Apparently, the only way kneeling during the anthem is going to be defended by some here, the klan will have to do the kneeling.
YOU'RE FIRED!
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Berzerker
Deity
Do you defend the Klan's constitutional rights or not? If you've answered this, where? When it comes to free speech, you said eff the ayholes. What about other rights? You acknowledge they exist, but would you defend them if they were under attack? I'm sure you'd acknowledge the right to free speech, but eff the ayholes is not defending it. So acknowledging rights doesn't mean anything coming from you, well, other than you're trying really hard to avoid saying you'd defend - or not - the Klan's (other) rights. I can understand why your legendary unambiguity became so opaque, 'yes' makes that diatribe about "you're defending the Klan" accusation look hypocritical while 'no' makes you look like a 'scummer'.
Of course its about free speech, if I didn't give a damn about it I wouldn't be here defending it. WTH? You asked me why I defend the Klan's free speech (as opposed to my own) and I said the Golden Rule, it asks me to be consistent which means defending it for others. How did you get the idea the Golden Rule means I dont believe in free speech now? I think you're projecting...
Remember telling us about your school days when you tried to remain objective (or whatever it was) and found yourself with Republican friends who later abandoned you for supporting Obama? YOU felt superior, right? Didn't you actually say that? Now you're sticking me with your past. This aint about you, I dont defend free speech because you think it makes me look noble...or scummy (which is it?). I defend it so I dont have to look at an even bigger hypocrite in the mirror. So in a way, I do feel superior - to that hypocrite who'd be looking back at me. I dont know how to avoid that, I feel morally inferior when I'm being hypocritical.
Course pragmatically I defend free speech as my primary means to defend mine, the speakers under attack are on the front line in this battle, and of course that front line will always be occupied by 'scummers'. Are your arguments (your position) morally inferior to mine? I'd assume you think of them as superior. So why doesn't your lengthy critique about moral superiority not apply to you?
I refer you back to this post for the repeated answer to your repeated questions.
This just seems to be a really wordy confirmation of what I already said about you being focused on your moral superiority. So... OK, I guess?
Anyway... again... how the topic of the thread relates, is that I wanted to highlight how the people who passionately defend the Nazis, Klan, white supremacists, Milo, etc on "dedication to Free Speech" grounds, won't also passionately defend the NFL players on those same grounds. Now I also want to point out how you've abandoned talking about the NFL players entirely and launched into this one man telethon extolling the virtues of defending the Klan. Your Quixotic quest to hang the hypocrisy charge on me is irrelevant, because the hypocrisy you are assigning to me doesn't refute my point. I'm saying that its hypocritical for a person who passionately defends the Klan on Free Speech grounds to refuse to do the same for NFL players, and that this hypocrisy shows that the claim of defending the Klan on Free Speech grounds wasn't genuine. You respond by saying "But you're being a hypocrite too! Because you defend the NFL players but not the Klan!"
First, no that's incorrect, because I am not claiming to defend the NFL players on "passion for Free Speech grounds." I defend them because I support their cause. Second, even if I was being a hypocrite by defending the NFL players but not the Klan it would still not undermine my argument one bit, because the point of my argument is not that the Klan defenders are hypocrites and I am not. The point of my argument is that the Klan defenders are dishonest about defending the Klan over their Free Speech concerns. Whether I am being hypocritical or not is totally irrelevant to this point.
Finally, your bizarre insistence that I actually do defend the Klan is also contradictory to your own argument. You're focussing so much energy on the irrelevant claim that I am a hypocrite for supporting the NFL players but not the Klan. But then you equally vehemently insist that I actually do defend the Klan? So which is it? Don't you realize that if you were correct, for sake of discussion that I also defend the Klan... then that would make me consistent according to your reasoning. So then what the heck are you calling me hypocritical for? Your insistence that I defend the Klan actually disproves the argument you are trying to make about me being a hypocrite. So not only is your argument wrong, and irrelevant, it also contradicts itself.
Like I've said, you'r argument is a mess. To quote the Supreme Leader... "a total disaster".
