## NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Never agree to 3 points on top of the vig.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

xouper wrote:As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to have disrespect for my country pushed in my face.
As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to see forced displays of jingoistic patriotism.

The NBA doesn't allow disrespect during the anthem, so where is all the outrage about that?
There is way more respect between NBA players and the NBA establishment because the NBA has a track record of unconditional support for the social justice issues the players are concerned about. The NBA establishment has earned the players' trust to the point where the players are willing to follow along with this rule and use their platforms in other ways.

Rule or no rule, If you think the league would be able to stop it if the players decided to kneel, you are living in a dreamworld. They aren't kneeling by choice.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

RCC: Act II wrote:
xouper wrote:As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to have disrespect for my country pushed in my face.
As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to see forced displays of jingoistic patriotism.
Touché. :)

Reminds me of a bumper sticker: "If you try to please everyone, someone won't like it."

Another bumper sticker: "Follow the money."

RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think the league would be able to stop it if the players decided to kneel, . . .
The NFL successfully prevents (and punishes) many forms of employee "expression" that the NFL does not approve of. (I assume I don't need to post a list.) Why do you say they would not also be able to stop the kneeling during the anthem?

RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think . . . , you are living in a dreamworld.
No need to get snippy. I am not your adversary here. We are just having a conversation, not a pissing contest.

RCC: Act II wrote:They aren't kneeling by choice.
I'm not following what you mean by that. (It's Monday and I may have forgot to bring my brain to the office.) I assume you are not saying that someone is forcing those players to kneel against their wishes, therefore I assume you mean something else?
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

xouper wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think the league would be able to stop it if the players decided to kneel, . . .
The NFL successfully prevents (and punishes) many forms of employee "expression" that the NFL does not approve of. (I assume I don't need to post a list.) Why do you say they would not also be able to stop the kneeling during the anthem?
Leverage. The NBA is a star driven league. The NFL is more team driven. The NBA players have way, way more leverage than NFL players. Careers in the NBA last longer, the players are more visible, they make way, way more money, and talent translates to results far more directly than in the NFL. Football in general has a far more militaristic culture than does basketball, so the players are less likely to revolt en masse.

Also, NBA players are a pretty tight knit bunch. There aren't a lot of them compared to football and they come up through the same AAU ranks, basketball prep schools, and so on. There is a strong sense of solidarity and community among those that make it to the NBA.

Going even further upstream, if the top 20 players in the NBA decided to ditch the NBA and start a player owned league, it would have a remote chance because they'd have the money and the public profile to pull it off. That would never happen with football.

That all adds up to leverage. And leverage means not having to take shit from the man. They don't kneel because they don't see it as necessary.

RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think . . . , you are living in a dreamworld.
No need to get snippy. I am not your adversary here. We are just having a conversation, not a pissing contest.
Sorry.

RCC: Act II wrote:They aren't kneeling by choice.
I'm not following what you mean by that. (It's Monday and I may have forgot to bring my brain to the office.) I assume you are not saying that someone is forcing those players to kneel against their wishes, therefore I assume you mean something else?
They are by choice not kneeling.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

xouper wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:They aren't kneeling by choice.
I'm not following what you mean by that. (It's Monday and I may have forgot to bring my brain to the office.) I assume you are not saying that someone is forcing those players to kneel against their wishes, therefore I assume you mean something else?
They are by choice not kneeling.[/quote]

I'm guessing you think that the "team" aspect of the NFL prevents those that would not otherwise kneel from standing. I think that is likely. Like you I don't like mixing politics with sports. Like you I am a [mostly] former customer of the NFL. I don't know about you but this issue does not endear me to the sport. I don't give a rat's ass who kneels or not to what but I sure don't want to hear four hours commentary on any particular issue based on an otherwise far-too-commercial-filled three hour game. And I sure as shit wouldn't pay $300 to see it live. RCC: Act II Posts: 904 Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am ### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says Rob Lister wrote: I'm guessing you think that the "team" aspect of the NFL prevents those that would not otherwise kneel from standing. I think that is likely. Like you I don't like mixing politics with sports. Like you I am a [mostly] former customer of the NFL. I don't know about you but this issue does not endear me to the sport. I don't give a rat's ass who kneels or not to what but I sure don't want to hear four hours commentary on any particular issue based on an otherwise far-too-commercial-filled three hour game. And I sure as shit wouldn't pay$300 to see it live.
As a practical matter I don't think mixing politics and sport can be avoided. There are too many things involved in the status quo that are inherently political, and addressing that and maybe removing the political nature of that requires being aware of such political nature. Eliminating politics from sport would be a herculean task that itself would be both political and, well, continuing.

Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.

Those that accuse the kneeling players of bringing politics into sport have, assuming good faith, a blind spot as to the fact that what they see as the default, that is players standing for the anthem, is itself political. What they are really saying is they don't want to mix sports and politics when the politics are those they don't care for.

Pretty close to 100% of the time there is a complaint that politics shouldn't be in sport, the real complaint is that the speaker doesn't want the political values reflected by the status quo to be challenged. Ignoring politics isn't apolitical. It is an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
ed
Posts: 41484
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
Grammatron
Posts: 36776
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

RCC: Act II wrote:As a practical matter I don't think mixing politics and sport can be avoided. There are too many things involved in the status quo that are inherently political, and addressing that and maybe removing the political nature of that requires being aware of such political nature. Eliminating politics from sport would be a herculean task that itself would be both political and, well, continuing.

Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.

Those that accuse the kneeling players of bringing politics into sport have, assuming good faith, a blind spot as to the fact that what they see as the default, that is players standing for the anthem, is itself political. What they are really saying is they don't want to mix sports and politics when the politics are those they don't care for.

Pretty close to 100% of the time there is a complaint that politics shouldn't be in sport, the real complaint is that the speaker doesn't want the political values reflected by the status quo to be challenged. Ignoring politics isn't apolitical. It is an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
Many of your points make sense, but I disagree with your usage of the word "political" in this context. It certainly isn't consistent with any of my dictionaries. Playing the anthem is not necessarily political, nor is it necessarily an endorsement of the status quo. Perhaps a different word might be more accurate.

Nonetheless, in my opinion, the NFL player-protesters are behaving like spoiled brats. They are claiming a legal right for themselves that
almost no one else in the US has.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
Clearly it isn't unless they do it for a reason. It gets its own set of commercials, after all.
ed
Posts: 41484
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
They are avoiding "trouble" by removing it. In effect, the ninnies exercised a sophisticated form of the hecklers veto.
Grammatron
Posts: 36776
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

ed wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
They are avoiding "trouble" by removing it. In effect, the ninnies exercised a sophisticated form of the hecklers veto.
And that is censoring?
Doctor X
Posts: 75342
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

It is an example of Political Reality.

As we ["We?--Ed.] have debated, one of the reasons there has not been a solution to marijuana legalization, with now a gradual creep, was "YOU WANT CHILDREN TO DO THE DRUGS!"

Go back further, the same stupidity occurred with civil rights: "You want YOUR CHILDREN raped by gays/blacks/Gram's Mom!"

Politicians being dependent on votes to maintain their snouts in the troughs, have to pay attention to this stupidity. Call it "pandering" at best, it prevents progress at worse.

So . . . Товар[Прекрати--Ed.] Comrade Gram, you want to DEPRIVE OUR CHILDREN OF FREEDOM?!!!1!!

:freedom:

--J.D.

P.S. As enough Sports Dudes noted, there are a few things different in the NBA. First, and foremost, they have a collectively bargained agreement to stand respectfully for anthems. It is a rule. The players long ago signed off on it. The NFL does not have this which is why trying to directly fine the players "is a problem." The Ginger Dildo can try the "Conduct Unbecoming" Elastic Clause as I have suggested, but that will still end up in court and who knows.

Second, and more effective, the current commissioner is both effective, respected, and loved. His immediate suspension and initiating the process of removal of the Well-Known and Tolerated Racist owner of the Clippers with an "I don't care if he sues!" quickly soothed the sensibilities of players who were, understandably, pissed off and threatening boycotts. That all ended in about a day. Not being the Egotistical Ass-Hat that is Ginger Dildo, Silver--Heaven's to Betsy!--communicated directly with player representatives that day. He let everyone know he would deal with it immediately; this would not "simmer" for weeks with the appearance of hoping it would "go away."

