Moved this bit, cause I don't know if you saw it in the wall of text:
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.
I'm going to move the goalpost on you here a bit. When you said the players stopping kneeling made you "more willing to listen" I interpreted that to mean that you were willing to do something different as a direct result, as in
change your position. However, technically, you didn't actually say that. So I did not realize that
in practical terms, what you were saying is that the players stopping kneeling had no effect on you position whatsoever and you remained willing to do what you had always done, listen-to, then reject their cause. Again, if I told you I was "willing to listen" to you talk about your 2nd Amendment rights, but then afterwards, I'm still taking your guns... I don't think you'd find my
technical listening very meaningful in a
practical sense. Man, for someone who constantly bemoans the technicality of lawyers, you sure don't hesitate to use those kinds of tactics.
Anyway, I'd like to add that I had a conversation with a colleague that I mentioned previously who argued as you did, with complaints about "methodology", who then changed his tune a little when I pointed out that kneeling is both respectful and nonviolent. A few days later, we were watching coverage of the protest at lunch and he admitted to me that he felt conflicted since talking to me because he quote:
"still feel uncomfortable about the protest, but I can't use the excuse that I don't like their methodology, since you pointed out, its not like they're being violent, so now I've had to examine the real reasons I don't like the protest and what I'm coming up with doesn't make me feel so great"
I wouldn't say I see a degree of moral equivalence between the two. I would describe my position on that particular point as BLM allowing themselves to be...goaded into "playing the game" on the white supremacists terms.
As for being morally equivalent though? Not at all. I think BLM is made up of frustrated and misguided, but still ultimately good and decent people. White supremacists on the other hand are advocating a revival of an ideology that we had to fight a global war to stop, so it's hard to describe them as good and decent people.
Would you say then, that in "fighting a global war to stop it" the United States was "goaded into playing the game on white supremacists terms", and condemn the US entry into WW2 on those grounds?
