http://i.imgur.com/N6f2s5z.jpg
Printable View
Can we just get rid of the idea of 'emotional support animals'?
#maga
Is the proposition that we can MAGA by insulting and ridiculing more?
'Cause that doesn't seem like a viable approach.
I mean, if this is a "Look at these dumb hypocrites" thread, then fine. Needs more FTR quotes, though.
I get that it's cathartic to play the "I'm so much better than those people" game. It is a fantasy game, though. Aside from the immediate gratification of a feeling of moral superiority, which is itself a problem, it offers no benefits to any parties involved.
If your political opponents were actually idiots, then their party would be swiftly and soundly defeated.
Intelligent people disagree. This is a thing. Disagreeing with unintelligent, stubborn people is a waste of an intelligent, open-minded person's time.
Don't waste your time on idiots who could not rally any vote around their cause. They are not your opponents, they are hot air.
Your real opponents are the intelligent, charismatic people who can win votes.
While you may strongly disagree with their goals, you will never outwit them if you think they're idiots. They're not. Assuming they are idiots could be your most idiotic mistake.
maga isn't about america anymore. maga is the new court jester that speaks the truth to the king's and country's face when nobody else can. maga rustles snowflake jimmies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I guess that's a yes.Quote:
maga isn't about america anymore. maga is the new court jester that speaks the truth to the king's and country's face when nobody else can. maga rustles snowflake jimmies.
I'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek. Slightly. So let me explain more seriously.
The point of this thread is to be the archetypal court jester. I call it MAGA because, well, the court jesters of society have vanished from their usual places (like stand-up comedy) and reappeared in internet Trumpian circles. Those who don't like what the court jesters have to say tend to view it as ridicule, but that's not what the court jester is really doing. The court jester speaks a (very) unpopular truth regarding some contemporary social dynamic that spares no feelings. The court jester gets away with doing this by being over-the-top and silly. Most people do not like what the court jester has to say, and if they did, the court jester wouldn't need to say it in the first place.
As long as you're happy to give someone the option to execute you when we get bored.
http://i.imgur.com/sFERFvH.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Can you clarify when exactly America was great originally? I hear all this nostalgia but no definitive time.
Excellent question. One for which I cannot provide a quantifiable answer, but can qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
America's greatness is an idea. America is where the ideas of individual sovereignty and constrained government flourished. America didn't create those ideas, but America gave them their horsepower.
Here's something you might like: from discussions we have had in the past, I have gathered that you might think that religion is kinda nonsense. Well, the freedom with which you can believe that grew the most out of America and the ideas that encapsulate Americanism.
America is the Renaissance on steroids. The Renaissance is where the European aristocracy brought back the classic Greeks. Some small bits of western Europe incorporated the Renaissance into the world of the non-aristocracy. America grabbed that and sprinted with it. So much of what we take for granted today came because of how America changed things.
That is not to say that America was the only mover. It was (is) not. It was (is) the vanguard and the chief force for progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Insert Trump joke here
Is this only the MAGAposting thread or is this the politics shitposting thread 2.0?
No, it's the "we devolve into political droolers by ignoring the intelligent discourse which opposes ours, and only focusing on the vocal idiots who are easy targets, unwittingly making ourselves easy targets."
AKA the "wuf marginalizes his political voice" thread.
The only thing I would object to here is the use of the present tense. He's been doing this for over a year now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Can't wait for Wufmindlessshitposting thread 3 with some other catchy title that I can safely put on my ignore list.
You don't enjoy reading them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
At least three of his posts in this thread are legitimately funny.
I enjoy it as much as I can enjoy vacuousness sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
1, 3 & 15 are good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
With regards to the google post and treating people as individuals I think the poster of that comment forgets two things which are pretty important. The first of which is that if you are in an industry that is say 90% male you are missing out on a load of great women who would be a massive plus to the industry and thinking of ways to encourage those women into the company is a huge plus. I'd argue companies attempting to do this do so really badly but in principle it's definitely something they should be looking to do because it's a huge plus for the company. The second thing he forgets is that the concept of treating people as individuals is actually a much falser reality than what's going on, racism, sexism etc all exist and play a big part in peoples everyday judgements so to say judge people as individuals and juts assume that no bias exists is just shitty rhetoric too.