Third, the NBA allows and supports player activism outside the court. That creates a very different attitude: Princess James can say what he wants without fear of being "cut," certainly, but the same applies for J'qwan Finkelmez, the New Orleans pick playing in the Canadian league based in Bahrain. . . .

Because . . . the NBA players have guaranteed contracts. The NFL do not. The NBA has a strong enough union with few enough players. One or two players per team shuts that team down. A strike would be disasterous for the NBA, because it is not like there are bunches of NBA quality basketball players "waiting for their chance" out there. If the owners try to lock out players, they face independently wealthy players who can mount legal challenges. Fans know them and worship them.

Still, Ginger Dildo could have solved this very easily by applying a similar approach. Instead he, and the owners, lived up to their negative stereotypes as "slave owners." So players who fight this are not only "Fighting Trump" they are "sticking it to Ginger Dildo."

Finally, [ZZZzzzzzzZZ--Ed.] not all of the owners agree with Ginger Dildo. So you have owners claiming they will simply pay any fine for their players if they kneel.

--J.D.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

xouper wrote:The NBA doesn't allow disrespect during the anthem, so where is all the outrage about that?
Thanks to RCC and Doctor X for explaining the differences between the NBA and the NFL. You have sufficiently answered my question and therefore I withdraw my (implied) objection.

I appreciate that you took the time and effort to do that without attacking me for asking. You have persuaded me to revise my understanding.

My other question is still on the table: If there is no provision in the employee contract otherwise, why do employees think they have a legal right (during the performance of their job) to express whatever they want in front of the customers? Is the law not settled on that issue?
Pyrrho
Posts: 32013
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

The legal right to freedom of speech is conferred by the First Amendment, even if a person has a job, even if they indulge in freedom of speech on the job.

Employers are likewise free to act on behavior they don't like in the workplace. Unless they--or the employees--don't care.

Domestic Violence Expert Resigns From NFL Players Association Commission
The NFL's Players Association Commission on Violence Prevention was formed after several NFL players were accused of violence against their domestic partners, including Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens, who knocked his fiancée unconscious in an elevator.

In 2014, Epstein, director of the Georgetown University Law Center's Domestic Violence Clinic, was asked to serve on the commission. She and research psychologist Lisa Goodman were authorized to conduct a national study of players' wives, collecting the women's suggestions for handling domestic violence and supporting its victims.

As she tells NPR, her decision to resign came after troubling "pattern emerged" in her communications with the NFLPA.

...

"The Player's Association contacts that I have would welcome those ideas, tell me they were eminently doable, but that they had to get kicked down the road because 'It was the Super Bowl, it was the draft, it was the season,' " she says. "And I would come back and reiterate my suggestions, and eventually I found that communication would just die on the vine."

"I realized very little, if anything, was going to happen."

NFLPA said it respects Epstein's decision to resign, but has disagreed with her reasoning. NFLPA Deputy Managing Director Teri Smith says the association never had plans to publicly release the study. "We did circulate that report to our player leadership, and we have implemented a number of recommendations made by [Epstein], both in that report and over the life of the commission being in existence," Smith says.
Doctor X
Posts: 75342
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Neither they, nor the NFL cares.

Other than to show a few ads where Goat Face Junior and Hillary Swank cry.

Because that will change everything.

http://static-25.sinclairstoryline.com/ ... 6510422217

--J.D.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32013
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Esptein, who signed a confidentiality agreement with the NFLPA, says she can't divulge what recommendations she provided in the report. Ostensibly, the confidentiality protects the anonymity of spouses and partners of NFL players from retribution, allowing them to speak freely.

"Although there are ways to create confidentiality about individual people without creating confidentiality about the recommendations that emerged from such a report, I'm not allowed to talk about either one," Epstein says.

But she will say why she thinks the actions the NFLPA says it's taken do not align with the commission's recommendations — and beyond that, she says, are "woefully inadequate."

First, she says, the hire of a director of wellness "is responsible for all wellness-related issues for more than 1,500 NFL players scattered across the country, and she has no particular training or experience in the field of domestic violence."

While Epstein says the crisis management training the NFLPA has introduced for player-interfacing staff is "terrific," crisis management as it relates to alcohol, drugs or mental health is "very different than managing a crisis of domestic violence for someone who's actually at risk of physical harm."

