people being herded to gas chambers, not all of them result in whiny message board posts about a football player who won't go along with a specious pretense --- all different results. But they all got to where they got on the same highway.

Whether or not there is a valid reason to stand during the anthem is entirely subjective. Valid and rational or logical are not the same thing.

It isn't disingenuous to say you are comparing message board posters with lynchings, when you do exactly that. You have called those who want players to stand during the anthem a mob, then compared their thinking (which, in effect, is comparing them) to people who committed lynchings, and to Nazis. What is disingenuous is to claim that when you compare the way one person (or a group of people) thinks to the way another person (or group of people) thinks, that you are not comparing those people.

You continue to have an issue understanding that a sporting event is not simply the game being played. To use the Olympics as an example, since you have brought it up before, the opening ceremony of the Olympics is part of that sporting event. It isn't a sport, nor a competition, yet it is still part of the sports event.

Playing the national anthem does not have to happen at every professional sports event to be a normal part of professional sports events.

I think, at this point, you're doomed to be disappointed when it comes to national anthems at sports events; they are here to stay for at least the immediate future.

 

[Pogo]

Now you're just being silly. There are all kinds of pointless activities and rituals that are part of any given culture. They often don't make sense, yet they remain. That's just the apparent reality of having human societies.

Of course there are, but if there isn't a valid reason behind them, then there isn't a valid reason behind them. And if that's the case it means they're optional. And if they're optional, then that means "the mob" does NOT have the right to force whatever the behavior is on OTHER people who may choose to opt out of it.

Again --- that's why I immediately ask these klowns to provide a logical basis for their demands that (in this case) everybody has to stand for this jingoism charade that has ZERO to do with what the audience came there for. And if we're at all honest about causations, the only reason that charade is in there is specifically because there IS an audience, and they're assembled there for a totally different purpose. Opportunism writ large.

To paraphrase a Sixties meme, what if they had a game and nobody played a national anthem? Would anybody notice? And if they did notice and complained that they wanted it, what would be the reasoning behind it? Again ---- it does not exist. And if it does not exist, then the mob has no right to demand it. That's probably as simple as it can be distilled to.

It isn't that the anthem is a sports event, it is that the anthem is part of professional sporting events.

Again --- No, it is not. In the example just stated above where they "forgot" to play the anthem, the game works the same way and the results count the same way too. It has no bearing on the game whatsoever.

Holy hyperbole, Batman! Equating some people being upset at NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to lynchings is one hell of a stretch.

It's disingenuous to suggest I'm equating message board posters whining about somebody who won't go along with their coercion with lynching, witch burnings or any ot my other examples --- but this is the same exclusively emotion-based mentality that cannot be rationally justified, that leads to the witch burnings. The point here is not the end result ---- it's the thought process that produced the end result.

And clearly the "mob" isn't calling the shots, as the NFL has not implemented a rule that players must stand during the anthem.

The "mob" in this example is the body of complainants, posters here and in the general public ---- who want to control the behavior of others, with no valid reason for doing so. At this point I'm saying the same thing over and over so I'm pretty sure I'm consistent on this.

In fact, players continued to sit, kneel, and raise fists during the anthem well after Kaepernick stopped playing. It hasn't been limited to the NFL, either.

Indeed they did. That was a beautiful thing, for it shows that there still exist those who won't be coerced by a mob, or in that case directly, by a demagogue ("fire the sumbitches"). That's a healthy sign. And its opposite unhealthy sign is the body of authoritarian-passives who insist that 'all must conform". That's what we're up against. It's also what Donald Rump was trying to milk in Alabama, to an audience who largely just obediently swallowed whole without a single critical thought about what was going on there.

You want to defy the people who are upset about kneeling players? OK, watch the NFL, and buy NFL merchandise, I guess.

That would be irrelevant. I really don't care about the NFL or any particular player(s). My focus is on mob mentality, i.e. to what extent the general public is willing to not only just bend over on command but to then do the commander's bidding and demand that everybody else bend over too.

To quote post 196 above, "Fuck them all". That post is a perfect example of exactly what I'm pointing out --- a ocmpletely emotion-based diatribe with no rationality to get to its conclusion.

And that's complete bullshit.

It is (again) the same way --- the same thought process --- that the mob who accosted Earnest Starr was drunk on. That would be the mob who were charged with nothing while Starr got hard labor. You can plug in any example you like, light or heavy -- obviously not all of them result in a lynching, not all of them result in people being herded to gas chambers, not all of them result in whiny message board posts about a football player who won't go along with a specious pretense --- all different results. But they all got to where they got on the same highway.

Another example -- for six decade "the mob" of public standards banned black players from baseball. "The mob" declared it was wrong, and enforced it until Branch Rickey jabbed a thumb in the eye of the mob and said, "fuck that, meet Jackie Robinson".

(Okay Branch Rickey didn't really talk like that; I'm paraphrasing)

And when Robinson arrived he was opposed by that same mob, in the stands and on the field. The thumb had to remain in the eye of the mob until it backed down.

That mob never had a valid reason behind its mobbery. All emotion with no logic. "Because we've always done it this way" is in no way a valid reasoning.

Happily the mob had to suck it up and accept reality but for the previous six decades it called the shots and excluded black players. For no good reason whatsoever.

Whelp --- I'm on the side of Branch Rickey. At some point some sentient being has to stand up and say --- "wait --- why are we doing this?"

Whether or not there is a valid reason to stand during the anthem is entirely subjective. Valid and rational or logical are not the same thing.

It isn't disingenuous to say you are comparing message board posters with lynchings, when you do exactly that. You have called those who want players to stand during the anthem a mob, then compared their thinking (which, in effect, is comparing them) to people who committed lynchings, and to Nazis. What is disingenuous is to claim that when you compare the way one person (or a group of people) thinks to the way another person (or group of people) thinks, that you are not comparing those people.