That wasn't a goal post shift, that is literally what this entire thread is about.
Again, since that was the subject of the thread, I shouldn't have to specifically state it in every post. You know when I say "no threat to livelihood" I am talking about no threat to their livelihood due to their protests since that is the main topic of the thread as a whole. You are just arguing semantics now because I've blasted massive holes in your "threat to their livelihood" argument and proven that you were operating on inaccurate assumptions about the Kaepernick situation.
Did he actually do it though? Until he makes good on his words, that's all they are: words. When he benches a player for protesting, then it becomes a threat. It's like if I were to say I'm so angry with you that I'm going to hack your bank account and steal all your money. Until I demonstrate that I'm actually willing and capable of doing that, then my "threat" is just empty words and there is no real threat to you or your bank account.
There you go, committing those lies of omission again to misrepresent my position. You are conveniently ignoring post 456 where I clearly stated I am perfectly fine with the shift in methodology the players have adopted. They are still protesting through various other gestures (fist in the air, arms locked in solidarity, staying in the locker room,etc.), but have chosen to no longer kneel during the anthem. I'm okay with that because that tells me they are still committed to getting their message out while also recognizing why they should be at least standing for the anthem. Like I said, my problem has always been with the methodology.
Yeah, I am going to trot that out because what can be proven is all that matters when making an accusation. Even more so now that the whole Kaepernick thing is going to court. I know you aren't a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty" but I think being highly skeptical of accusations that can't be definitively proven and requiring a very high burden of proof on the part of the accuser are the best aspects of our legal system. I'm not too keen on having a legal system that entertains what basically amounts to speculation and conspiracy theories. So Kaepernick better have some evidence that is a lot more solid than "a team didn't give me a workout" to back up his collusion and blacklisting claims.
In short: You ever see the movie Training Day? Remember Denzel Washington's line "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove"? That pretty much sums up the Kaepernick situation right now.
Real talk for a second: Putting our disagreements aside and looking at the situation objectively? I'd probably agree with you that my gut tells me teams probably have blacklisted Kaepernick. Of course, they are also likely not stupid enough to leave any evidence of it that he can use in his grievance case, which means in the court's eyes (unless he happens to get a really sympathetic judge) that collusion and blacklisting never happened and Kaepernick remains unemployed for purely football-related reasons.
No sorry that's not how a threat works. Threatening to do something is just that... threatening. It is giving the person the impression that you intend to do it. Threatening does not require actually doing. If you really can't see that there is a difference between threatening and doing... I don't even know what to say to that...
I mean are you serious right now? That's your position? "It's not a threat until I actually do it" Are you freaking kidding me? And you don't apply that reasoning to the police in BLM situations now do you? You don't say "The police can't say the perp threatened us until he actually shoots them" do you? Dude you are just making it up as you go along. I can't believe you just told me that its not a "threat" until he actually does it... I hope your just joking man, cause that's just... I don't know...
Nice try... It's not about "being fine with the protest"... Do you support the protest now? As-in do you support their cause now that their "methodology" now supposedly comports with your requirements? If the answer is no, then what you're essentially saying is what i mentioned before... that you're happy now that the protest is less visible and you can ignore it more easily.
Huh?? Semantics? The Cowboys owner threatened the livelihoods of the players if they continued kneeling. No "semantics" involved.
Last edited:
I support their right to protest, as I always have. Again, agreeing with a cause is not required to support a given group's right to protest. Also, just because I criticize methodology does not mean I don't support their right to protest.
These are very basic concepts in the realm of free speech, and it truly is shocking to me that these concepts seem so foreign to you. Makes me question the competence over the law school you went to.
There you go, ignoring reality again. The protests are not any less visible, they are just less controversial. Everyone can just as clearly see a player raising his fist as they could a player kneeling. And by adopting a less controversial protest method, it makes me more willing to listen to what they actually have to say.
There is certainly a difference between a credible threat and a noncredible threat, which is what I'm getting at. I'm saying Jones's threat wasn't a credible one. And apparently you yourself agree, at least if post 353 is to be believed. So which is it Sommer? Is it a credible threat or is it just a publicity stunt, because it can't be both.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I'm not a big fan of people misusing "innocent until proven guilty" and twisting it around into something it's not. I'm also not a big fan of people insisting that you have to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt, when civil cases (like the case Kaepernick is going to attempt to make, maybe) aren't even governed by that standard. Our own legal system even recognizes that a reasonable doubt standard is unworkable in most contexts, which is why most civil cases operate under a preponderance standard. All you have to do is produce evidence that proves it more likely than not that something happened.
Will Kaepernick be able to produce such evidence? I don't know. As we have all seen, emails are pesky things and they never really go away. I would be less surprised than most people, I think, to find out that there was documentary evidence of collusion sitting on an email server somewhere, just waiting to be produced during discovery. Discovery is an amazing thing - billions of dollars change hands based on documents that the liable party just hands over to the other side. Who knows what's out there? Emails, internal memos, hell even personal notes taken by team employees. You just never know what might turn up.
Zkribbler
Deity
Berzerker
Deity
Here's the post, perhaps you can bold your answer
If the Klan was being rounded up, would you be defending their rights or not?
You're focused on it, I didn't bring it up. You accused unnamed people of hypocrisy and when I objected, my consistency became a sin too. Are you saying the morally superior position is consistently defending free speech and your position is morally inferior?
You changed the subject to hypocrisy and then blame me for following? You people are hypocrites.....how dare you focus on my hypocrisy!
Hmm...I thought you were complaining their free speech is being violated. Now you dont care about it? Their cause is quelling police brutality, you've been ignoring their cause at least recently in this thread. You became 'focus'ed instead on the hypocrisy of others while getting mad at me for showing you the mirror. The projection is truly astonishing.
Here's that mirror again, when you make mistakes you dont acknowledge them, but when others make mistakes, they're dishonest. You're a mind reader, can detect liars from afar...Got it.
I thought you opposed the Klan... No free speech for the Klan, eff the ayholes, right? What you call my 'bizarre insistence' was a question - do you defend the Klan's rights? When I asked that you 'acknowledged' their constitutional rights, but you didn't say you'd defend those rights. If my insistence that you do actually defend the Klan is bizarre, does that mean you dont and wont defend their rights? Then why did you respond to my question by acknowledging their constitutional rights?
You acknowledge their constitutional rights but dont defend them? I still dont know your position, you're all over the place. Consistent and unambiguous are not words I'd use to describe you... Well, to be fair, you are a lawyer. I'm sure you're trained to be clear and logical when you have a winning case. But when you have a loser, do the opposite.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Objection. Asked and answered.
If I said "I support your 2nd Amendment Rights, as long as you only own 1 gun and its kept disassembled in a locked safe" you'd say that I don't really support your 2nd Amendment rights. You don't support their cause. I notice that you keep avoiding addressing that point because you know I'm accurate. Criticizing their methodology is just your way of opposing their cause because you don't want to deal with the baggage of simply opposing the cause directly. This is given away by the fact that you admit that you're happy the controversy has calmed down. As I've said, the controversy was the point of the protest, and now that's gone so you can ignore it in peace, which is what you always wanted. As I've said, the controversy annoyed you, because the cause, complaining about racism, annoys you.
"More willing to listen"?? Is that a joke? "Listen" to what? they weren't talking, they were kneeling to draw attention to the BLM cause. So now you're "willing to listen" to the BLM cause? You are "willing to listen" to the fact that black people are being mistreated by the justice system in America and have been for generations? You're "willing to listen" to the fact that the institutions in United States are unfair and unjust towards black people? You're "willing to listen" to the idea that police in this country should be disarmed? And you werent' "willing to listen" to that before, but you are now because the mostly black NFL protesters were pushed into giving up their rights by the mostly white owners and audience and POTUS administration, displaying yet another example at how black people are treated in this country? You're "willing to listen" to all of that? Give me a break. No you aren't. I've been talking to you for years man, you don't want to hear it. And you certainly weren't made "more willing to listen" by the NFL players stopping kneeling.
