On "taking a knee"

[EmseB]

Are you serious?

 

Well the president of the United States, for one.

 

 

You missed the whole point of my post because I addressed exactly that issue.

 

He didn't say they can't. He didn't try to stop them from doing it.  He has no means to stop them from doing it.  He expressed an (idiotic, IMO) opinion about what should happen if they do and whether or not they should.  There is a HUGE difference.

 

People are saying if they do it, it's unpatriotic/disrespectful/whatever.  That is vastly different from telling someone they can't do it, especially when their league is supporting their protest efforts.

[Tanaqui]

Who was being racist? I dont remember seeing that anywhere on here. You can't ascribe negative motives to your opposition, contrary to their stated words, and then criticize them for those things hey never said and actively disclaim. No productive discussion in a reasonable society can take place with that happening.

 

I'm not going to give you a point-by-point, name-by-name analysis of every racist comment on this thread, but there are at least two commenters who are blowing that dogwhistle. Not in a "implicit bias" sort of way, but in a "hoo-boy, that's some racist garbage" sort of way.

 

If you don't see it, that's the problem.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Tanaqui

[Guest]

Well I'd condemn them on that point. Tada! Seriously, I can account for the people I've discussed this with, the comments I've seen on here, and myself. I will not make a defense for those who are racist in their words and actions, but most of the country is not. And if you're looking for racism you are completely missing and misunderstanding your fellow man.

 

Those misunderstandings and miscommunications and assumptions of evil intent are precisely what is destroying this country and breaking it into tribalistic pieces. Where we assume and ascribe, we cannot actually communicate.

 

I'm out.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[8circles]

Well, I gave quite a bit more nuance than that, but that's my main objection. And, you know, ratings were down 11% over last year. I'd actually point to the larger politicization of sports being a big issue, but this is the flash point.

 

What is actually achieved by kneeling, other than annoying some of your fan base and feeding the ones who'd agree anyway, is also the question. This gesture is becoming a muddled mess.

 

I'll be polite and pretend you weren't needlessly sarcastic to thoughtful responses. The echo chamber on this thread really doesn't reflect real life, but a whole lot of us are just tired and bored and fed up. And it has nothing to do with racism. Nobody on here is arguing from a racist perspective and assuming our motives it tiresome. It's also a straw man.

 

Nuance, shmuance. What difference does it make? My summary of your points is correct, as you've confirmed. I think it speaks for itself.

 

No, I wasn't being sarcastic - I was summarizing your point. It only sounds sarcastic because you deny how apathetic it is. And you know, deep down inside, that it's wrong. 

 

ETA (somehow my post got really messed-up so here's what was originally missing):

 

What makes you think YOUR life is REAL life & everyone else's isn't?

 

I don't think your motives are at all relevant so I have no need to make yours racist.

Edited September 27, 2017 by 8circles

[ktgrok]

Well, I gave quite a bit more nuance than that, but that's my main objection. And, you know, ratings were down 11% over last year. I'd actually point to the larger politicization of sports being a big issue, but this is the flash point.

 

 

 

But those people aren't turning off the TV because they think the protest is ineffective. They aren't calling for the players to be fired, and in some cases jailed or even killed, because they think it is ineffective. They aren't calling them names because they are concerned about the efficacy of the protest. They are angry, and not because they think the protests are a waste of time. That level of outrage and anger comes from something bigger.

[ktgrok]

. You can't ascribe negative motives to your opposition, contrary to their stated words, and then criticize them for those things hey never said and actively disclaim. No productive discussion in a reasonable society can take place with that happening.

 

Um, isn't that EXACTLY what people who object to the players taking a knee are doing? 

[8circles]

Well I'd condemn them on that point. Tada! 

 

Do you mean you WOULD condemn them if you saw it, but you don't see it?

 

Or do you mean you DO condemn it because you see it?

[ktgrok]

You missed the whole point of my post because I addressed exactly that issue.