You continue to have an issue understanding that a sporting event is not simply the game being played. To use the Olympics as an example, since you have brought it up before, the opening ceremony of the Olympics is part of that sporting event. It isn't a sport, nor a competition, yet it is still part of the sports event.

Playing the national anthem does not have to happen at every professional sports event to be a normal part of professional sports events.

I think, at this point, you're doomed to be disappointed when it comes to national anthems at sports events; they are here to stay for at least the immediate future.

What I get from this is an image of throwing up one's hands and capitulating instead of facing the issue. Banning black baseball players was "here to stay at least for the immediate future" too. So was burning witches, etc etc etc etc etc. Again that is in no way a reason for it to continue. You're basically falling back on the old "because we've always done it this way". And that is simply not good enough. It is in fact, not a reason at all.

It isn't disingenuous to say you are comparing message board posters with lynchings, when you do exactly that. You have called those who want players to stand during the anthem a mob, then compared their thinking (which, in effect, is comparing them) to people who committed lynchings, and to Nazis.

Actually I already covered that, explaining above that the comparison was one of thought processes, not people. You've acknowledged here that I said that and then gone back and called the the same thing. Well NO they're NOT the same thing; you're ignoring the point. If they were the same thing it would not have been necessary (or possible) to delineate the distinction.

When a rhetorical comparison isn't being heard it's necessary to invoke the extreme to demonstrate that comparison, because the more extreme the example, the more obvious is the comparative point.. In our culture and time Hitler is about as extreme as there is. Yet you're still not hearing it.

The distinction is that the mentality DRIVES the people. To use my previous metaphor they're "drunk" on it. That doesn't mean the alcohol is "the same thing" as the alcoholic.

Follow me?

Ever heard the expression, "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

 

[Pogo]

DO YOUR JOB!

Live like the rest of us do. Just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, does't mean he's special. He can do his political protesting on his own personal time. If he can't do that, he doesn't deserve a job in the NFL. Period, end of story.

You know, the reason he was able to get a job with an NFL team is because he IS "special". Are you capable of running as fast and throwing a football as well as him? Are you capable of the physical fitness that is required to do his job?

If you were, you would be in the NFL. Many people want to play for a professional football team, but the problem is, not many are capable of the physical fitness requirements.

Kaepernick earned his place in the NFL. Too bad that some of you idiots are incapable of seeing that, as well as too bad that you don't understand what the First Amendment stands for.

He's his own biggest problem. He's immature and unprofessional. It's why he could never advance his game to the next level. And no, just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, doesn't mean he's better than you and me.

At best, the kid is now a bench warmer. But i can understand why teams don't wanna bring him in. Why bring a whiny Snowflake in as a backup QB? They can find numerous QB's to fill that position. Football is a business. They don't want immature unprofessional folks. Why pay someone to be a problem? I'm fine with protesting, just do it on your own personal time. When you're at work, just do your job. Period, end of story.

What you're (deliberately) misstating is that he's not "doing" a damn thing. He's refusing to do something. Something expected by coercion, for no good reason, that has ZERO to do with what he's actually there to do.

You're whining because here's guy who refuses to be a sheep, something for which you don't have the stones.

Immature and unprofessional. That sums him up. At best, he can only be a bench warmer now. He perfectly epitomizes the entitled Democrat Snowflake mentality. Businesses don't want them.

Whatever. I know absolutely zero about Colin Kaepernick's skills, never seen him play and would not have ever heard of him if some hack reporter hadn't contrived this whole fake story about him. Nor do I have any idea, or interest, what his political party affiliation is or if he even has one. I could literally not care less. The point is about mob coercion, and the dangers therein. In effect, not so much about him, far more about you.

And by way of comparison, as noted I've been to many a baseball game and never once stood for the national anthem. I'm not sitting it out because I have a reason to not-stand; I'm sitting it out because nobody has ever given me a reason TO stand.

That too can be read as an act of protest, since I'm aware that most people are standing and I consciously decline to go along. When I do it it's not any comment on "America" or on "police" or anything else --- t's a protest against mob mentality. It's a protest not against what went on in history, but against what's going on right in front of me. In the moment.

 

[Dschrute3]

DO YOUR JOB!

Live like the rest of us do. Just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, does't mean he's special. He can do his political protesting on his own personal time. If he can't do that, he doesn't deserve a job in the NFL. Period, end of story.

You know, the reason he was able to get a job with an NFL team is because he IS "special". Are you capable of running as fast and throwing a football as well as him? Are you capable of the physical fitness that is required to do his job?

If you were, you would be in the NFL. Many people want to play for a professional football team, but the problem is, not many are capable of the physical fitness requirements.

Kaepernick earned his place in the NFL. Too bad that some of you idiots are incapable of seeing that, as well as too bad that you don't understand what the First Amendment stands for.

He's his own biggest problem. He's immature and unprofessional. It's why he could never advance his game to the next level. And no, just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, doesn't mean he's better than you and me.

At best, the kid is now a bench warmer. But i can understand why teams don't wanna bring him in. Why bring a whiny Snowflake in as a backup QB? They can find numerous QB's to fill that position. Football is a business. They don't want immature unprofessional folks. Why pay someone to be a problem? I'm fine with protesting, just do it on your own personal time. When you're at work, just do your job. Period, end of story.

What you're (deliberately) misstating is that he's not "doing" a damn thing. He's refusing to do something. Something expected by coercion, for no good reason, that has ZERO to do with what he's actually there to do.

You're whining because here's guy who refuses to be a sheep, something for which you don't have the stones.

Immature and unprofessional. That sums him up. At best, he can only be a bench warmer now. He perfectly epitomizes the entitled Democrat Snowflake mentality. Businesses don't want them.