So now you've moved the goalpost again from "threat" to "credible threat". At what point do you just admit being wrong? To recap, you started with "absolutely no threat to their livelihood" then moved that to "well they weren't fired" to "well the livelihood was threatened, but not for the protest" to "well there was a threat to their livelihood but the threat wasn't credible"
As for your specific question...First off, those positions aren't mutually exclusive. Jones was making a credible threat and engaging in a publicity stunt. However, to the extent that I was implying that he was doing one and not the other I was wrong and I think it was just wishful thinking on my part, because now that the NFL players have been cowed, its clear he was doing both. They are in a better position to judge than me and they clearly found the threats credible. The threat appears credible to the players because they've scared them into stopping protesting in the effective way they were doing before, despite not actually changing the league ops manual.
Still talking about the Klan huh? No discussion of the NFL players huh?
Last edited:
Sorry, I missed this little bit about the players, buried in all the repetitive irrelevant arguments.
So no... again you're wrong, for two reasons. First, and once again... im defending the players because I agree with their BLM cause, not because I'm "passionate about Free Speech." I am not using the abstract claim of dedication to defending Free Speech as my excuse for defending the NFL players. I readily embrace their cause.
Second, and again...I brought up the Free speech of the NFL players to highlight that folks have eagerly used claims of dedication to defending Free Speech in the past to defend the most odious people and causes, but now refuse to invoke that same abstract dedication to defending Free Speech as an excuse to defend the NFL Players. This contradiction (hypocrisy if you will), exposes that their claimed dedication to defending Free Speech is not genuine, and just an excuse to defend scummers who they find common cause with.
Berzerker
Deity
You brought up the Klan...and apparently you dont believe in the players' free speech either. Do you believe in your own?
You never answered my question: would you defend the Klan's rights if they were being rounded up and executed?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Zkribbler
Deity
OldBoomer
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Messages
- 133
Run up the "Mission Accomplished" banner!
Then we can have Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi stand under it.
Not now, I've always been willing to listen. I just don't listen to the people who either get obnoxious or violent about their cause.
That's not a fact. In the past it was, but not now.
That's not a fact.
Yes, and I have listened to that idea before and disagreed with it. Listening doesn't require agreement.
I was willing to listen to that before, which I will demonstrate with your very own words in a bit.
What rights were they pushed into giving up? Last I checked they are still allowed to protest without facing any consequences. Hell, Goodell has even agreed to assist the players in bringing Congressional attention to the BLM cause. What more do you want? It seems like, in your mind, anything less than an explicit endorsement of the BLM cause constitutes an attempt to suppress the rights of BLM supporters. Which is, of course, a ridiculous stance to take.
So disagreeing with black people now constitutes mistreatment? Wow. Get over yourself.
And have I ever intentionally ignored you? No? I'd say that's a pretty clear demonstration of my willingness to listen. Do I mostly disagree with you? Yeah. Again though, disagreement does not equal unwillingness to listen. If I were unwilling to listen to you, I would put you on my ignore list and never respond to any of your posts.
How have they been cowed? Because they are choosing not to kneel? Why is kneeling the only way they can protest? Why is any other form of protest they engage in (and have been engaging in) considered them admitting defeat? It seems like you are just mad that they acted like responsible adults and compromised on this issue instead of acting like obstinate children.
I never said I did. I only said I support their right to express their opinions. Agreement with or support for their cause is not required for that.
I have addressed that. I have said repeatedly that supporting one's cause is not required to support their right to advance their cause. I'd say that makes it pretty clear what my position is. In case it doesn't I will, for your benefit, state it in explicit terms: No, I do not support the BLM cause because I believe a lot of their assertions are based on misrepresented or poorly researched data. I also think it's a racially divisive movement that is adopting and reinforcing the same "us vs. them" mentality that white supremacist groups use. However, that does not mean I think they should not have the right to protest or lobby for their cause. Criticizing their methodology for protesting also does not mean I do not think they should be allowed to protest. It's just me exercising my Constitutional right to express my opinion on the matter.
