Sorry for the long post, but I enjoy debating
@Commodore 
Just saw a poll that shows 62% of NFL fans claim they will watch fewer games and purchase less merchandise specifically because of these anthem protests. Basically, NFL fans are going to protest the protest. Now whether or not those 62% make good on that threat is another question altogether, it does point to a potential crisis for the NFL. Losing 62% of your fan base can only spell disaster for the league. Especially since those who support these protests are only supporting it for the social issue it stands for. Otherwise, those people aren't the type that typically frequent NFL events or purchase their merchandise, so it's not like the NFL will be able to replace the 62% of their fan base they are alienating by allowing these protests to continue. It's okay though. These entitled little rich kids (that's essentially what these players are acting like) will learn just how much this country does not support what they are doing. I've already been seeing articles about how businesses in cities with NFL teams are refusing service to NFL players and coaches that don't stand for the anthem ... As commissioner of the league though, he has an obligation to protect the interests of the league. Right now, these protests are threatening the financially stability, and thus the future success, of the league as a whole. So while he may be following his conscience on this matter, he is failing in his responsibility to the league by allowing this to continue.
Rather than point-by-point this part to death, I'll just say that I reject this line of argument whole-hat, including the part about the commissioner "protecting the interests/financial stability of the league. The anti-protest snowflakes are really showing how self-absorbed and self-important they are. This whole threat of "Oh NFL you're offending/pissing off your fanbase, which consists primarily of flag waving, gun toting Americans who will boycott, boycott I say!... any day now... just you wait... its coming!" is nothing but a paper tiger. You (the royal you) wish that this was true so the owners would be cowed into submission by the almighty Mammon, and thereby whip their players into line... but its not gonna happen. The NFL will continue to thrive, protests and "counter-protests" notwithstanding. All these empty-threats of "We ain't gonna watch no more!" is just a bunch of snowflake/PC whining and is being rightfully ignored. You (the royal you) are going to continue to consume NFL to the tune of billions, and the protests will continue. No one is paying attention to the empty-threats cause the money is still rolling in. If anything the protests are increasing. Your (the royal your) threats aren't working, because they aren't credible.
Not really. It's more of when I pay for a ticket to an NFL game, I'm paying to be entertained, not to have someone's political message shoved in my face.
"Shoved in your face"? Dude that's a 15 yard penalty for hyperbole and a loss of down for melodrama. They're kneeling silently during the anthem, not picketing your abortion clinic and getting in your face calling you a murderer as you come in to work (or killing you), or screaming "Jew will not replace us!" at you (or running you over with their car)... or splashing paint all over your mink coat... or hijacking your plane... again,
they're just kneeling. No one is "shoving" anything in your face. Frankly, if you bought a ticket, you're at the game, and unless you paid for seats in the first few rows, the players are too faraway to see, and you are perfectly free not to look at them anyway. Furthermore, you shouldn't be looking at them anyway, because I'm going to assume that while the anthem is being played, you personally are
looking at the flag not the players,
so you don't even see them kneeling. So again, I'm calling total BS on this "shoved in my face" stuff.
So again, it's not the cause that's being opposed, it's the methodology.
And this is a classic example of "Don't like the who/what gonna oppose the how, regardless." You oppose
their cause. You are clearly on the record as opposing BLM etc, so don't try to pretend that its about the "methodology". That is just an excuse to oppose. There is no protest they could do that you would accept. Anyway, protesting is about creating a controversy/spectacle. The "I wish they would just protest in a way that dosen't offend me, or in a way I don't notice" is an illegitimate critique that people who oppose
the cause always use. You've once again made my point.
Who here is opposing their right to free speech? No one here has said NFL players shouldn't be allowed to express themselves. People are only expressing disagreement with the methodology and expressing their own opinions on the matter. Are you going to try to sell the idea that disagreement and expressing a counter opinion is akin to opposing one's right to free speech? If you are, then I'd say it is you that is trying to oppose free speech.
You miss my point. What I am saying is that I want everyone who piped up in defense of the Kluxers and Milo, and the nazis etc... in the name of "free speech" and condemned all the naughty students and liberals and "SJWs" etc for "being against free speech" for condemning the Kluxers... to now come out just as passionately in favor of the NFL players and use the same "free speech" arguments they used to defend Nazis to now defend the NFL players. But they're not doing it. Instead all I'm hearing is a bunch of doublethink and cognitive dissonance.
Not to mention, they are protesting at their place of employment.
Irrelevant and you know it. Most importantly,
you aren't their employer so you don't have any standing to say what conduct they can or can't engage in at their place of employment. Second, as I've already stated, your rights don't cease to exist when you clock in to work.
If I did what they did at my job while on company time (by "did what they did" I mean protesting in general since obviously the national anthem isn't played at the beginning of each shift), I'd be fired immediately
Also Irrelevant, and frankly untrue because 1) as you accurately point out
the freaking national anthem isn't played at your workplace at the start of the workday, so your analogy fails completely. 2) The most direct analogy you can make is the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the school day which students can and do protest without consequence (I know this firsthand because my mother's religion required me to protest the pledge), and 3) what would happen on
your job is irrelevant, because
they don't work at your job and you don't work at theirs, nor are you their employer. 4 ) Also, "the business at hand" issue is a red herring. The "business at hand" is playing football. The guys kneeling attend to the business at hand just fine. Your trying to make standing for the anthem part of their job, its not, period. They are football players not anthem standers. I've already debunked your point about the Operations Manual so its time to let that part of the argument go.
And plus, firing someone or imposing some other disciplinary action on them in general over their political opinion is not a violation of Constitutional rights unless the employer is a government agency or holds a government contract. The Constitution guarantees your right to free speech, but there's nothing in there about a right to a job.
You miss my point. The point you raise repeatedly gets missed or outright ignored when its brought up in the context of the so-called SJWs oppressing the Kluxers/nazis etc's free speech, so thanks for reminding everyone and again helping to make my point. When its Berkeley students protesting Milo or people counterprotesting Kluxers etc all the free speech passionados come out of the woodwork and accuse the students of "trying to oppress free speech" ignoring the
legal parameters of freedom of speech that you mentioned. So I want them to ignore it now and defend the NFL players. They do it for the Nazis, why not for the NFL players? Well...
I know why, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
It's not an implication from me, it's explicitly stated in the NFL Game Operations Manual. That means when players agree to play in the NFL, they are agreeing to abide by all of its policies as well.
I've already debunked this claim, complete with mutiple souce citations
in the post you just responded to. Most importantly, again
there is no penalty delineated in the Operations Manual for failure to stand. The only penalty described is for
failure to be on the field/sidelines during the anthem. So Goodell couldn't punish them for kneeling even if he wanted to. So you're just wrong on this point about their employment obligations, period. That you would read the debunking and then repeat the same erroneous claim is... well...
Here is the rule....at least according to an unofficial site: Notice the use of the word "should" instead of "must." According to DifferenceBetween.Net:
I already explained that to
@Commodore , he's just choosing to ignore it because he's so committed to his argument.