 

He didn't say they can't. He didn't try to stop them from doing it.  He has no means to stop them from doing it.  He expressed an (idiotic, IMO) opinion about what should happen if they do and whether or not they should.  There is a HUGE difference.

 

People are saying if they do it, it's unpatriotic/disrespectful/whatever.  That is vastly different from telling someone they can't do it, especially when their league is supporting their protest efforts.

 

He called them names using foul language and then said multiple times they should be fired from their jobs. If they are fired, they can't knee on the field, so yes, he is trying to stop them, by using his influence to get them fired. 

[Guest]

Nuance, shmuance. What difference does it make? My summary of your points is correct, as you've confirmed. I think it speaks for itself.

 

 

No, I wasn't being sarcastic - I was summarizing your point. It only sounds sarcastic because you deny how apathetic it is. And you know, deep down inside, that it's wrong.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic - I was summarizing your point. It only sounds sarcastic because you deny how apathetic it is. And you know, deep down inside, that it's wrong.

Right here, you've missed it. This is why we leave the conversation, and constructive discussions can't take place. Enjoy the echo chamber where you're all right and good and on the only side of reason. And then wonder why neighbor hates neighbor and nobody understands anyone else and doesn't even want to try.

 

You've driven me out. I tried again today but I'm done with this nonsense. I should know better than to expect people on here to not blow up something even vaguely political and twist it into insults and jabs. But I'm an idiot and was hoping for more. Thanks to everyone who did engage politely and without assuming motive, intent, or setting up straw men in place of actually talking to me about what I mean and say.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Paige]

 

Those misunderstandings and miscommunications and assumptions of evil intent are precisely what is destroying this country and breaking it into tribalistic pieces. Where we assume and ascribe, we cannot actually communicate.

 

 

 

Isn't that what's happening to the athletes who kneel- evil intent and assumptions about their motives have been assumed instead of believing them when they share what their actual intent and motivations are?

 

I can understand not caring if they kneel, not thinking it matters or will make a difference, and thinking there are better ways to protest if that's what they want. I don't understand being actually angry about it. I'm not saying that's you- I don't sense anger from you, personally, but I see it in Trump, my MIL, and others. 

[8circles]

Right here, you've missed it. This is why we leave the conversation, and constructive discussions can't take place. Enjoy the echo chamber where you're all right and good and on the only side of reason. And then wonder why neighbor hates neighbor and nobody understands anyone else and doesn't even want to try.

 

You've driven me out. I tried again today but I'm done with this nonsense.

 

Your insistence on calling this an echo chamber is not helpful to the conversation. Who is "we"?

 

I've repeated back to you what you've said. You agreed that that was your argument, but I was missing nuance. I disagree that there is any nuance that can change the meaning or what I think about that argument.

 

I've asked you thoughtful questions.

 

How, exactly, did I drive you out? 

 

ETA: (And, I've fixed my last post that you quoted that got messed-up.)

Edited September 27, 2017 by 8circles

[Lady Florida.]

Who is saying they can't do this?

 

 

 

Um, the President of the United States. 

[Guinevere]

Black men kneeling for the anthem are disrespecting our soldiers and military, but a white billionaire mocking Gold Star families and POWs ("I like soldiers who don't get captured") is not disrespectful?  Black men kneeling in peaceful protest = "spitting on the graves of WWII soldiers," but a president who refers to Nazis as "very fine people" when they march through the streets chanting "make America white again" is respectful to those who died at the hands of the Nazis?

 

That is the blatant, disgusting face of racism in America right now.

 

I disagree with this.

 

It doesn't have to be either extreme.  I am against BOTH.  I am not against the RIGHTS of the black men to kneel, I just think it's a poor choice.  It also doesn't mean that I can't hear their protest, and think rationally about it.

[EmseB]

Um, the President of the United States. 

 

Again, expressing a negative opinion about a protest is not saying that one can't protest in that way.

 

I'm starting to think that if someone wants to protest but is not looking to garner any negative attention from said protest, especially the political figures they are protesting, then they misunderstand what protesting is.

 

The few times I've protested anything, I've gone knowing that people will be in disagreement with me.  And they were!  And, amazingly, what they said did not in any way effect me being able to protest.

[Caroline]

Again, expressing a negative opinion about a protest is not saying that one can't protest in that way.

 

I'm starting to think that if someone wants to protest but is not looking to garner any negative attention from said protest, especially the political figures they are protesting, then they misunderstand what protesting is.

 

The few times I've protested anything, I've gone knowing that people will be in disagreement with me. And they were! And, amazingly, what they said did not in any way effect me being able to protest.

The original protest wasn't against President Trump. It started before he was even a candidate. The protest is about black men being shot by policemen. Nothing to do with Trump.

 

But then, after saying Neo Nazis are very fine people, the president called these men sons of ... and said they should be fired. Do you really think that is an appropriate thing for the President of the United States to say? He said they should be fired for protesting.

[Lady Florida.]

Again, expressing a negative opinion about a protest is not saying that one can't protest in that way.

 

 

 

As someone already pointed out upthread, he called for their firing. He is the leader of the free world and most certainly said they shouldn't be allowed to protest in that way. 

[EmseB]

Maybe that's true.  I know too many people who said they were not okay with it, but still were willing to elect that person to lead our country.  They think the athletes taking a knee should be fired.  So, it doesn't disqualify someone from being president of our country, but it should disqualify someone from being a football player?  I'm just saying some self-examination might be in order for people that think that way. 

 

 

I think those questions are a decision for the league to make, but if someone thinks that football games are for entertainment and not political activism because they watch football for entertainment...well, then I don't assume the worst about them.  There are plenty of people who would get fired for making a political statement while on the job, so it's not that unusual to think that way. There are people who have made political statements anyway and bore the cost of their protest in the form of losing their jobs.  There are plenty of people who have faced consequences for political speech on both sides. Ultimately it was their companies who made the decision on what was acceptable speech on and off the clock and what wasn't.

 

First of all, these players aren't getting fired, the owners have pretty much come out in solidarity with them. The one player who did decide to stand for the anthem later apologized.  Secondly, perhaps people have examined themselves and decided that they still think NFL players shouldn't be involved with political activism while getting paid to play for any number of reasons. I think that's a valid prerogative in light of a protest that's designed to draw attention in a specific way.

[EmseB]

But then, after saying Neo Nazis are very fine people, the president called these men sons of ... and said they should be fired. Do you really think that is an appropriate thing for the President of the United States to say? He said they should be fired for protesting.

 

 

No, I think it's ridiculous, idiotic, and beneath the dignity of the office.  So what else is new? It still doesn't mean that they can't protest in this way.  What it means is that the president disagrees with their actions and thinks their employers should not employ them and has said as much.  Presidents disagree with a lot of people and say so.

 

 

As someone already pointed out upthread, he called for their firing. He is the leader of the free world and most certainly said they shouldn't be allowed to protest in that way. 

 

Okay, but unlike in other countries, what he tweets has no bearing on what the employers of these players actually have to do, and because of our constitution and separation of powers, he can spout all he wants about how people protest and it means absolutely nothing except his own opinion.  He can't get them fired.  He won't get them fired. He's blowing hot air in order to get a reaction.  As silly as that is for a grown man, the best thing to do is treat such statements relative to the power they actually have to do anything, which in this case is a big fat goose egg.

 

Leader of the free world actually means nothing in the context of what he thinks should happen to football players who want to kneel at the anthem. It actually means less than zero when the owners of said teams line up in solidarity with said players.

 

Reacting to him as if these words carry weight or actually mean anything beyond the man's own bloviating gives him a power that he doesn't actually have.  The president can disagree with people's actions and even say he thinks x should happen.  Presidents have done this since we've had presidents. It's actually been a lot worse than tweeting that some NFL players should get fired.

 

 

I actually think that if people had a more appropriate view of the power of the executive branch they'd be far less worried about what Trump says on Twitter about football players' relatively innocuous protest gestures.

Edited September 27, 2017 by EmseB

[Caroline]

No, I think it's ridiculous, idiotic, and beneath the dignity of the office. So what else is new? It still doesn't mean that they can't protest in this way. What it means is that the president disagrees with their actions and thinks their employers should not employ them and has said as much. Presidents disagree with a lot of people and say so.

 

 

 

Okay, but unlike in other countries, what he tweets has no bearing on what the employers of these players actually have to do, and because of our constitution and separation of powers, he can spout all he wants about how people protest and it means absolutely nothing except his own opinion. He can't get them fired. He won't get them fired. He's blowing hot air in order to get a reaction. As silly as that is for a grown man, the best thing to do is treat such statements relative to the power they actually have to do anything, which in this case is a big fat goose egg.

 

Leader of the free world actually means nothing in the context of what he thinks should happen to football players who want to kneel at the anthem. It actually means less than zero when the owners of said teams line up in solidarity with said players.

 

Reacting to him as if these words carry weight or actually mean anything beyond the man's own bloviating gives him a power that he doesn't actually have. The president can disagree with people's actions and even say he thinks x should happen. Presidents have done this since we've had presidents. It's actually been a lot worse than tweeting that some NFL players should get fired.

 

 

I actually think that if people had a more appropriate view of the power of the executive branch they'd be far less worried about what Trump says on Twitter about football.

Excuse me? I do know the power of the executive branch. I think the reaction by the NFL owners and players to his rants were spot on. I know he cannot fire the players. However, I also think he needs to be called to task for his idiocy. Thank you Uncle Arthur.

[goldberry]

There are plenty of people who would get fired for making a political statement while on the job, so it's not that unusual to think that way. There are people who have made political statements anyway and bore the cost of their protest in the form of losing their jobs.  There are plenty of people who have faced consequences for political speech on both sides. 

 

 

 

I just want to clarify something that repeatedly gets lost in this conversation, not to you explicitly but in general.  Playing the anthem and standing for the anthem is political speech.  This is made clear by the Supreme Court case I referenced earlier.  The players are choosing not to engage in this political speech.  

 

The idea that an employer can force (and I mean force by firing them if they do not engage) someone to engage in political speech via "compelled observance of rituals" is a constitutional issue that would rightly go to the Supreme Court if challenged.  This is NOT the same as someone engaging actively in political issues at the workplace against the wishes of the employer.  In this case, the employer is the one who initiated the political speech

 

ETA, the idea that an individual could be compelled by an employer to participate in political speech or be fired should be concerning to Americans.

Edited September 27, 2017 by goldberry

[Greta]

No, I think it's ridiculous, idiotic, and beneath the dignity of the office. So what else is new? It still doesn't mean that they can't protest in this way. What it means is that the president disagrees with their actions and thinks their employers should not employ them and has said as much. Presidents disagree with a lot of people and say so.

 

 

 

Okay, but unlike in other countries, what he tweets has no bearing on what the employers of these players actually have to do, and because of our constitution and separation of powers, he can spout all he wants about how people protest and it means absolutely nothing except his own opinion. He can't get them fired. He won't get them fired. He's blowing hot air in order to get a reaction. As silly as that is for a grown man, the best thing to do is treat such statements relative to the power they actually have to do anything, which in this case is a big fat goose egg.

 

Leader of the free world actually means nothing in the context of what he thinks should happen to football players who want to kneel at the anthem. It actually means less than zero when the owners of said teams line up in solidarity with said players.

 

Reacting to him as if these words carry weight or actually mean anything beyond the man's own bloviating gives him a power that he doesn't actually have. The president can disagree with people's actions and even say he thinks x should happen. Presidents have done this since we've had presidents. It's actually been a lot worse than tweeting that some NFL players should get fired.

 

 

I actually think that if people had a more appropriate view of the power of the executive branch they'd be far less worried about what Trump says on Twitter about football.

Our president is promoting the idea that some citizens deserve first amendment rights while others do not. He is normalizing racism, he is making bigotry mainstream. He doesn't have the power of the law behind him in wanting to silence protestors, but that doesn't mean he is powerless. What he says matters, because he influences people.

[ktgrok]

Um, the President of the United States. 

 

And the people saying they should be shot, hanged, kicked out of the country, jailed, etc. 

[Pawz4me]

I just want to clarify something that repeatedly gets lost in this conversation, not to you explicitly but in general.  Playing the anthem and standing for the anthem is political speech.  This is made clear by the Supreme Court case I referenced earlier.  The players are choosing not to engage in this political speech.  

 

The idea that an employer can force (and I mean force by firing them if they do not engage) someone to engage in political speech via "compelled observance of rituals" is a constitutional issue that would rightly go to the Supreme Court if challenged.  This is NOT the same as someone engaging actively in political issues at the workplace against the wishes of the employer.  In this case, the employer is the one who initiated the political speech

 

ETA, the idea that an individual could be compelled by an employer to participate in political speech or be fired should be concerning to Americans.

 

 

Our president is promoting the idea that some citizens deserve first amendment rights while others do not. He is normalizing racism, he is making bigotry mainstream. He doesn't have the power of the law behind him in wanting to silence protestors, but that doesn't mean he is powerless. What he says matters, because he influences people.

 

I'm out of likes again (sigh). But ^^yes!^^

 

I think too many don't understand the First Amendment/Constitutional implications of what he said, or aren't taking that part of this whole brouhaha seriously.

 

It's very worrisome to me. Very.

[ktgrok]

Again, expressing a negative opinion about a protest is not saying that one can't protest in that way.

 

I'm starting to think that if someone wants to protest but is not looking to garner any negative attention from said protest, especially the political figures they are protesting, then they misunderstand what protesting is.

 

The few times I've protested anything, I've gone knowing that people will be in disagreement with me.  And they were!  And, amazingly, what they said did not in any way effect me being able to protest.

 

Were they in a position of power, calling you names and trying to get you fired from your job? Probably not. 

 

Were they calling for your death on social media? Saying you don't deserve to be in the country? Etc?

Edited September 27, 2017 by ktgrok

[ktgrok]

As others said, this isn't about the players bringing politics into it, they are abstaining from something, not doing something. Thinking people should be fired for refusing to participate in the Anthem is unamerican. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This is the first time in my entire life that I've heard anyone claim that the president of the United States isn't really all that powerful or influential.

[Corraleno]

From former Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden:

 

"As a 39-year military veteran, I think I know something about the flag, the anthem, patriotism, and I think I know why we fight. It’s not to allow the president to divide us by wrapping himself in the national banner. I never imagined myself saying this before Friday, but if now forced to choose in this dispute, put me down with Kaepernick. "

 

 

[EmseB]

Excuse me? I do know the power of the executive branch. I think the reaction by the NFL owners and players to his rants were spot on. I know he cannot fire the players. However, I also think he needs to be called to task for his idiocy. Thank you Uncle Arthur.

 

Okay, but what does that mean, "called to task"?  How? He said something stupid.  He is not the first president to do so and won't be the last. The NFL can react however they want. Just like the president saying something stupid doesn't mean people can't kneel during the anthem.  That was my whole point.

[Barb_]

Okay, but what does that mean, "called to task"? How? He said something stupid. He is not the first president to do so and won't be the last. The NFL can react however they want. Just like the president saying something stupid doesn't mean people can't kneel during the anthem. That was my whole point.

No, he said something hateful, profane and threatening in public to a group of American citizens. I feel pretty safe in saying he is the first president to do that.

[EmseB]

This is the first time in my entire life that I've heard anyone claim that the president of the United States isn't really all that powerful or influential.

 

Really?  I learned about the limits of presidential power in civics class in high school. I would say the executive branch is probably the least powerful branch of government as things stand today. That's actually what my comment was referring to.

 

Does he have the power to fire NFL players? Does he have the power to keep people from protesting by taking a knee? Does he have the ability to pass a law requiring people to stand for the anthem or flag? Can he deny anyone their first amendment rights by tweeting his opinion?

 

I would say that this president's impotence is largely displayed in his tweets themselves.  That's the best he's got going, and it's not very much because they have no actual power and seem to largely influence the public in the opposite direction of what he tweets out.

[8circles]

2017 NFL Rulebook Section 5 http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#article-5.-fumble

 

ARTICLE 8. PERSONAL MESSAGES

Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office. All such items approved by the League office, if any, must relate to team or League events or personages. The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns. Further, any such approved items must be modest in size, tasteful, non-commercial, and non-controversial; must not be worn for more than one football season; and if approved for use by a specific team, must not be worn by players on other teams in the League.

[EmseB]

No, he said something hateful, profane and threatening in public to a group of American citizens. I feel pretty safe in saying he is the first president to do that.

Have you read much of Lyndon Johnson's views about blacks? Andrew Jackson's views on Native Americans? Heck, one of the Roosevelts (Teddy, I think) was an outspoken proponent of eugenics. FDR not just talking about but actually interning Japanese Americans? FDR and the Newport scandal? Bill Clinton talking about African Americans watching the news? Obama talking about the Special Olympics? And many, many others who were just outright racist or eugenicist?

 

I don't like our current president. I think history shows there were a lot of presidents who said outrageously profane, hateful, stupid, things and actually did WAY worse things that Trump is even capable of conceiving of. The more that I think about it in the context of history, the more inane and vacuous this NFL thing becomes. I mean, we had a president actually inter Americans based on race. And this NFL tweet is supposed to be worse than that?

Edited September 27, 2017 by EmseB

[EmseB]

I'll just say one last thing because I'm aware my opinion is not exactly welcome, but what I see being normalized is a high level of outrage. I see people going apoplectic about an idiotic tweet that carries no real weight except maybe to amplify its own inanity and I worry that if something consequential actually happens most people will shrug because they've seen the melodramatic reactions to everything else before. Outrage fatigue from the general public is what I fear.

 

You can argue that the tweet is consequential and influential and I am just putting my head in the sand. I see examples in history of how things could go much more poorly than an idiotic tweet about sport. And I worry that if it gets to something really bad, people will not know the difference because they'll have been watching people dial it up to 11 for every.little.thing for months and months.

[Sneezyone]

Speaking for myself, the tweet is a distraction. The enmity directed at /sicced on peaceful protesters is far more revealing.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Barb_]

I'll just say one last thing because I'm aware my opinion is not exactly welcome, but what I see being normalized is a high level of outrage. I see people going apoplectic about an idiotic tweet that carries no real weight except maybe to amplify its own inanity and I worry that if something consequential actually happens most people will shrug because they've seen the melodramatic reactions to everything else before. Outrage fatigue from the general public is what I fear.

 

You can argue that the tweet is consequential and influential and I am just putting my head in the sand. I see examples in history of how things could go much more poorly than an idiotic tweet about sport. And I worry that if it gets to something really bad, people will not know the difference because they'll have been watching people dial it up to 11 for every.little.thing for months and months.

I've written a few different responses but erased them. I'm only going to say that people are at 11 because they feel that what has happened and what is being set up to happen is already really, really bad.

[EmseB]

I've written a few different responses but erased them. I'm only going to say that people are at 11 because they feel that what has happened and what is being set up to happen is already really, really bad.

Right. People have thought that and have been at 11 since before he even took office or had any opportunity to take any action. And I'm saying that looking at the context of history, we're pretty far from bad. In other words, I don't think we're anywhere near the government being able to do some of the things it somehow managed in the past. But, if a tweet is an 11, if a tweet equates to black people being prevented from protesting, then where do we go from there? And what if going to 11 makes things worse instead of better? What if it's actually fanning the flames and fomenting problems rather than helping?

 

What if the president's tweets were totally ignored? What if they didn't get the attention from detractors that he actually wants?