Whatever. I know absolutely zero about Colin Kaepernick's skills, never seen him play and would not have ever heard of him if some hack reporter hadn't contrived this whole fake story about him. Nor do I have any idea, or interest, what his political party affiliation is or if he even has one. I could literally not care less. The point is about mob coercion, and the dangers therein. In effect, not so much about him, far more about you.

And by way of comparison, as noted I've been to many a baseball game and never once stood for the national anthem. I'm not sitting it out because I have a reason to not-stand; I'm sitting it out because nobody has ever given me a reason TO stand.

That too can be read as an act of protest, since I'm aware that most people are standing and I consciously decline to go along. When I do it it's not any comment on "America" or on "police" or anything else --- t's a protest against mob mentality. It's a protest not against what went on in history, but against what's going on right in front of me.

Immature and unprofessional. That sums up all Snowflakes. They don't make for valuable employees. Why hire a whiny mediocre QB that's only gonna sit on the bench? Not worth it. He's done.

 

[Pogo]

You know, the reason he was able to get a job with an NFL team is because he IS "special". Are you capable of running as fast and throwing a football as well as him? Are you capable of the physical fitness that is required to do his job?

If you were, you would be in the NFL. Many people want to play for a professional football team, but the problem is, not many are capable of the physical fitness requirements.

Kaepernick earned his place in the NFL. Too bad that some of you idiots are incapable of seeing that, as well as too bad that you don't understand what the First Amendment stands for.

He's his own biggest problem. He's immature and unprofessional. It's why he could never advance his game to the next level. And no, just because he's a Democrat Snowflake and athlete, doesn't mean he's better than you and me.

At best, the kid is now a bench warmer. But i can understand why teams don't wanna bring him in. Why bring a whiny Snowflake in as a backup QB? They can find numerous QB's to fill that position. Football is a business. They don't want immature unprofessional folks. Why pay someone to be a problem? I'm fine with protesting, just do it on your own personal time. When you're at work, just do your job. Period, end of story.

What you're (deliberately) misstating is that he's not "doing" a damn thing. He's refusing to do something. Something expected by coercion, for no good reason, that has ZERO to do with what he's actually there to do.

You're whining because here's guy who refuses to be a sheep, something for which you don't have the stones.

Immature and unprofessional. That sums him up. At best, he can only be a bench warmer now. He perfectly epitomizes the entitled Democrat Snowflake mentality. Businesses don't want them.

Whatever. I know absolutely zero about Colin Kaepernick's skills, never seen him play and would not have ever heard of him if some hack reporter hadn't contrived this whole fake story about him. Nor do I have any idea, or interest, what his political party affiliation is or if he even has one. I could literally not care less. The point is about mob coercion, and the dangers therein. In effect, not so much about him, far more about you.

And by way of comparison, as noted I've been to many a baseball game and never once stood for the national anthem. I'm not sitting it out because I have a reason to not-stand; I'm sitting it out because nobody has ever given me a reason TO stand.

That too can be read as an act of protest, since I'm aware that most people are standing and I consciously decline to go along. When I do it it's not any comment on "America" or on "police" or anything else --- t's a protest against mob mentality. It's a protest not against what went on in history, but against what's going on right in front of me.

Immature and unprofessional. That sums up all Snowflakes. They don't make for valuable employees. Why hire a whiny mediocre QB that's only gonna sit on the bench? Not worth it. He's done.

You completely failed to address the quoted post in any way, shape or form. Complete whiff.

 

[Borillar]

But if he was good....he would have a job. Plain and simple.

He was good enough to get the SF 49ers to the Super Bowl a few years ago. He has enough talent and ability to play. Nobody wants all the negative media attention. Dude is PR poison.

 

[Borillar]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

In my line of work we have a saying, "shut up and color". Making an ass out of yourself in front of the country, while in the process breaking down team cohesion will get you blacklisted in any line of work.
No one likes an asshole.

You don't get to show your ass and spew your political beliefs at work. Your employer won't tolerate it. Kapernick is just a typical dumb spoiled Democrat Snowflake. He really believes he's 'special' because he plays a sport and is a Democrat. He doesn't deserve a job. It is what it is.

Then why all the right wing pearl clutching when it comes to right wingers spewing political beliefs at work at getting in trouble for it? Like the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? Like the teacher who banned MAGA hats? Is it because the right wing only cares about freedom of speech when it is their speech?

 

[Dschrute3]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

In my line of work we have a saying, "shut up and color". Making an ass out of yourself in front of the country, while in the process breaking down team cohesion will get you blacklisted in any line of work.
No one likes an asshole.

You don't get to show your ass and spew your political beliefs at work. Your employer won't tolerate it. Kapernick is just a typical dumb spoiled Democrat Snowflake. He really believes he's 'special' because he plays a sport and is a Democrat. He doesn't deserve a job. It is what it is.

Then why all the right wing pearl clutching when it comes to right wingers spewing political beliefs at work at getting in trouble for it? Like the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? Like the teacher who banned MAGA hats? Is it because the right wing only cares about freedom of speech when it is their speech?

Go ahead and show your Snowflake ass at work. Go ahead and make your political protests. See how much longer you have that job. Again, he isn't special just because he's an athlete and Democrat. Period, end of story.

 

[Montrovant]

What I get from this is an image of throwing up one's hands and capitulating instead of facing the issue. Banning black baseball players was "here to stay at least for the immediate future" too. So was burning witches, etc etc etc etc etc. Again that is in no way a reason for it to continue. You're basically falling back on the old "because we've always done it this way". And that is simply not good enough. It is in fact, not a reason at all.

Here we have a ridiculous comparison again. Banning black players? Burning witches? Those are the things you compare playing the national anthem at sporting events to?

