Berzerker
Deity
I need to point out who started this thread and why? Yeah, I was defending the Klan's free speech (you weren't) and these players too, but you come in here to drop the hypocrisy charge on free speech advocates? Did I add enough?
YOU'RE FIRED!
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
I need to point out who started this thread and why? Yeah, I was defending the Klan's free speech (you weren't) and these players too, but you come in here to drop the hypocrisy charge on free speech advocates? Did I add enough?
You keep saying this, but this simply isn't true. The NFL does not have to consult the union on every little rule change they want to make. The NFLPA only gets a say in rule changes that involve things like trade deadlines, salary cap adjustments, etc. When it comes to game operations though, the NFL can make changes without consulting the union.
Joe Lockhart, the NFL's spokesman, even flat out stated that the league does not need union approval to make this rule change. Are you seriously going to try to argue that he is wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ly-tweaks-policy-players-standing-anthem.html
Also, here's an article I think you should read about the NFL CBA. You seem to be one of the people this writer is frustrated with:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/190368246/understanding-the-nfl-cba-and-nflpa
He's basically saying the league commissioner, according to the CBA, has the power to be "judge, jury, and executioner" when it comes to disciplining players and people who think he doesn't, or shouldn't, have that power simply do not have a working understanding of how the NFL's CBA works or what the NFLPA's role really is. He also goes on to say that the NFLPA simply doesn't have the leverage people like you think they do, mostly because they negotiated a lot of that leverage away.
Yeah im dropping the charge, because I've been consistent on this point, defend the free speech of whoever you like. Im not defending the Klan cause... eff those Ay-holes...thats why.I need to point out who started this thread and why? Yeah, I was defending the Klan's free speech (you weren't) and these players too, but you come in here to drop the hypocrisy charge on free speech advocates? Did I add enough?
I've never wavered on that point. You brought up the free speech issue in the context of the NFL players and i applaud you for your consistency, but you aren't remotely the only one who was defending the Klan, Milo, etc.
Where are the rest of the free speech passionados? (they know who they are). But in a larger sense...not just here on CFC, but on this issue in general... in media and on the internets, and so on? Now of course, you don't have to answer for them... so don't purport to answer for them... unless of course you'd like to answer for them.
Last edited:
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
As to CFC:
Is anyone proposing that NFL players should be punched in the face? Milo has a right to say what he wants and others have a right to treat him accordingly with some limits (Milo doesn't have a right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater or 'bomb' at an airport, and others don't have a right to punch him in the face).
Is anyone really bothered by these protests other than Commodore? I'm over 40 (barely) and I'm not bothered by the protests (to counter an earlier post that said it's generational and 40 was the cut-off point), but I'm not a military man like Commodore. I roll my eyes when I remove my hat for the anthem.
As to media and internets:
Well, you know hypocrisy works on all sides of the political spectrum.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Come on man. The league spokesman makes a self-serving statement and you want me to just accept that it's true? Do you have any idea how union-employer relations work?
This is irrelevant. There is a code of conduct. Roger Goodell does not have the power to invent new rules of conduct. He has broad power to judge players under the existing code of conduct, sure, but he can't just make up rules. That isn't how it works. At least, not when a rule already exists which clearly does NOT mandate that players stand up for the anthem.
Did you see the memo he sent to the teams? He said in the memo that players should stand, not that they must. That is consistent with the current language. If there wasn't an existing rule on the issue, you might have a point. But there is. Goodell cannot rewrite the rules on his own, regardless of the powers his spokesman is trying to claim.
Getting punched in the face is somehow worse than losing your job? Worse than losing a job that pays 6 figures of multimillions of dollars? In what universe? Worse than having your performance statistics and everthing that goes with it ruined by not being allowed to play? This whole "OMG! OMG! violence is the absolute worst thing ever!!"... is just a ridiculous fallacy. There are far worse things than being punched in the face.
Also, more people than Commodore oppose the protest, give me a break.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
If these 'nazi defenders' you speak of were asked if employers can fire a nazi I think many would have given a difference response than if asked if the nazi should be punched in the face. I have no sympathy for one with a nazi tattoo who can't find employment.
Nobody, but Kaepernick has lost their job over this, and even for Kaepernick that is debatable. I'm biased because, not following the stat lines closely (not being a fantasy football player), or a 49er fan, what I've seen of him lately was reading an article in 2015 (undoubtedly his worst season) where he was playing with a 'don't care' attitude with stuff like throwing the ball 20 yards out of bounds when he was not under any pressure and there was no receivers anywhere close (The kind of pass Cutler recently threw in the 'worst hail mary in history' for Miami, and well, Kaepernick ruined his chances with Miami with his Castro statements.), and then in 2016 the team went 2-14 (1-10 under him). Sure, his stats may have better that year, but that doesn't look like a 'great quarterback' resume when he has an absolutely terrible season personally, then the next season the whole team plays terrible.