 

(Also, my last post read more like a flounce than I intended, just to say that I don't think my posts are received as I intend them and people here want some kind of dinner)

Edited September 27, 2017 by EmseB

[Corraleno]

You can argue that the tweet is consequential and influential and I am just putting my head in the sand. I see examples in history of how things could go much more poorly than an idiotic tweet about sport. And I worry that if it gets to something really bad, people will not know the difference because they'll have been watching people dial it up to 11 for every.little.thing for months and months.

 

NeoNazis and white supremacists marching through cities with torches and Nazi flags is not a "little thing." The fact that the current president is purposely fanning the flames of racism and division, giving speeches full dog whistles to racists and Nazis, is not "a little thing." What is happening in this country right now is already REALLY REALLY BAD. And IMO there isn't remotely enough outrage about it.

[ktgrok]

Just to clarify, it's not just tweets. It is statements given in press conferences, including one yesterday at the White House. 

Right. People have thought that and have been at 11 since before he even took office or had any opportunity to take any action. And I'm saying that looking at the context of history, we're pretty far from bad. In other words, I don't think we're anywhere near the government being able to do some of the things it somehow managed in the past. But, if a tweet is an 11, if a tweet equates to black people being prevented from protesting, then where do we go from there? And what if going to 11 makes things worse instead of better? What if it's actually fanning the flames and fomenting problems rather than helping?

What if the president's tweets were totally ignored? What if they didn't get the attention from detractors that he actually wants?

(Also, my last post read more like a flounce than I intended, just to say that I don't think my posts are received as I intend them and people here want some kind of dinner)

 

[Corraleno]

Right. People have thought that and have been at 11 since before he even took office or had any opportunity to take any action. And I'm saying that looking at the context of history, we're pretty far from bad. In other words, I don't think we're anywhere near the government being able to do some of the things it somehow managed in the past. But, if a tweet is an 11, if a tweet equates to black people being prevented from protesting, then where do we go from there? And what if going to 11 makes things worse instead of better? What if it's actually fanning the flames and fomenting problems rather than helping?

 

What if the president's tweets were totally ignored? What if they didn't get the attention from detractors that he actually wants?

 

 

The primary reason things aren't worse right now is precisely because people are fighting back. 

 

Since the racists and anti-semites and white nationalists are not only not ignoring his speeches and tweets, they are applauding them and being emboldened by them, the idea that the "other side" should just ignore them is ridiculous. In fact, it sounds exactly the the advice white people keep giving black people who get stopped by the police — just keep your mouths shut, defer to authority, don't rock the boat, and everything will be OK. 

 

We all know how well that works.

[Barb_]

Right. People have thought that and have been at 11 since before he even took office or had any opportunity to take any action. And I'm saying that looking at the context of history, we're pretty far from bad. In other words, I don't think we're anywhere near the government being able to do some of the things it somehow managed in the past. But, if a tweet is an 11, if a tweet equates to black people being prevented from protesting, then where do we go from there? And what if going to 11 makes things worse instead of better? What if it's actually fanning the flames and fomenting problems rather than helping?

 

What if the president's tweets were totally ignored? What if they didn't get the attention from detractors that he actually wants?

 

 

 

You can't really apply the context of history (slavery, internment, women not voting, trail of tears) to today. It's a different time and we have higher expectations.

 

Re: ignoring tweets. I think it would be terrific if we all could just sort of go, "eh don't feed the troll" and stick him on ignore, but in reality it isn't possible. He doesn't hold press conferences and the official White House stance is that his tweets are official pronouncements. In that light, it would be irresponsible to see them any differently. I mean, he's trying his best to start nuclear war with playgrounds taunts over Twitter :/

 

I think we best take them seriously.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Barb_

[8circles]

You can't really apply the context of history (slavery, internment, women not voting, trail of tears) to today. It's a different time and we have higher expectations.

 

Re: ignoring tweets. I think it would be terrific if we all could just sort of go, "eh don't feed the troll" and stick him on ignore, but in reality it isn't possible. He doesn't hold press conferences and the official White House stance is that his tweets are official pronouncements. In that light, it would be irresponsible to see them any differently. I mean, he's trying his best to start nuclear war with playgrounds taunts over Twitter :/

 

I think we best take them seriously.