No one is banned from attending games for not standing during the anthem, are they? Has anyone been burned for not standing during the anthem? Are games at which the anthem is not played banned in this country? Are stadiums that don't play the anthem before a game burned to the ground?

Who is hurt by people wanting others to stand during the playing of the anthem, if no one is forced to do so? I've sat during the national anthem before, and done so at a sports event. You know what happened? Nothing. Nothing at all. I was not banned, I was not burned, I was not harmed in any way.

I didn't say that "because it's been done that way" is the reason the anthem is played at sporting events. I merely pointed out that it's a cultural tradition unlikely to stop any time soon. I also don't consider it an issue, as you do. I think it's fairly silly, but harmless. If someone calls for legislation to make standing during the anthem obligatory, I'll be all in opposing that. If people start getting burned or lynched for not standing, I'll vehemently oppose that. If Colin Kaepernick can't get a job in the NFL, in part, because he kneels during the anthem? Again, it's a bit silly, but that's up to the NFL teams.

And you know what? "Because we've always done it this way" actually IS a good enough reason for the anthem to be played at sports events. That's because there doesn't have to be any reason, or any good reason, for that to be done. If professional leagues, or teams, or stadiums want to play the anthem before games, they don't need a reason to do it. There is not a law against it, nor should there be. You or I may not see a good reason for it, but so what? Others do see what they consider a good reason for the anthem to be played, apparently, just as people see what they consider good reasons for people to stand during the anthem.

I may not understand why the national anthem is played at sports events, but I'm not going to try linking it to lynchings or Nazis.

Actually I already covered that, explaining above that the comparison was one of thought processes, not people. You've acknowledged here that I said that and then gone back and called the the same thing. Well NO they're NOT the same thing; you're ignoring the point. If they were the same thing it would not have been necessary (or possible) to delineate the distinction.

When a rhetorical comparison isn't being heard it's necessary to invoke the extreme to demonstrate that comparison, because the more extreme the example, the more obvious is the comparative point.. In our culture and time Hitler is about as extreme as there is. Yet you're still not hearing it.

The distinction is that the mentality DRIVES the people. To use my previous metaphor they're "drunk" on it. That doesn't mean the alcohol is "the same thing" as the alcoholic.

Follow me?

Ever heard the expression, "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

You are arguing that when you compare an aspect of one person's personality with a similar aspect in another person's personality, you aren't comparing the people. That is ridiculous. Yes, you've covered that; I responded by giving my opinion that you are wrong. When you say person X has personality trait A, and person Y has personality trait A, you are comparing those people. When you compare the actions of a group (message board posters) with the actions of another group (those who committed lynchings), you are comparing those groups.

I am hearing your comparison to Hitler. Again, I'm telling you it is ridiculous hyperbole. One might describe cheering at a sporting event as a form of mob mentality; people follow along with the wave, or group cheers, etc. Shall I now compare that to the Holocaust? It's the same thought process! Should any sort of group think be compared to Hitler and the Nazis?

Of course I've heard the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin." I find it to often be used as an excuse, a way for people to claim they don't hate a person when they actually do; or at least to claim not to hate something about a person when they do. In fact, I think it is often similar to the way you've compared groups of people but claimed only to be comparing their thought processes, as though those are somehow completely separate from the people involved.

TL DR - If I tell you I tried to be a professional artist and failed at it, and you reply with, "Did you know Hitler was a failed artist?" you have compared me to him, you have not simply compared failed artistry.

 

[Pogo]

What I get from this is an image of throwing up one's hands and capitulating instead of facing the issue. Banning black baseball players was "here to stay at least for the immediate future" too. So was burning witches, etc etc etc etc etc. Again that is in no way a reason for it to continue. You're basically falling back on the old "because we've always done it this way". And that is simply not good enough. It is in fact, not a reason at all.

Here we have a ridiculous comparison again. Banning black players? Burning witches? Those are the things you compare playing the national anthem at sporting events to?

Here we have another example of not-listening. Are you deliberately playing obtuse? I've delineated the distinction here over and over, and you continue to ignore that distinction.

Why are you doing that?

I could explain it all over again but since you ignored the first two times ---- what's the point?

No one is banned from attending games for not standing during the anthem, are they? Has anyone been burned for not standing during the anthem? Are games at which the anthem is not played banned in this country? Are stadiums that don't play the anthem before a game burned to the ground?

I have no idea how many games are played without an anthem but I guarantee you they happen; I've participated in them. Fatter o' mact I've never participated in a sporting event where the national anthem was played. Nor would I expect it to happen, since that's not what I'm there for and it has no connection to the game.

I don't know of people being "banned" but I do see, all over this thread and others, those who see fit to punish -- or ban, or "fire the sumbitches", or worse, those who decline to do the dance ON THAT BASIS. That's why I keep using the term "coercion". Please confirm that you know what coercion means.

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/
noun
noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"it wasn't slavery because no coercion was used"
synonyms: force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure
"Johnson claims the police used coercion to extract a confession"​

Blackballing is coercion. Demanding a citizen kiss the flag is coercion. Sending that citizen to prison for not bending over for that mob is coercion. The "gentleman's agreement" that kept black players out of baseball for six decades, was coercion. "Thoughtcrime" is coercion. Terrorism is coercion. Distribution of Ku Klux Klan warning flyers is coercion. "Break their windows -- break them now" is coercion when the order is followed.

There's a specific reason I've been using that term, and there it is.

Who is hurt by people wanting others to stand during the playing of the anthem, if no one is forced to do so? I've sat during the national anthem before, and done so at a sports event. You know what happened? Nothing. Nothing at all. I was not banned, I was not burned, I was not harmed in any way.

And I've done the same thing and experienced the same nothing. And that's how it SHOULD work.