Really the idea that military people own a national flag or anthem in some special way is pretty messed up
Last edited:
But the distinction you are making is totally arbitrary, and just another example of ... don't like the what/who, not gonna like the how, regardless. You (the royal you) will defend Milo.. but as for the NFL players? Yep they get a lukewarm, non-committal... Meh "I'm not bothered by" it ... or worse... outright opposition based on some arbitrary, irrelevant "distinction".
I mean... You (the royal you) are fine with people being fired and having their lives destroyed or ruined over expressing their political views or protesting on XYZ issue... but you draw the line at them being punched? Why? What is that distinction based on? What about having their house burned down? Is that OK as long as they aren't in it? What about having their electricity or water cut off for their views? Fine as long they don't get punched... is that right? What about having their children taken away? As long as they don't get punched in the face that's OK? See where I'm going?... Again, what I think is going on is that you (the royal you) are defending the folks that are recognized as political allies, and coming up with all kinds of nonsensical logical contortions to justify it on some so-called "objective" grounds. That's where you get folks saying "Oh I'm defending the nazis because people were talking about *gasp* punching them (the horror!!
)... but these other guys... Pfft! All they are in danger of is losing their silly livelihoods, whatever
who cares about that...I understand it though because its part of our (Murican) culture. We are socialized to see country/flag/military as all one thing, even though they aren't at all the same. So I get it when a vet or the family of a vet say "they're disrespecting the troops!" or when a military vet takes the protest personally... even though its a non-sequitur... I still fully get where the taking offense comes from. The fact that the anthem itself is a battle hymn/love song to the flag (set to the tune of a drinking song) just underscores the muddling of the concepts.
Defending their right to free speech is not the same as defending their cause. You can disagree with a cause while still defending the right of that cause's supporters to express themselves.
It's a good thing "military people" (the term is veteran by the way) don't think we own the flag then.
It's about drawing the line at violence that could escalate to the point that it robs someone of their right to life. If I'm your employer and I fire you for your politics, your life isn't ruined. Nothing is stopping you from getting another job and carrying on with your life. However, if I get a mob together and get them all riled up to the point that we beat you to death for your views, well...you can't really pick up the pieces from that now can you?
Again, losing your job does not violate any of your rights, but using violence against you does. What is really so hard to grasp about this concept?
Now who's engaging in hyperbole? There is absolutely no threat to the livelihoods of NFL players over this. At worst, they will face fines and suspensions. And since the fines are a drop in the bucket compared to their salaries and they still get paid while under suspension, the threat to their livelihoods is precisely zero. There is not a single person that has the authority to fire NFL players that is advocating or threatening to fire protesting players. Jones said he will bench them. Big whoop. They still get paid even if they are benched.
So you keep alluding to this threat to their livelihoods, but where is it? As long as they are getting paid, they still have their livelihood.
I know, I know "b-b-b-but Trump said...". Who the hell cares what Trump said? Does he have the power to fire NFL players? No? Then what he says on the matter carries about as much weight as what I have to say on the matter, which is none.
Lol y'all coulda fooled me. Probably wanna do something about everyone else in the media and politics acting like it, at the very least.
(also veteran is specific to former defence force personnel, doesn't include current personnel, whereas military people covers both
also I feel deeply weird calling my sister or dad a "veteran" rather than just "ex-navy")
Last edited:
I think this may be something to do with how massified service in the armed forces in the United States is and has been. Well over 2m personnel active plus reserve, nearly 1 in every 100 adults. It's half that here for current military people, in per capita terms.
And then we have the ex-servicepeople. There's 21m former military in the US, nearly 1 in 10 adults. The best figures I can find in Australia put the number of veterans (current and future eligibility for service pensions) at about 350k and dropping as WW2 vets die, which is about a quarter the size of the US veteran population, in per capita terms.
So the defence force and veterans tend to be less a part of mainstream culture and less of its own lobby group given those smaller numbers.
Last edited:
Zkribbler
Deity
Just curious...how does a player's decision to respect the anthem by kneeling rather than standing affect "game operations?"
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
But the distinction you are making is totally arbitrary, and just another example of ... don't like the what/who, not gonna like the how, regardless. You (the royal you) will defend Milo.. but as for the NFL players? Yep they get a lukewarm, non-committal... Meh "I'm not bothered by" it ... or worse... outright opposition based on some arbitrary, irrelevant "distinction".