And we knew how horrible this man was and we chose him anyway.

[Pawz4me]

And we knew how horrible this man was and we chose him anyway.

 

The majority of those who bothered to vote didn't choose him.

[8circles]

The majority of those who bothered to vote didn't choose him.

Oh, yes. I know. But reality is that he won according to our voting process.

[Corraleno]

Just to clarify, it's not just tweets. It is statements given in press conferences, including one yesterday at the White House. 

 

And the comment about firing every son of bitch who kneels was shouted at a rally in Alabama, where it was met with thunderous applause. 

 

Trying to dismiss the blatantly racist, inflammatory things he says as "just a bunch of silly tweets not worth paying attention to" is disingenuous. He says the same things in his speeches, he surrounds himself with white nationalists, and if given the chance he would turn back the clock on civil rights to 1950, right where Jeff Sessions wants it.

[Ravin]

Lord, how did everyone get the idea that I was taking the national anthem away from anyone?

 

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that these symbols are a much different part of their identity than the non-serving public. Do you really disagree with that- that patriotic symbols carry a different meaning for service people?

 

Yes. (Says another veteran).

[Happy2BaMom]

Right. People have thought that and have been at 11 since before he even took office or had any opportunity to take any action. And I'm saying that looking at the context of history, we're pretty far from bad. In other words, I don't think we're anywhere near the government being able to do some of the things it somehow managed in the past. But, if a tweet is an 11, if a tweet equates to black people being prevented from protesting, then where do we go from there? And what if going to 11 makes things worse instead of better? What if it's actually fanning the flames and fomenting problems rather than helping?

 

What if the president's tweets were totally ignored? What if they didn't get the attention from detractors that he actually wants?

 

(Also, my last post read more like a flounce than I intended, just to say that I don't think my posts are received as I intend them and people here want some kind of dinner)

 

I find it ironic that you are concerned about people being at 11 while defending the very leader who routinely dials issues up to 11. How is calling peaceful protestors "sons of b*tches" (without using an asterick) and calling for their removal from their profession/livelihood NOT dialing it up to 11? You act like it is the platform that is the problem while ignoring the content that has been communicated on that platform, which is what everyone else is concerned about. People were at 11 before he took office because they saw what was coming, and they were right. 

 

As long as I live, I hope I NEVER ignore what my President is saying/tweeting/writing/doing. 

 

I find your previous comments to be false equivalencies. Previous presidents lived during a time when many people of color were not allowed citizenship and they behaved accordingly. It's not a rationale for allowing poor behavior in our leaders now. Obama compared his own bowling skills as being "like the Special Olympics" and he apologized for those comments later. Yes, things have been done in history that are awful. That doesn't eradicate the need to react now. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Happy2BaMom

[Paige]

 

I find your previous comments to be false equivalencies. Previous presidents lived during a time when many people of color were not allowed citizenship and they behaved accordingly. It's not a rationale for allowing poor behavior in our leaders now. Obama compared his own bowling skills as being "like the Special Olympics" and he apologized for those comments later. Yes, things have been done in history that are awful. That doesn't eradicate the need to react now. 

 

 

Previous presidents were also unlikely to say such things publicly, where they thought they'd be heard. Nixon was terrible on his tapes, but in public I don't think he would have said sons of b*tches or anything near that. I guess some people prefer to have the president who says what he feels and lets it all hang out, but I prefer a little more discretion and diplomacy. Some people call that hypocrisy, I guess, but it seems more civil.

 

This article talks about the difference between how Trump behaves publicly vs previous presidents.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/trump-kaepernick-north-korea/540921/

[MistyMountain]

It starts with statements. If those statements at tolerated it is gradually progresses over a long period of time. This has happen in history before. If lots of outrageous statements are made by a person in the highest position of power then yes the statements matter and people having issues with and expressing that is not dialing it up to 11. They are keeping things from being dialed up by showing it is not tolerated.  Ignoring things does not make it go away. 

[emzhengjiu]

No political comments. There are appropriate social groups for politics.