Now let's see if we can convey that concept to the zombified parrots squawking at football players (or anyone else) who chooses to opt out.

That's the whole bottom line --- it's optional, so one can opt in or opt out. When the zombified parrots decide that 'no you CAN'T opt out", that's when we have a problem. And here we are, aren't we. The question being, how come you or I can sit out the national anthem, yet Colin Kaepernick can't?

That question has no answer. And the zombified parrots know it has no answer, which is why they keep running away from it.

As for TL/DR, I'll simply chop this post up into separate posts if it leads to finally being heard. No you're not allowed to use eye fatigue as an excuse.

-- continued --​

 

[TNHarley]

I served this country for over 20 years and through 4 different war zones. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Supporting the Constitution means that you support the things that are written in it.

Defending the Constitution means that you understand the concepts written in it, and you will speak out whenever someone is using it wrong.

Free speech is one of those things that is contained in the Constitution. Kaepernick was simply exercising his right to free speech by taking a knee.

The NFL, fans and people who watch are entitled to have their opinion about his actions and voice them if they feel the need.

Kaepernick has a right to do what he did. Even if I don't agree with what he does, he still has the right to do it.

Dude, you support unconstitutional practices on here all the time.
The 1st has nothing to do with what he does at his job. Sure, he can do it but he shouldnt whine, and others whine for him, over the consequences.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't say that "because it's been done that way" is the reason the anthem is played at sporting events. I merely pointed out that it's a cultural tradition unlikely to stop any time soon.

Then you just DID say that. And later in this very post, you'll proceed to re-confirm it.

I also don't consider it an issue, as you do. I think it's fairly silly, but harmless. If someone calls for legislation to make standing during the anthem obligatory, I'll be all in opposing that.

It is indeed silly --- but "legislation" is hardly the only way to get something done, is it. See the section on "coercion" above. Mob Mentality is a classic way to get something done. It got the rabble to accept witches being burned, it sent Earnest Starr to prison and hard labor for not capitulating to a mob, it kept black ballplayers, and black people in general, "in their place"..... and it was being mined by Chief Zombified Parrot Rump with his "fire the sumbitches". That doesn't make somebody's firing required by law; it employs the Mob to pressure for it. Which is exactly what's going on here, and we both know I could go quote right now myriad posts saying exactly that.

If people start getting burned or lynched for not standing, I'll vehemently oppose that. If Colin Kaepernick can't get a job in the NFL, in part, because he kneels during the anthem? Again, it's a bit silly, but that's up to the NFL teams.

That's not the scope here. There's a lawsuit alleging that, and it will go wherever it goes. My purpose here has really nothing to do with what the NFL or Colin Kaepernick does. It's all about the coercion from the zombified parrots.

And you know what? "Because we've always done it this way" actually IS a good enough reason for the anthem to be played at sports events.

Et voilà --- you just confirmed "because we've always done it this way". It would appear not only are you not reading my words, you're not even reading your own.

 

[Pogo]

That's because there doesn't have to be any reason, or any good reason, for that to be done. If professional leagues, or teams, or stadiums want to play the anthem before games, they don't need a reason to do it.

Everything needs a function. If they "don't need a reason", then the practice has no function. If the practice has no function, then it must be optional at the actor's discretion. If the act is optional at the actor's discretion, then said actor has the right to engage in it or not engage. And that makes "fire the sumbitches" an(other) fraudulent incitement. CLEARLY you can't 'fire' somebody for opting out of an optional act.

There is not a law against it, nor should there be. You or I may not see a good reason for it, but so what? Others do see what they consider a good reason for the anthem to be played, apparently, just as people see what they consider good reasons for people to stand during the anthem.

These "others" are of course free to see whatever reason they see fit. There's no issue there.

Where there IS an issue is when those others decide "this is how I see it and I'm going to persecute anybody who doesn't see it that way".

"There's no law against it" is a prepostorous assertion to use as a basis for mob coercion to force behavior because "there's no law against it". Really? The Montana mob was correct to try to force Earnest Starr to kiss a flag because "there's no law against" kissing a flag? THAT's what you want to plant your flag on?

This reminds me of how when I first came to this site and the hot topic (then as somewhat now) was what to do about mass gun violence, I observed at the time what certain voices of the same coercion persuasion were saying about media commentators who dared question Gun Culture.

They said,

"David Gregory must be arrested".....
"Piers Morgan must be deported"......
"Bob Costas must be fired"......
"the White Plains Journal-News must be shut down" .....​

See the pattern here?

Some if not all of these entities received more than a few threats. The Journal-News had to hire an armed guard.

>> some reporters have received notes saying they would be shot on the way to their cars; bloggers have encouraged people to steal credit card information of Journal News employees; and two packages containing white powder have been sent to the newsroom and a third to a reporter’s home. .... The reaction did not stop at the local paper: Gracia C. Martore, the chief executive of Gannett, also received threatening messages.<< --- Newspaper Targeted​

Again ----- coercion. No "legislation" required. Not everything that happens is a result of "legislation".

Another simple example --- I receive a note on my car windshield advising that "people around here have guns" based on what that note's writer thought about my bumper sticker. Again --- coercion.

I may not understand why the national anthem is played at sports events, but I'm not going to try linking it to lynchings or Nazis.

More to the point you're also not going to try understanding how that came up. Either that or are deliberately trying to deflect it.

Actually I already covered that, explaining above that the comparison was one of thought processes, not people. You've acknowledged here that I said that and then gone back and called the the same thing. Well NO they're NOT the same thing; you're ignoring the point. If they were the same thing it would not have been necessary (or possible) to delineate the distinction.

When a rhetorical comparison isn't being heard it's necessary to invoke the extreme to demonstrate that comparison, because the more extreme the example, the more obvious is the comparative point.. In our culture and time Hitler is about as extreme as there is. Yet you're still not hearing it.