The NFLPA's third action, a focus on marriage counseling and couples enrichment, concerns Epstein the most.

"If you speak to anyone who works in the domestic violence field, they will tell you we have known for more than a quarter-century: that marriage-based/couples-based counseling is absolutely not the way to deal with domestic violence," she says.

"When a power dynamic in a relationship is so deeply unequal, it's not the way to go. So they are not only taking inadequate actions, they are taking actions that are not recommended by the advocacy community."
It is what it is I guess.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Pyrrho wrote:The legal right to freedom of speech is conferred by the First Amendment, even if a person has a job, even if they indulge in freedom of speech on the job. Employers are likewise free to act on behavior they don't like in the workplace. Unless they--or the employees--don't care.
Point of clarification (I assume everyone here already knows this): The First Amendment protection of free speech applies only to censorship by the government, not by private entities. The government cannot censor your speech on the job, but your employer can.
findlaw.com wrote:Employees who work in the private-sector do not, as a rule, have First Amendment protection for their speech in the workplace.
And then the article lists some possible exceptions imposed by other laws, which do not seem to apply to NFL player anthem protests.

In other words, certain NFL players are demanding a right from their employers that almost no other employee in the US has. I have no sympathy for them on that point.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32013
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

If an employer censors speech they do not like, employees still have the right to freedom of speech.

If an employer bans guns from their premises, employees still have the right to keep and bear arms.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Pyrrho wrote:If an employer censors speech they do not like, employees still have the right to freedom of speech.

If an employer bans guns from their premises, employees still have the right to keep and bear arms.
Tuesday is not my favorite day of the week, which may be why I am not following the point you are trying to make. What's the takeaway message here?

For the sake of getting clarification I might ask: What idea are you trying to convey to me by saying you "have the right" even though your employer will not let you exercise it on the job?
Pyrrho
Posts: 32013
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

My employer cannot take away my constitutional rights even if they fire me for exercising those rights.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Pyrrho wrote:My employer cannot take away my constitutional rights even if they fire me for exercising those rights.
Yes, I agree. That seems like a clear factual statement.

I am still not getting how that fact applies to the discussion in this thread (and I shall assume by default that my failure to get it is my fault, that I have overlooked something), so let me try a different question:

What inference are you hoping I will draw from that fact?
Pyrrho
Posts: 32013
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

None whatsoever.

I am done.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Pyrrho wrote:None whatsoever.

Pyrrho wrote:I am done.
Fair enough. I've wasted too much of your time (and mine) trying to find out if you had some point to make beyond merely stating a well known fact.

https://i.imgflip.com/1hf9sf.jpg

:wink:
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
Congrats on the elegant example of my point. That some people define their own political view as the default so they can then criticize opposition as bringing politics into it. They do it so often they become oblivious to the idea.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

xouper wrote:
Many of your points make sense, but I disagree with your usage of the word "political" in this context. It certainly isn't consistent with any of my dictionaries. Playing the anthem is not necessarily political, nor is it necessarily an endorsement of the status quo. Perhaps a different word might be more accurate.

"relating to the government or the public affairs of a country" was the first definition that popped up when I googled it. Personally, I agree with the Aristotelian idea that human beings are political animals, and thus the vast majority of human interaction is political. I don't consider the word in any way to be a pejorative, which is consistent with my point. Those that do are being (usually unwittingly) disingenuous.

Even using a narrower view of the concept, having a national anthem is a political act much less playing it in public.

In this example, playing the anthem isn't an endorsement of the status quo, it is the status quo itself. When one objects to protests or calls to remove the anthem because they do not want to bring politics into sports, that is the endorsement of the status quo. The person (generally not willfully or consciously) if defining their political beliefs as a somehow apolitical state of normality in order to justify shutting down opposition by painting a conflicting political viewpoint as spoiling this idea of normality.

Nonetheless, in my opinion, the NFL player-protesters are behaving like spoiled brats. They are claiming a legal right for themselves that
almost no one else in the US has.
[/quote]

What they are in is a labor dispute. What they are doing is something anyone can do. The protesters are risking their careers in order to stand up for something they believe in. Which is also something that non-craven people are willing to do. Employers can fire people for this sort of thing, but they do so at their peril. Customers are free to judge them as well.

