6 ms·

> ...interesting given the blowback athletes like Kaepernick have gotten for getting political. Colin Kaepernick didn't get blowback for recognizing a cause ,

> ...interesting given the blowback athletes like Kaepernick have gotten for getting political. Colin Kaepernick didn't get blowback for recognizing a cause , he got blowback for dragging it into the game, and choosing a particularly political way of expressing it. In this case, the cause remained personal rather than political, and was not dragged onto the field.

ebg13 7y ago
> In this case, the cause remained personal rather than political, and was not dragged onto the field. The cause was literally politics. The difference is that it didn't step on anyone's jingoism. (I'm not sure what else to call people getting frothing mad at someone not standing during an anthem.)
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Well, all I can ask is that you try to reread what I wrote, but this time do it in good faith; then imagine for a second that people are maybe not being as unreasonable as you assume.
  - ebg13 7y ago
    > Well, all I can ask is that you try to reread what I wrote Well, you could explain how you think I misread "the cause remained personal rather than political". Or you could explain why you think that fighting to change the law isn't politics. Either of those would be a helpful start. > then imagine for a second that people are maybe not being as unreasonable as you assume People who froth over someone not standing during an anthem instead of looking at why he chose to do that are being exactly as unreasonable as I assume. Or did you mean a different group of people?
    - RHSeeger 7y ago
      People who "people who froth over this" instead of "looking at why this was done" can vary wildly depending on what "this" is and who the person is. You may not see standing during the anthem to be a big deal; someone else might. To take it to an extreme, consider the act of killing someone to push forth an agenda. A dictator, to save lives. A senator, to change the politics of something. You may think one of those is ok but not the other, or both. Someone else may believe differently.
      - ebg13 7y ago
        > You may not see standing during the anthem to be a big deal; someone else might. Sure. Ask that person how they feel about unfettered police brutality and regularly killing unarmed civilians without consequence in "the land of the free". Now ask them to compare the two. This moral relativism sleight-of-hand only works for people who choose to ignore or just plain don't care about the underlying issue of police brutality in the US. > Someone else may believe differently. Sure. But if racists or jingoists believe racist or jingoist things, that doesn't magically make the racist or jingoist things they believe ok. > To take it to an extreme, consider the act of killing someone to push forth an agenda. A dictator, to save lives. A senator, to change the politics of something. You may think one of those is ok but not the other, or both. Someone else may believe differently. You're getting awfully close to suggesting an equality between murder and non-violent protest against consequence-free police brutality and killing of unarmed black people. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. Either way it's a terrible look. I'm going to just quietly back away from this conversation now. For one thing, we're going to hit the comment nest limit imminently.
        RHSeeger 7y ago
        I'm not using sleight of hand or suggesting an equality between murder and non-violent protest. It is possible to believe that unfettered police brutality and regularly killing unarmed civilians without consequence is a horrible thing AND to believe that standing during the anthem during a game is an inappropriate way to address said horrible thing. Your argument appears to boil down to 1. This is horrible 2. We should do something 3. They did something 4. They are correct The set of all things which are acceptable is not the set of all things. It's not even the same set for all people. Just because someone doesn't believe the same things as you doesn't make them wrong; it doesn't make them right, either, but it doesn't make them wrong. > if racists or jingoists believe racist or jingoist things Maybe the most important point here... just because someone doesn't believe in the same ways to oppose something as you doesn't mean they don't think it should be opposed. It doesn't make them a racist and implying they are is a horrible thing to do.
duxup 7y ago
Generally protests and such involve bringing a topic to a different venue and communicating the issue in new ways because only talking about it at the "right" time isn't working.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 7y ago
> Colin Kaepernick didn't get blowback for recognizing a cause , he got blowback for dragging it into the game, and choosing a particularly political way of expressing it. https://thenib.com/destructive-criticism https://thenib.com/destructive-criticism
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Colin Kaepernick has saved zero lives, encouraged zero people not to get shot. This comic is meant to shut people up, ironically. In more irony, in the case OP points out, it's likely that the outcome was positive because the people involved were given an opportunity to save face.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    >>Colin Kaepernick has saved zero lives, encouraged zero people not to get shot. He also has not brutalized or outright murdered someone, all the while hiding behind his uniform and the power and privilege it grants him. What he did was use his platform as a star player to raise awareness about one of the most important issues of our time. You may be bitter that he brought politics into entertainment. But that says more about you than about him.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > You may be bitter that he brought politics into entertainment. But that says more about you than about him. Well, I never particularly cared personally. But hypothetically what would it say about me? (note to mods: I'm not upset, and I'd like to hear what camel thinks on this matter even it's a petty insinuation about my character)
tw04 7y ago
>he got blowback for dragging it into the game Why are we playing the national anthem before games in the first place? The NFL dragged politics into football long before Colin was in the league. He just used the only platform he had to peacefully protest.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Why not play the national anthem? The whole song is about the war of 1812 with Great Britain, and it's a ceremony of unison just before a competitive game. It's a reminder that we're on the same team even though we're rooting for different teams. It's also laughable to say that a very rich NFL star's only platform is the national anthem. Especially in 2019, when even unheard of people go viral via Twitter and YouTube.
  - tw04 7y ago
    He literally did go on YouTube. And you just proved my point - he used the platform he had available to reach the broadest audience. Which absolutely wasn't YouTube. And why not play the anthem? Because this constant barrage of "support the military or else" is toxic to democracy and is yet another page out of the playbook to stop the public from ever being against another Vietnam. It has absolutely nothing to do with "even though we're on different teams we're all on the same team". The visceral reaction to his protest proves that out.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      The national anthem isn't about supporting the military or else. It's about supporting your country. And it is about remembering that sports is just entertainment. It's all for nothing without a unified country. Every other country on the planet plays their national anthem before sports events. It's not unique to the U.S. and it's not toxic. It's okay to be proud of your country. Even when it's not perfect.
      - MegaButts 7y ago
        > It's okay to be proud of your country. Even when it's not perfect. I think the problem is Americans are taught to be proud of America just because it's America (or more specifically because it's the land of the free...although few people can define what "free" is other than being in America). It's jingoism and, based on my own observations, removes critical thought from the process of supporting your country. Just because other countries do it doesn't mean it's right (or wrong). I'm pretty cynical, but it seems pretty easy to draw the connection between playing patriotic songs at sporting events (and grade school, before students are even able to comprehend the words they are saying) and how it instills a sense of zealotry in fans.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320872 and marked it off-topic.

ebg13 7y ago

> In this case, the cause remained personal rather than political, and was not dragged onto the field. The cause was literally politics. The difference is that it didn't step on anyone's jingoism. (I'm not sure what else to call people getting frothing mad at someone not standing during an anthem.)

microcolonel 7y ago
Well, all I can ask is that you try to reread what I wrote, but this time do it in good faith; then imagine for a second that people are maybe not being as unreasonable as you assume.
- ebg13 7y ago
  > Well, all I can ask is that you try to reread what I wrote Well, you could explain how you think I misread "the cause remained personal rather than political". Or you could explain why you think that fighting to change the law isn't politics. Either of those would be a helpful start. > then imagine for a second that people are maybe not being as unreasonable as you assume People who froth over someone not standing during an anthem instead of looking at why he chose to do that are being exactly as unreasonable as I assume. Or did you mean a different group of people?
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    People who "people who froth over this" instead of "looking at why this was done" can vary wildly depending on what "this" is and who the person is. You may not see standing during the anthem to be a big deal; someone else might. To take it to an extreme, consider the act of killing someone to push forth an agenda. A dictator, to save lives. A senator, to change the politics of something. You may think one of those is ok but not the other, or both. Someone else may believe differently.
    - ebg13 7y ago
      > You may not see standing during the anthem to be a big deal; someone else might. Sure. Ask that person how they feel about unfettered police brutality and regularly killing unarmed civilians without consequence in "the land of the free". Now ask them to compare the two. This moral relativism sleight-of-hand only works for people who choose to ignore or just plain don't care about the underlying issue of police brutality in the US. > Someone else may believe differently. Sure. But if racists or jingoists believe racist or jingoist things, that doesn't magically make the racist or jingoist things they believe ok. > To take it to an extreme, consider the act of killing someone to push forth an agenda. A dictator, to save lives. A senator, to change the politics of something. You may think one of those is ok but not the other, or both. Someone else may believe differently. You're getting awfully close to suggesting an equality between murder and non-violent protest against consequence-free police brutality and killing of unarmed black people. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. Either way it's a terrible look. I'm going to just quietly back away from this conversation now. For one thing, we're going to hit the comment nest limit imminently.
      - RHSeeger 7y ago
        I'm not using sleight of hand or suggesting an equality between murder and non-violent protest. It is possible to believe that unfettered police brutality and regularly killing unarmed civilians without consequence is a horrible thing AND to believe that standing during the anthem during a game is an inappropriate way to address said horrible thing. Your argument appears to boil down to 1. This is horrible 2. We should do something 3. They did something 4. They are correct The set of all things which are acceptable is not the set of all things. It's not even the same set for all people. Just because someone doesn't believe the same things as you doesn't make them wrong; it doesn't make them right, either, but it doesn't make them wrong. > if racists or jingoists believe racist or jingoist things Maybe the most important point here... just because someone doesn't believe in the same ways to oppose something as you doesn't mean they don't think it should be opposed. It doesn't make them a racist and implying they are is a horrible thing to do.

duxup 7y ago

Generally protests and such involve bringing a topic to a different venue and communicating the issue in new ways because only talking about it at the "right" time isn't working.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

enraged_camel 7y ago

> Colin Kaepernick didn't get blowback for recognizing a cause , he got blowback for dragging it into the game, and choosing a particularly political way of expressing it. https://thenib.com/destructive-criticism https://thenib.com/destructive-criticism

microcolonel 7y ago
Colin Kaepernick has saved zero lives, encouraged zero people not to get shot. This comic is meant to shut people up, ironically. In more irony, in the case OP points out, it's likely that the outcome was positive because the people involved were given an opportunity to save face.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >>Colin Kaepernick has saved zero lives, encouraged zero people not to get shot. He also has not brutalized or outright murdered someone, all the while hiding behind his uniform and the power and privilege it grants him. What he did was use his platform as a star player to raise awareness about one of the most important issues of our time. You may be bitter that he brought politics into entertainment. But that says more about you than about him.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > You may be bitter that he brought politics into entertainment. But that says more about you than about him. Well, I never particularly cared personally. But hypothetically what would it say about me? (note to mods: I'm not upset, and I'd like to hear what camel thinks on this matter even it's a petty insinuation about my character)

tw04 7y ago

>he got blowback for dragging it into the game Why are we playing the national anthem before games in the first place? The NFL dragged politics into football long before Colin was in the league. He just used the only platform he had to peacefully protest.

chrisco255 7y ago
Why not play the national anthem? The whole song is about the war of 1812 with Great Britain, and it's a ceremony of unison just before a competitive game. It's a reminder that we're on the same team even though we're rooting for different teams. It's also laughable to say that a very rich NFL star's only platform is the national anthem. Especially in 2019, when even unheard of people go viral via Twitter and YouTube.
- tw04 7y ago
  He literally did go on YouTube. And you just proved my point - he used the platform he had available to reach the broadest audience. Which absolutely wasn't YouTube. And why not play the anthem? Because this constant barrage of "support the military or else" is toxic to democracy and is yet another page out of the playbook to stop the public from ever being against another Vietnam. It has absolutely nothing to do with "even though we're on different teams we're all on the same team". The visceral reaction to his protest proves that out.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    The national anthem isn't about supporting the military or else. It's about supporting your country. And it is about remembering that sports is just entertainment. It's all for nothing without a unified country. Every other country on the planet plays their national anthem before sports events. It's not unique to the U.S. and it's not toxic. It's okay to be proud of your country. Even when it's not perfect.
    - MegaButts 7y ago
      > It's okay to be proud of your country. Even when it's not perfect. I think the problem is Americans are taught to be proud of America just because it's America (or more specifically because it's the land of the free...although few people can define what "free" is other than being in America). It's jingoism and, based on my own observations, removes critical thought from the process of supporting your country. Just because other countries do it doesn't mean it's right (or wrong). I'm pretty cynical, but it seems pretty easy to draw the connection between playing patriotic songs at sporting events (and grade school, before students are even able to comprehend the words they are saying) and how it instills a sense of zealotry in fans.

dang 7y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320872 and marked it off-topic.