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

Never agree to 3 points on top of the vig.
User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 31333
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

Post by Pyrrho »

None whatsoever.

I am done.
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.
User avatar
xouper
Posts: 10200
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

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote:None whatsoever.
That answers my question. Thanks.

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.



Image

: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

Post by RCC: Act II »

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

Post by RCC: Act II »

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.
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40650
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

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

Post by ed »

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?
This space for let
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

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

Post by RCC: Act II »

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

Post by RCC: Act II »

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.
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40650
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

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

Post by ed »

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.
This space for let
User avatar
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

Post by Rob Lister »

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.
User avatar
xouper
Posts: 10200
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

Post by xouper »

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

Post by RCC: Act II »

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....