The distinction is that the mentality DRIVES the people. To use my previous metaphor they're "drunk" on it. That doesn't mean the alcohol is "the same thing" as the alcoholic.

Follow me?

Ever heard the expression, "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

You are arguing that when you compare an aspect of one person's personality with a similar aspect in another person's personality, you aren't comparing the people. That is ridiculous. Yes, you've covered that; I responded by giving my opinion that you are wrong. When you say person X has personality trait A, and person Y has personality trait A, you are comparing those people. When you compare the actions of a group (message board posters) with the actions of another group (those who committed lynchings), you are comparing those groups.

We're not talking "personality traits" here. And we never were. We're talking, as I said from the beginning, THOUGHT PROCESSES. You're ignoring that, and changing the point to something completely different, and that just ain't honest.

I am hearing your comparison to Hitler. Again, I'm telling you it is ridiculous hyperbole. One might describe cheering at a sporting event as a form of mob mentality; people follow along with the wave, or group cheers, etc. Shall I now compare that to the Holocaust? It's the same thought process! Should any sort of group think be compared to Hitler and the Nazis?

SMGDH

Once again, ignoring the words plainly on the page and plugging in one's own. Not valid argument.

Of course I've heard the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin." I find it to often be used as an excuse, a way for people to claim they don't hate a person when they actually do; or at least to claim not to hate something about a person when they do. In fact, I think it is often similar to the way you've compared groups of people but claimed only to be comparing their thought processes, as though those are somehow completely separate from the people involved.

They ARE separate. Always have been, always will be. "Hate" isn't involved here; its presence in the maxim is metaphorical.

Have you ever met a human being who "IS" a thought process? Are thought processes some kind of fixed entity that cannot ever adjust? You're dabbling into the realm of the absurd here apparently for no other purpose than Contrarianism.

Here's another famous line you've probably heard that applies to all this, or rather a paraphrase thereof:

"When they came for the football players I said nothing because I was not a football player...."

Think about it.

TL DR - If I tell you I tried to be a professional artist and failed at it, and you reply with, "Did you know Hitler was a failed artist?" you have compared me to him, you have not simply compared failed artistry.

It would be irrelevant too. If the implicit suggestion is that "those who attempt artistry are mass genocidists", that would be a classic and blatant Association Fallacy, Completely irrelevant here. And a further attempt to deflect the point about thought process --- which on no planet is pronounced "personality trait".

 

[Montrovant]

What I get from this is an image of throwing up one's hands and capitulating instead of facing the issue. Banning black baseball players was "here to stay at least for the immediate future" too. So was burning witches, etc etc etc etc etc. Again that is in no way a reason for it to continue. You're basically falling back on the old "because we've always done it this way". And that is simply not good enough. It is in fact, not a reason at all.

Here we have a ridiculous comparison again. Banning black players? Burning witches? Those are the things you compare playing the national anthem at sporting events to?

Here we have another example of not-listening. Are you deliberately playing obtuse? I've delineated the distinction here over and over, and you continue to ignore that distinction.

Why are you doing that?

I could explain it all over again but since you ignored the first two times ---- what's the point?

No one is banned from attending games for not standing during the anthem, are they? Has anyone been burned for not standing during the anthem? Are games at which the anthem is not played banned in this country? Are stadiums that don't play the anthem before a game burned to the ground?

I have no idea how many games are played without an anthem but I guarantee you they happen; I've participated in them. Fatter o' mact I've never participated in a sporting event where the national anthem was played. Nor would I expect it to happen, since that's not what I'm there for and it has no connection to the game.

I don't know of people being "banned" but I do see, all over this thread and others, those who see fit to punish -- or ban, or "fire the sumbitches", or worse, those who decline to do the dance ON THAT BASIS. That's why I keep using the term "coercion". Please confirm that you know what coercion means.

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/
noun
noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"it wasn't slavery because no coercion was used"
synonyms: force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure
"Johnson claims the police used coercion to extract a confession"​

Blackballing is coercion. Demanding a citizen kiss the flag is coercion. Sending that citizen to prison for not bending over for that mob is coercion. The "gentleman's agreement" that kept black players out of baseball for six decades, was coercion. "Thoughtcrime" is coercion. Terrorism is coercion. Distribution of Ku Klux Klan warning flyers is coercion. "Break their windows -- break them now" is coercion when the order is followed.

There's a specific reason I've been using that term, and there it is.

Who is hurt by people wanting others to stand during the playing of the anthem, if no one is forced to do so? I've sat during the national anthem before, and done so at a sports event. You know what happened? Nothing. Nothing at all. I was not banned, I was not burned, I was not harmed in any way.

And I've done the same thing and experienced the same nothing. And that's how it SHOULD work.

Now let's see if we can convey that concept to the zombified parrots squawking at football players (or anyone else) who chooses to opt out.

That's the whole bottom line --- it's optional, so one can opt in or opt out. When the zombified parrots decide that 'no you CAN'T opt out", that's when we have a problem. And here we are, aren't we. The question being, how come you or I can sit out the national anthem, yet Colin Kaepernick can't?

That question has no answer. And the zombified parrots know it has no answer, which is why they keep running away from it.

As for TL/DR, I'll simply chop this post up into separate posts if it leads to finally being heard. No you're not allowed to use eye fatigue as an excuse.

-- continued --​

You seem to be assuming that "because it has been done that way" is the only reason any of the examples in this post ever happened, as though there was no underlying reason those things became commonplace in the first place. You are also, again, using ridiculous hyperbole whether you have "delineated the distinction" or not. I understand that you are trying to use extreme examples to make your point. I am trying to tell you that rather than making your point, you are detracting from it: you portray yourself as having an unrealistic view of the national anthem at sports events.

If you want to describe people saying that players should be cut if they kneel during the anthem as coercion, I can buy that. On the other hand, the same could be said of people saying the NFL should not do anything to players who kneel during the anthem. The same could be said of just about any opinion a person expresses.

Now you are comparing people giving their opinion that players who kneel should be fired to terrorism. Again, not helping with credibility here. Using the most extreme example seems to be your go-to tactic here.

Colin Kaepernick can sit out the anthem. He did, multiple times. He can continue to do so. Where has he been prevented from doing so?

Kaepernick has not been signed by another NFL team since he opted out of his contract with the 49ers. That doesn't mean he isn't able to sit or kneel during the anthem. It means that the combination of controversy surrounding him, his limited ability as an NFL QB, and any other factors which may be involved (his asking salary is possible), have made him a less-than-optimal choice for teams looking for a QB. Again, I think it's silly, but it's up to the teams to decide if they want his services. I don't think anyone is running away from that question of why Kaepernick can't sit out the national anthem, because it is invalid.

 

[Montrovant]

I didn't say that "because it's been done that way" is the reason the anthem is played at sporting events. I merely pointed out that it's a cultural tradition unlikely to stop any time soon.

Then you just DID say that. And later in this very post, you'll proceed to re-confirm it.

I also don't consider it an issue, as you do. I think it's fairly silly, but harmless. If someone calls for legislation to make standing during the anthem obligatory, I'll be all in opposing that.

It is indeed silly --- but "legislation" is hardly the only way to get something done, is it. See the section on "coercion" above. Mob Mentality is a classic way to get something done. It got the rabble to accept witches being burned, it sent Earnest Starr to prison and hard labor for not capitulating to a mob, it kept black ballplayers, and black people in general, "in their place"..... and it was being mined by Chief Zombified Parrot Rump with his "fire the sumbitches". That doesn't make somebody's firing required by law; it employs the Mob to pressure for it. Which is exactly what's going on here, and we both know I could go quote right now myriad posts saying exactly that.

If people start getting burned or lynched for not standing, I'll vehemently oppose that. If Colin Kaepernick can't get a job in the NFL, in part, because he kneels during the anthem? Again, it's a bit silly, but that's up to the NFL teams.

That's not the scope here. There's a lawsuit alleging that, and it will go wherever it goes. My purpose here has really nothing to do with what the NFL or Colin Kaepernick does. It's all about the coercion from the zombified parrots.

And you know what? "Because we've always done it this way" actually IS a good enough reason for the anthem to be played at sports events.

Et voilà --- you just confirmed "because we've always done it this way". It would appear not only are you not reading my words, you're not even reading your own.

No, I did NOT say that the anthem is played at sporting events "because it's been done that way." Again, just because it is a cultural tradition and unlikely to end soon, does not mean the reason is "because it's been done that way." I'm sure that plays a part for at least some people, but do you honestly think that no one has a reason for wanting the national anthem played at sports events other than "because it's been done that way"?

Popular pressure is just a reality of human society. And I'd like to point out that, despite your railing against it, the mob coercion you are so concerned about has not prevented players from kneeling during the anthem.

You know what else might be considered coercive? Comparing people (or their thought processes, if that makes you feel better) to Nazis, or lynchings, or terrorism. You seem to be trying to coerce people into not being coercive.

I did not confirm "because we've always done it this way" as the reason the anthem is played at sports events. I merely put forth the opinion that that would be sufficient reason, were it the case. I'm not sure why you decided to break that paragraph off here, when it goes on to explain my point.

 

[Montrovant]

That's because there doesn't have to be any reason, or any good reason, for that to be done. If professional leagues, or teams, or stadiums want to play the anthem before games, they don't need a reason to do it.

Everything needs a function. If they "don't need a reason", then the practice has no function. If the practice has no function, then it must be optional at the actor's discretion. If the act is optional at the actor's discretion, then said actor has the right to engage in it or not engage. And that makes "fire the sumbitches" an(other) fraudulent incitement. CLEARLY you can't 'fire' somebody for opting out of an optional act.

There is not a law against it, nor should there be. You or I may not see a good reason for it, but so what? Others do see what they consider a good reason for the anthem to be played, apparently, just as people see what they consider good reasons for people to stand during the anthem.

These "others" are of course free to see whatever reason they see fit. There's no issue there.

Where there IS an issue is when those others decide "this is how I see it and I'm going to persecute anybody who doesn't see it that way".

"There's no law against it" is a prepostorous assertion to use as a basis for mob coercion to force behavior because "there's no law against it". Really? The Montana mob was correct to try to force Earnest Starr to kiss a flag because "there's no law against" kissing a flag? THAT's what you want to plant your flag on?

This reminds me of how when I first came to this site and the hot topic (then as somewhat now) was what to do about mass gun violence, I observed at the time what certain voices of the same coercion persuasion were saying about media commentators who dared question Gun Culture.

They said,

"David Gregory must be arrested".....
"Piers Morgan must be deported"......
"Bob Costas must be fired"......
"the White Plains Journal-News must be shut down" .....​

See the pattern here?

Some if not all of these entities received more than a few threats. The Journal-News had to hire an armed guard.

>> some reporters have received notes saying they would be shot on the way to their cars; bloggers have encouraged people to steal credit card information of Journal News employees; and two packages containing white powder have been sent to the newsroom and a third to a reporter’s home. .... The reaction did not stop at the local paper: Gracia C. Martore, the chief executive of Gannett, also received threatening messages.<< --- Newspaper Targeted​

Again ----- coercion. No "legislation" required. Not everything that happens is a result of "legislation".

Another simple example --- I receive a note on my car windshield advising that "people around here have guns" based on what that note's writer thought about my bumper sticker. Again --- coercion.