I mean... You (the royal you) are fine with people being fired and having their lives destroyed or ruined over expressing their political views or protesting on XYZ issue... but you draw the line at them being punched? Why? What is that distinction based on? What about having their house burned down? Is that OK as long as they aren't in it? What about having their electricity or water cut off for their views? Fine as long they don't get punched... is that right? What about having their children taken away? As long as they don't get punched in the face that's OK? See where I'm going?... Again, what I think is going on is that you (the royal you) are defending the folks that are recognized as political allies, and coming up with all kinds of nonsensical logical contortions to justify it on some so-called "objective" grounds. That's where you get folks saying "Oh I'm defending the nazis because people were talking about *gasp* punching them (the horror!!
If a nazi has his house burn down from faulty wiring, eh, sucks to be him, I won't have much sympathy for him and to me that would be karma kicking him in the rear. If a mob burns his house down that's just not right. Same thing if he walks into a pole and knocks himself out=karma, someone punching him in the face=not the right thing to do, puncher should be arrested.
I don't trust mobs to distribute justice fairly.
Children taken away, utilities cut off, those things would suggest things that the government could take away from someone, and then you get into the area of the government telling people what political views they should have, and I would be against that.
An employer can set forth expectations, and if those are not followed, the employer can take actions they deem necessary, up to and including ending the contract. (And if the expectations are unreasonable it is not unreasonable to boycott the business), and obviously if the expectations are illegal the government should take appropriate action against the employer.
The NFL players are in uniform, thus they are representing the NFL, so the NFL can say what they can and can't do while wearing the uniform. Since they are high-profile and get alot of media attention, their actions extend beyond what happens in the stadium as a trade-off for the millions they get paid, but the issue here is what they are doing in the stadium, while wearing the uniform.
A UPS driver or McDonald's worker if he's protesting in uniform, could also be fired.
Zkribbler
Deity
The players are employees of the owners, not of the NFL.
The NFL pays them nothing. The teams pay the players.
As for what is and is not part of the trade-off, we must look look to the compensation portion of their contracts. Show me where their written contracts address this issue.
The McDonald's worker, probably. The last I heard, they're all at-will employees,
The UPS drivers are unionized. I'd have to see their contract.
The question is, why aren't the owners and the league official out there protesting as well? Are they pro-police brutality and pro-extra- judicial killing?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
The NFL can fine the players (the team can too, but most fines are issued by the NFL) and issue suspensions. So the NFL doesn't pay them, but can take away their money and tell them they aren't allowed to work, but are not considered an employer?
In uniform, they represent both their team and the NFL. Proof of this is the NFL decides what rules to place on the uniforms. (The teams may choose the designs, but ultimately it must be approved by the NFL.)
I'm sure there is some language, as in most work contracts about 'actions detrimental to the employer' that is vague to include almost whatever they want it to. There have been no fines or suspensions over this, but still the controversy has been detrimental to the league. If the NFL takes action against the players it will be detrimental to the league by alienating some fans. If they don't take action, it will be detrimental to the league by alienating some fans.
The NFL is screwed, thanks Kaepernick!
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Not everyone is of the view that kneeling for the flag is a sign of respect. Many still feel you respect the flag by standing. Most owners want to be as politically neutral as possible, as that makes the most business sense. They don't want to offend the 'stand for the flag' people, but don't want to criticize the protestors, so 'No comment' is/was the norm. 'No comment' wouldn't work forever, and eventually they need/needed to make a statement.
Nobody is against that.
How is the NFL responsible for any of that? What can the NFL do to change that? More people are talking about the flag than what the protest is actually about. So, well-meaning protest, but poorly chosen target.
What was the "target"?
The NFL isn't the "target" but even then, let's not pretend they're utterly powerless to exert moral pressure and pursue social change and policy reform.
The NBA and NCAA boycotted North Carolina until they changed their disgusting anti-trans laws. The boycott by international sport of Apartheid South Africa probably helped bring it down. Sport leagues can exert political pressure.
I reckon one NFL game refusing police protection, locking out fans, playing to an empty stadium in response to a miscarriage of justice after a racialised murder in a given city could help spur that city to reform. No doubt the owners wouldn't go for that, but it doesn't mean it mightn't be effective
The NBA and NCAA boycotted North Carolina until they changed their disgusting anti-trans laws. The boycott by international sport of Apartheid South Africa probably helped bring it down. Sport leagues can exert political pressure.
I reckon one NFL game refusing police protection, locking out fans, playing to an empty stadium in response to a miscarriage of justice after a racialised murder in a given city could help spur that city to reform. No doubt the owners wouldn't go for that, but it doesn't mean it mightn't be effective
Last edited:
