3 ms·

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 unre

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.

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.