I may not understand why the national anthem is played at sports events, but I'm not going to try linking it to lynchings or Nazis.

More to the point you're also not going to try understanding how that came up. Either that or are deliberately trying to deflect it.

Actually I already covered that, explaining above that the comparison was one of thought processes, not people. You've acknowledged here that I said that and then gone back and called the the same thing. Well NO they're NOT the same thing; you're ignoring the point. If they were the same thing it would not have been necessary (or possible) to delineate the distinction.

When a rhetorical comparison isn't being heard it's necessary to invoke the extreme to demonstrate that comparison, because the more extreme the example, the more obvious is the comparative point.. In our culture and time Hitler is about as extreme as there is. Yet you're still not hearing it.

The distinction is that the mentality DRIVES the people. To use my previous metaphor they're "drunk" on it. That doesn't mean the alcohol is "the same thing" as the alcoholic.

Follow me?

Ever heard the expression, "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

You are arguing that when you compare an aspect of one person's personality with a similar aspect in another person's personality, you aren't comparing the people. That is ridiculous. Yes, you've covered that; I responded by giving my opinion that you are wrong. When you say person X has personality trait A, and person Y has personality trait A, you are comparing those people. When you compare the actions of a group (message board posters) with the actions of another group (those who committed lynchings), you are comparing those groups.

We're not talking "personality traits" here. And we never were. We're talking, as I said from the beginning, THOUGHT PROCESSES. You're ignoring that, and changing the point to something completely different, and that just ain't honest.

I am hearing your comparison to Hitler. Again, I'm telling you it is ridiculous hyperbole. One might describe cheering at a sporting event as a form of mob mentality; people follow along with the wave, or group cheers, etc. Shall I now compare that to the Holocaust? It's the same thought process! Should any sort of group think be compared to Hitler and the Nazis?

SMGDH

Once again, ignoring the words plainly on the page and plugging in one's own. Not valid argument.

Of course I've heard the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin." I find it to often be used as an excuse, a way for people to claim they don't hate a person when they actually do; or at least to claim not to hate something about a person when they do. In fact, I think it is often similar to the way you've compared groups of people but claimed only to be comparing their thought processes, as though those are somehow completely separate from the people involved.

They ARE separate. Always have been, always will be. "Hate" isn't involved here; its presence in the maxim is metaphorical.

Have you ever met a human being who "IS" a thought process? Are thought processes some kind of fixed entity that cannot ever adjust? You're dabbling into the realm of the absurd here apparently for no other purpose than Contrarianism.

Here's another famous line you've probably heard that applies to all this, or rather a paraphrase thereof:

"When they came for the football players I said nothing because I was not a football player...."

Think about it.

TL DR - If I tell you I tried to be a professional artist and failed at it, and you reply with, "Did you know Hitler was a failed artist?" you have compared me to him, you have not simply compared failed artistry.

It would be irrelevant too. If the implicit suggestion is that "those who attempt artistry are mass genocidists", that would be a classic and blatant Association Fallacy, Completely irrelevant here. And a further attempt to deflect the point about thought process --- which on no planet is pronounced "personality trait".

Everything needs a function? Based on what?
Playing the national anthem at sports events IS optional. I wasn't talking about kneeling in that paragraph, but the playing of the anthem. That might have been clearer had you not broken up the paragraph.

Have you ever met a person who is not made up of the functions of their mind? Their thought processes, personality traits, quirks and beliefs? I didn't say that a person's thought processes are the entirety of that person. However, just because something is only an aspect does not mean it is separate. Just because something can change doesn't mean it is not a part of a person. Again you seem to be using an all-or-nothing thought process.

And yes, one can have sin separate from the sinner. My point was that the people who use that expression often seem to be trying to excuse their hate for a person or an aspect of a person by claiming it is only the sin they hate.

Is your name Godwin? You continuously go back to the Nazis and Nazi related statements.

If a person tends to follow the group, would you not consider that a personality trait?

What is it you are trying to get across here? Apparently it's not that people who oppose NFL players kneeling are comparable to Nazis, despite your continued use of Nazi examples. Are you just saying you disagree with the anthem being played at sports events? That you disagree with people feeling any obligation to stand during the anthem? That you disagree with people expressing their opinions that players should be fired for kneeling during the anthem? Do you think people should not be allowed to express such an opinion?

 

[Pogo]

If you want to describe people saying that players should be cut if they kneel during the anthem as coercion, I can buy that. On the other hand, the same could be said of people saying the NFL should not do anything to players who kneel during the anthem. The same could be said of just about any opinion a person expresses.

Ummm.... nnnno. You can't make a case that somebody opining that "nothing should happen" is trying to control other people's behaviour. That just will not compute. Again, absurdity. There's only one camp trying to control what somebody else is doing here, and that is the active one.

This is so elementary as to not even need to be pointed out. One would think. Yet here it is.

Now you are comparing people giving their opinion that players who kneel should be fired to terrorism. Again, not helping with credibility here. Using the most extreme example seems to be your go-to tactic here.

Made necessary by your ignoring the point. Clearly it's not working as you continue to ignore it. I can only lead the horse to water; I can't control the horse denying that the water is there.

If one is making (as am I) the point that some thought process is detrimental, then one has the responsibility (as do I) to explain WHY it's detrimental. Once I do that, "waah your brought up Hitler (terrorism, witches, baseball, whatever) is not a valid argument.

Colin Kaepernick can sit out the anthem. He did, multiple times. He can continue to do so. Where has he been prevented from doing so?

I don't know if he has. It's not even relevant.
Again, already mentioned this, this is the basis of a lawsuit he apparently filed. I don't know what happened or is happening with that suit, and I'm really not concerned with it. That's business stuff and it's not my interest.