The "spoiled" language is just another curious thing. It is another curiosity that athletes (and often other workers) are considered spoiled when they use their market leverage to demand beneficial working conditions. I mean, it isn't really curious. It is just anti-labor bias.
ed
Posts: 41484
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

RCC: Act II wrote: In this example, playing the anthem isn't an endorsement of the status quo, it is the status quo itself.
Wouldn't you say that the very fact of living in a country and being subject to it's laws is a political act too?
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: In this example, playing the anthem isn't an endorsement of the status quo, it is the status quo itself.
Wouldn't you say that the very fact of living in a country and being subject to it's laws is a political act too?
Absolutely. The idea of what "law" is is itself a raging political/legal debate that has gone on as long as political entities are a thing. The idea of unjust laws and so on.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to see the act of living in and subjecting oneself to a political entity (a county) and it's processes (laws) as being non-political. It is "night is day" level obliviousness IMO.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

I guess a simple, more visceral way, to explain my point is:

When a person objects to other people "bringing politics into this," that person is complaining that their safe space is being violated.

I'm all for safe spaces as a concept. I just don't think it is appropriate to make the NFL one of them for people that are offended by athletes who do not display what they see as proper fealty to capital and country. Go join a country club or something.
ed
Posts: 41484
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

I tend to agree. I dislike sports generally because I sense more than a whiff of choreographed groupthink about them, not unlike the two minutes hate.

That said, I resent employees co-opting the will of their employers. And the esthetics of highly paid ne'er do wells(1) theatrically showing "solidarity" with people they would not give the time of day to in everyday life frankly disgusts me.

(1) I know that this phrase does not fit exactly but I like the sound of it in this context. I am using it as a form of onamonapia.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

It just fucking ruins what little is left UN-ruined in the sport. I also don't give a fuck which running back got a DUI, punched his wife or murdered a co-worker. And were I a ticket payer (which I will never again be) I'd be fucking pissed.

Safe-space? Yea, I want a safe-space.

I want to see the game, without interruptions (commercials notwithstanding), without other social or political concern, without any thought other than can I pay my bookie.

Same goes for movies and TV. It's your production so feel free to bring your politics overtly into it, but don't expect me to pay to see politics I didn't ask for. Robert De Niro is a perfect recent example. Robert, buddy, you're not that bright outside your acting range. Your range ain't that great in the first place. Try not to alienate half your audience.

But I'm not a ticket payer and no longer an ad-watcher except when I click past something on OTA tv.

Thanks Trump, for making it worse
Thanks NFL, for allowing him to do so
Thanks wife, for bringing me a fuckin' sandwich with swiss; you know I hate that cheese.

They're doing it on purpose.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

RCC: Act II wrote:
xouper wrote:Many of your points make sense, but I disagree with your usage of the word "political" in this context. It certainly isn't consistent with any of my dictionaries. Playing the anthem is not necessarily political, nor is it necessarily an endorsement of the status quo. Perhaps a different word might be more accurate.

"relating to the government or the public affairs of a country" was the first definition that popped up when I googled it. Personally, I agree with the Aristotelian idea that human beings are political animals, and thus the vast majority of human interaction is political. I don't consider the word in any way to be a pejorative, which is consistent with my point. Those that do are being (usually unwittingly) disingenuous.

Even using a narrower view of the concept, having a national anthem is a political act much less playing it in public.

In this example, playing the anthem isn't an endorsement of the status quo, it is the status quo itself. When one objects to protests or calls to remove the anthem because they do not want to bring politics into sports, that is the endorsement of the status quo. The person (generally not willfully or consciously) if defining their political beliefs as a somehow apolitical state of normality in order to justify shutting down opposition by painting a conflicting political viewpoint as spoiling this idea of normality.
xouper wrote:Nonetheless, in my opinion, the NFL player-protesters are behaving like spoiled brats. They are claiming a legal right for themselves that almost no one else in the US has.
What they are in is a labor dispute. What they are doing is something anyone can do. The protesters are risking their careers in order to stand up for something they believe in. Which is also something that non-craven people are willing to do. Employers can fire people for this sort of thing, but they do so at their peril. Customers are free to judge them as well.
Well said. I enjoy the way you express your opinions, as they often give me something to actually think about. Try as I might, however, to find a way to agree with your opinions or interpretations in this particular matter, I still cannot agree with most of them. But I do appreciate reading your well written explanations, so thanks for taking the time to do that. You are still one of my favorite posters here on this forum precisely because you often post valuable insights about many different topics, this topic included.

As you observed and I agree, that as a (former) customer, I am free to judge them. And in fact I have. It seems you and I have judged them differently.

Also, and this is a key point where your insights do not apply to me, it is not my intention to shut down the protests by the players. I am not offended by their political opinions and I do not need a safe space to protect me from political opinions I do not like. Just don't do it while I'm paying you to play football. That is my objection.

RCC: Act II wrote:The "spoiled" language is just another curious thing. It is another curiosity that athletes (and often other workers) are considered spoiled when they use their market leverage to demand beneficial working conditions. I mean, it isn't really curious. It is just anti-labor bias.
I've been zinged. :shock:

Allow me to explain what I meant by "spoiled", because it was not for the reason you suggest.

(I could just easily say that characterizing the protesting players as being in a "labor dispute" and are demanding "beneficial working conditions" shows an anti-management bias, but now is not the time to go there.)

In a labor dispute, as you call this (and I do not agree that is all it is), there are mature ways to negotiate as opposed to, say, crybaby ways to negotiate. Intentionally and publicly violating the terms of their contract as a way to negotiate better terms is not always the most mature way to do it. They come across as crybabies, and in addition, because of the huge salaries they make, "spoiled". I do not object to them using the market advantage to negotiate for better working conditions, but rather I call them spoiled brats because they are behaving like they deserve special treatment, like spoiled brats.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

### Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

xouper wrote:[

As you observed and I agree, that as a (former) customer, I am free to judge them. And in fact I have. It seems you and I have judged them differently.
Same conclusion, different reasoning. The NFL is spineless in a way to antagonize pretty much everyone. It's poop in the refrigerator and eat a wheel of cheese territory. It's almost impressive. They couldn't fuck up this much on purpose.
I am not offended by their political opinions and I do not need a safe space to protect me from political opinions I do not like. Just don't do it while I'm paying you to play football. That is my objection.
They aren't doing it while playing football. If they were allowed to just play football this thread would not exist.
Other than that, I agree that there is a time and place for everything. I don't want to hear people's shit either, really. I'm a golfer. I like to watch it here or there, and I sure as fuck am likely to change the channel if I were to be exposed to the average golfer's political opinions. It just doesn't come up, so maybe I'm not really seeing this from the other side.

However, the golfers aren't being required to pay lip service to my idea of what it means to be an American. Like if they were forced to listen to a reading of MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail or something and decided to blow spit bubbles as a protest because they think socialism killed 100 million people. I'd be annoyed and would go out of my way to not patronize those player's sponsors, but I'd think cutting the speech would be the way to go, not forcing a respectful reaction to it. On the other hand for good or ill the anthem and ceremonial displays of patriotism, not reverence for MLK's more radical words, is the social norm, and respect for social norms carries some value.

Anyway, that being said...

Forcing people to stand for the anthem makes standing for the anthem meaningless. When person A is forced to stand, it strips person B's standing of meaning. Respect by definition is voluntary. There are those that mistake obedience for respect. That never ends well. I could draw a direct analogy to how it is a social norm to at least give lip service to respecting MLK and how that resulted in MLK's message being sanitized and distorted into lukewarm "lets just all get along" liberalism that the very same white moderates MLK railed against use to avoid confronting their collaboration in a racist society. Which is a whole different story but you get the general idea.

In a labor dispute, as you call this (and I do not agree that is all it is), there are mature ways to negotiate as opposed to, say, crybaby ways to negotiate. Intentionally and publicly violating the terms of their contract as a way to negotiate better terms is not always the most mature way to do it.
There is nothing about the anthem in the CBA.

So yes, I agree that violating the collective bargaining agreement as a way to negotiate is crybaby behavior. If the owners are wrongfully blackballing players they should suffer consequences.

Thank you for not overreacting to my occasional glib cheap shot, like the one directly above....