I don't think people appreciate the fact that women leaving the workforce is actually a huge drain on the workforce. To put it more in numbers if 98% of the top 30% of the male workforce are working to near their potential in the workplace and only 60% of that top 30% of females is doing the same you're putting worse people in jobs. Even if you expect that number to be lower for women due to gender differences it's not hard to see that we're talking gulfs in difference when it should be small differences.
Super neat how no counterpoints are made yet I am still attacked.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
I'm shitposting lololololQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
.....
Look at everyone attacking me whilst I'm shitposting lololololol
The posts here are quite different than in the shitposting thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
When people find things you believe disagreeable, the trick is to tell them things they either have a hard time disagreeing with or that they would have to spend brain time formulating an argument against, and then watch them not address the claims and instead address you with negativity.
The posts I think are funny and the posts I agree with aren't the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also my original post wasn't taken seriously enough in terms of the regard you should take for your craft because what is happening to you isn't the same as a court jester.
Also also see lots of points made in my post about how I disagree with the google chap.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to you. In my experience you have always been fair and logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I've always said I'm a great guy and anyone who disagrees is a cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you're trying to convince people or something, and I'm not saying you are, then maybe the least important thing should be them.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I'd state it as "drain on business" instead of on workforce. People leaving the workforce is a benefit for those who remain yet it is bad for employers.Quote:
I don't think people appreciate the fact that women leaving the workforce is actually a huge drain on the workforce. To put it more in numbers if 98% of the top 30% of the male workforce are working to near their potential in the workplace and only 60% of that top 30% of females is doing the same you're putting worse people in jobs. Even if you expect that number to be lower for women due to gender differences it's not hard to see that we're talking gulfs in difference when it should be small differences.
Could you clarify your final point? Are you getting at the idea that disagreement with a person is one of the least effective ways to change that specific person's mind? If you are, I agree entirely. The phenomenon is pretty huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
You don't you're just lying to make me more agreeable but yes I agree I used inconsistent terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Are you saying I don't think people exiting the workforce is a drain on business?
Your point was "I make points, get attacked (personally), nothing happens*". If the people you're arguing against are juts spouting rhetoric at you then what are you doing to convince them otherwise? That is a genuine question. IF you're just saying a they're saying b how is that any different to the echo chambers you don't like?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
*The last one is false and maybe you imply it intentionally but it's also not outrageous to think you're also assuming this to be true as a fault.
I feel like you edited something out of your post but tbf I'm drunk and maybe not. But ye I agree with your terminology was my point. Not that you were trying to be sneaky because what you said originally was just a better phrasing of what I said too.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Mostly I'm probably experimenting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I'd say it is an echo chamber, like you say. We're all in echo chambers. I believe there is value in expanding consumption of various echo chambers that disagree with each other such that one's echo chamber becomes more representative of greater knowledge and critical thinking.Quote:
That is a genuine question. IF you're just saying a they're saying b how is that any different to the echo chambers you don't like?
That kind of goes against the point of what an echo chamber is. You saying things into the abyss isn't changing anything.
More generally to everyone,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-4...mojis-and-gifs
How much of this post do you agree with and how much don't you?
Not necessarily related but I think BBC3's whos "what not to say to x person" is the worst around.7
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tag/things-not-to-say
I should clarify that this doesn't mean that labor participation exit is actually good for the remaining laborers. In most ways it is probably bad. Lucky for us, entry and exit of labor tends to be an effect from a change in something else. My initial claim was regarding the exit resulting in (and from) virtually no industry disruption other than employers having a harder time finding employees and having to pay them more.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's definitely not the way the term is generally used. I use it that way because I estimate it to be philosophically consistent with the meaning of the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
What do you mean? Are you saying that me posting stuff in an attempt to change minds here isn't effective? If so, I agree by about 90% (or whatever made up big percentage). While I think I have altered some opinions, the main change that comes is my own honing of ideas and style.Quote:
You saying things into the abyss isn't changing anything.
Where's the attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My "marginalizes" point or was it poopadoop's "vacuousness" comment, 'cause either way, you're assuming false victimization to call either a personal attack.
You hypocrite.
:p
Now... who do you think you're calling out, here? Why should we offer counterpoints to the idiots you're making fun of? They're legit idiots, from any side of any aisle.
Furthermore... what points? Those memes you've posted? IDK where to even begin to unravel your use of imagery to vilify a position no one holds, here. Take this thread to reddit and I'm sure you'll find a room full of idiots who are more than happy to spout their half-baked ideas to both support and refute your points.
You're picking on idiots, and waiting for them to argue with you. This reduces you to mocking idiots, which is, at best, an idiotic thing to do.
If you think we hold those opinions, then you're being a jerk who has ignored every intelligent conversation we've had with you.
I don't think you hold those opinions (which is in part why I posted them), yet I am (and my views are) treated as stupid and oppositional. One can see where I'm coming from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If I have misread and you simply do not like the tactic I have used (meme-form joke and ridiculousness), then I apologize. I intended this to be where people could post their own hard truths in ridiculous form, but it quickly turned to "there goes wuf again saying dumb stuff". Granted, I may have purposely-subconsciously laid poison pills within (maga) because maybe I want to be the lone wolf. It gets me hard.
Who cares if haters gonna hate, man?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm impressed with how much you've changed and incorporated new ideas over the years. Some of those ideas got a lot of pushback from discussions here, and now you hold them. Certainly not the mark of a stupid person, IMO.
I'm sorry if you feel like you're getting attacked. You do come across as just looking for an argument a lot, and I think you have cultivated that with purpose. Being argumentative is gonna rub most people the wrong way at least some of the time. You're just different than some people looking for arguments because of the reason I noted above: you're actually interested in incorporating new, good ideas. Your method of figuring out if an idea sounds good or is good sometimes is to adopt the idea fully and see where it gets you. I don't fully get that attitude, but I respect that it's leading you to deeper understanding of who you are and what you stand for.
Don't let the haters slow you down.
You got this.
lol. nice finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm all good with making fun of idiots. I'm pretty idiotic at least once a day.
I got on the wrong train the other day (red line instead of blue line) and didn't notice until I was 2 stops past my exit (the 2 lines share rail for a while, then diverge). Soooo... I'm clearly worthy of some fun-making and "stupid" calling on a fairly regular basis. I'm certainly not going to defend it if you call me out for doing stupid things I actually do. At most I can shrug and say, "heh, yeah... I'm working on it, OK... it's progressive (lie)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://i.imgur.com/zPUVF6p.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
OMGclayaiken!
I've been thinking about this because your comment is the base for me realizing some of my own incoherence of thought. It's that the stuff I have posted is in part because I think you guys agree with it but also don't agree with it. I think maybe I have defined an idea by its worst elements (which isn't necessarily wrong, but also not necessarily right). Since your comment, each time I wanted to post something, I have had to ask the question of myself if it's a mischaracterization of the opinions of those on this board, and usually it seems to be so I haven't posted much since. That said, I think the reason why I automatically think they're not mischaracterizations is by this logic: take the Onion one for example, I think that is the inevitable outcome of sufficient enough government intervention into the college system. But you don't see it that way; therefore the Onion piece can seem to me like it's not a mischaracterization of what comes of your professed beliefs even though it is an explicit mischaracterization of your professed beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Anyways, congrats. I tend to revisit criticisms sent my way, and that one comment basically got me to reconsider the intent of this thread.
It's possible that I gave gravity to what you said because of the more generous things you said in 41 and 42. I don't know if this is the case, but I do believe that the mind comes to its reformed ideas for reasons very poorly understood, and that for the last few days on occasion your criticism as well as generosity was in my mind. Maybe the generosity opened me up to the criticism. I have no clue, just wanted to say it could be the case.
Can there be a love greater than the love I have for this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Bgc3s3ppM
Don't mind Frank, just doing more in one afternoon than Congress has done in half a year.
http://static.politico.com/ad/bb/456...-847378060.jpg
Why has no one pulled him up on how shit a job he did? He also came across like a brainwashed idiot, poor chap.
No wonder the White House is such a dump, they got a ten year old kid cutting the grass.
Do they pay him more than they pay the Mexicans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nah, Trump stiffed him. Kid has to go to court to try to get his wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Rocket Man might be the most brilliant use of language I've encountered.
Ya, Elton John really had a way with words.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You put some guitar under that speech and you basically got a Dylan song.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Can you find a better example of skin in the game (and lack thereof)?
https://i.imgur.com/PGnTbzu.jpg
Being made to feel like a bad person for refusing to sing the national anthem is disgusting. Am I a bad person for refusing to sing a song about an imaginary dude in the clouds protecting the legacy of a priviledged elderly woman of German heritage? Or would I be an utter hypocrite if I did sing the fucking song?
Let people make their choices, and respect them. By casting moral judgement on those who refuse to sing a song based on the concept of compulsary patriotism, one becomes an even bigger arsehole than the person they critisise.
Dude, I think you kinda missed the point raised by of both sides of this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Football, or anything like it, only happens because we live in a free and prosperous society that allows for such comforts and luxuries. That society didn't just create itself. It exists because of the efforts and sacrifices of the people sworn to protect and defend America. We recognize those efforts and sacrifices by playing the national anthem before community events like this. This mini-ceremony to remind us of our shared history, helps to strengthen us as a culture.
No one is ever forced, or even asked, to sing. The vast majority of people remain silent actually. You don't have to salute. You don't have to take off your hat. You don't have to put your hand over your heart. We just ask that you stand, along with everybody else, and show some respect for the sacrifices that are part of all of our shared heritage.
If you can't support that, then you're oblivious to history, delusional, or both. But STILL, in America, we respect your right to be oblivious, delusional, and not support gestures of respect for the flag. If a player doesn't want to salute the flag, he doesn't have to. He can stay in the locker room getting his ankle taped, taking a piss, or playing computer solitaire.
WHOA!!! slow down on the contradiction there buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sure, let people make their own choices. So how about we let the stadium full of people enjoy their mini-ceremony? There are thousand of people all taking 30 seconds to celebrate their common history. "Let them make their choices and respect them"
If you can't do that, then it is definitely time for some moral judgement. Instead of letting those tens of thousands of people have their 30 seconds, some under-educated over-night millionaires come out and thrust THEIR activist cause onto center stage. You don't feel like there is a moral judgement to be made there? You don't see why some of those tens of thousands of people might be a little miffed?
Beyond that, there are other issues I have with this whole situation.
First, it's so hopelessly misguided that the act undermines itself with its own ridiculousness. Exercising freedom of speech by disrespecting the symbols and history that gave you that freedom of speech seems kinda retarded.
Second, with thousands of TV stations, dozens of social media outlets, and the relative fame that comes with being a professional athlete, all of these guys have many many many better ways to get their message out. Instead, they chose a method that insults the ideals of most of their fan base.
Third, these guys are supposed to be "working". Every company I've ever worked for goes out of their way to keep a lid on any kind of political activism in the workplace. It's disruptive, divisive, and has nothing to do with your job. Go ahead, tomorrow at work send out a company wide email rooting for your favorite cause. Even if it's something seemingly benign like "support the troops" or "yay freedom", I can almost guarantee you that HR will be calling you and telling you to shut it down.
Yet when league and team owners try to protect the integrity and mass appeal of their brand by stifling these protests....they are cast as racists. That kind of baseless accusation should certainly evoke some kind of moral judgement.
And fourth....it's obviously FAILING. Sure these protests are headline news in the sports world. But what is all the talk really about? All the questions seem to be asking "Is this the right venue for this activism?" or "what do you think about so-and-so's protest?". I have barely heard a word about the meaning of the protest or its cause. I haven't heard of any specific action that these players are calling for. I haven't heard of any goal that they might have other than to call attention to themselves.
So long as you're not bullying people who can't be arsed to stand for a sing song, then sure I can let you have your sing song while I go grab a beer.Quote:
Sure, let people make their own choices. So how about we let the stadium full of people enjoy their mini-ceremony?
Yeah sports dickheads ramming their political opinion down the throats of fans does boil my piss somewhat. Same with musicians, or authors of shit kid's books, or wheelchair-bound physicists.Quote:
...some under-educated over-night millionaires come out and thrust THEIR activist cause onto center stage.
And yeah as the well paid sports star in the centre of the field, sure there's more responsibility to not be a dick. Someone in the crowd doesn't want to stand, whatever. Millionaire cunts ruining everyone's day... different matter. I can understand why that pisses people off.
I don't disagree with most of your post. I just have a real problem with ramming patriotism down people's throats. Nobody chose to be shat out in the country they were born in... why have pride or shame for your nation's history? Have pride or shame for your own actions.
The controversy arises in large part because the kneeling is for the expressed purpose of protesting the anthem, America, Americanism, history, etc..
The skin in the game comment has to do with how those kneeling are utterly clueless about what they are doing* because they have no actual skin in the game; whereas the cop is clued into what he is doing because he has skin in the game.
*They're protesting something that isn't even real. They're protesting fake news, fake narrative. They live in ivory towers and act like they're simpatico with the streets. They don't know history, they don't know philosophy. They're protesting essentially that which gives them the right to protest in the first place. They epitomize ignorance and solidarity with harmful ideas. They epitomize a pitfall of when one doesn't have skin in the game.
The cop OTOH might not know any of this abstractly or in a way that he could explain it, yet he experiences it. He has skin in the game. He puts his life on the line. He lives on the streets. He salutes the nation because he believes the nation is good, and he believes the nation is good because of its cultural ideals that he experiences every day. The ideals at the heart of why the kneelers kneel have destroyed nations.
Says a man who has no fucking idea how stupidly ironic his comments and actions are.Quote:
"I'm not going to let one individual, no matter their power, ever use sport as a platform to divide us." - LeBron
If these guys were saying "bollocks to patriotism" I'd be on side, at least to the point where they're quietly letting those who want to have a sing song get on with it. But these guys are saying "oh my god Trump is a cunt, fuck you everyone I'm going to be a dick about it". I mean they're taking a giant dump on the majority of people there. Then they claim they won't be divided. These people are as moronic as they are rude.
Still, bollocks to national anthems and flags. They mean fuck all to me.
America is fucking crazy. It causes a shitstorm here when our footballers wear poppies. Political statements are a big no-no from FIFA's pov, they fine nations when their fans sing nationalist songs. How do NFL allow this to happen?
NFL has always been US specific, so being all about the US is typically accepted (preferred). FIFA is mostly global, so setting one nation above another is weird.
One idea is that the NFL is trying to go global. I think that is a small part of it, but I have a source that claims insider information that I think is probably more accurate: the narratives in companies that deal with NFL (like jersey manufacturers) think that anti-Americanism, Trump is evil, blacks are oppressed, America was never good, etc., are actually selling.
True, but the point is that FIFA set the bar so much higher. The poppy isn't even political... it's rememberance, honours the war dead, and, as far as I'm aware, offends nobody. FIFA have recently relented and accepted it as an exemption, but probably only because of the lack of protest from other nations.Quote:
FIFA is mostly global, so setting one nation above another is weird.
NFL are the regulators of US football and I would assume they issue licenses to players. They should realise that politics creeping into the sport is bad for business because it's divisive, and they have the power to ensure it doesn't happen, or at least if it does they can fine or suspend players, or even revoke their licenses.
It's bringing the sport into disrepute, and they're allowing it.
Yeah, like you say, they should realize it. My hypothesis regarding why they don't realize it is they are getting very bad advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Everything would be so much easier if all kinds of protesting were made illegal.
Did you see who has the #1 selling jersey this week?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Either your insider friend is talking out of his fudge knot, or the NFL and all it's sponsor companies are currently stunned at being proven so very wrong.
First of all, on the disrepute front, the NFL has bigger fish to fry. Google "Aaron Hernandez"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Second of all, what you're saying makes sense to me, but public opinion seems to be going the other way. You wouldn't know this unless you follow the NFL closely. I'm sure you don't, because you live in a country that prefers pansy-ball.
This whole thing with kneeling for the anthem actually started last season, or maybe the season before by a Quarterback named Colin Kaepernick (sp?). CK is a guy who got a little hot in his first year or so, and then turned out to be a really really really shitty quarterback. As such, he is currently unemployed.
The discourse and overwhelming narrative during the preseason seemed to ask if CK was being denied a job by racist white team owners because of his activism. There were plenty of people on the side of "no, he actually just sucks", but the popular opinion was that he was being blackballed.
My two cents, he was being blackballed. He might be good enough to be a backup or something in the league, but he brings a lot of headaches and distractions. A team can't give the guy a contract without its owner, players, and coaches being harassed with questions about the guy and his politcs.
Look what happened to the Steelers this week. There are stories out about how the team struggled to agree on how to handle the national anthem. They wanted 100% team unity for whatever they did, and spent the whole week debating what to do. In the meantime, they must have forgotten to practice cause they got beat by the fuckin bears. For those of you who follow pansy-ball, the Steelers are a team that was one win away from the Super Bowl last year while the Bears are a team that went 3-13 last year.
Maybe they would have lost anyway, but its pretty obvious the team was not focused. And THAT is why no one wants the distraction of hiring CK. Furthermore, imagine if a team did sign the guy, and then he actually sucks and they cut him. It doesn't matter how bad he played (A LOT of teams have crummy QB's), cutting him would be a media shit-storm.
The problem is, this kind of sensible, logical analysis never makes it to the public discourse. Mostly because its too level-headed and boring. Instead, it seems that the public narrative is forcing NFL owners to make a choice. Side with the activists...or you're a racist.
And the absence of any sensible middle ground, is what irks me the most about this whole situation. If you kneel during the anthem, you're a traitor. If you stand for the anthem, you're a racist.
You're right, I don't follow NFL at all. I call it eggball. It's somewhat hypocritical of me to use that phrase because I like rugby, but still, eggball sounds funny.
I was talking about this earlier with my friend, who sympathises with the players. I pointed out that a plyer who is thinking about politics right before the game is acting unprofessionally, a point my friend couldn't counter. His focus should be 100% on the job he is paid to do. When the entire squad is concerned about it instead of the upcoming opposition, and then go on to lose against an inferior team, well that just goes to show the importance of focus.
I see this as virtue signalling, and I consider it rude to draw attention to one's political beliefs while the majority of people around you are trying to engage in a patriotic sing song. However ridiculous I personally find the sing song, I respect the fact that it is important to the vast majority of people there. My friend respects these guys' right to protest, which I don't argue with. I just counter that they are being dicks in doing so, and agree with Trump that it is potentially a disciplinary matter.
Racist!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Spoiler:jk
For the record, I would just like to remind everyone I am not a racist, I am in fact a xenophobe.
Kinda the same thing in 2017Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah just like anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same in 2017.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I mean Miko Peled is an anti-Semite these days. No, I hadn't heard of him either until recently. A Jewish American born in Jerusalem whose father was a general who fought two Israeli wars and whose grandfather signed the Israeli Declaration of Independance.
He's an anti-Semite because he dared to suggest that Holocaust denial is a valid subject of discussion.
We live in a world where Jews can be anti-Semites for expressing an opinion about free speech.
Fuck 2017.
virtually nobody who is upset about the kneeling thinks that. those upset about the kneeling tend to favor the right to protest the most too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
in a free country -- and in this case a free market regarding transactions between nfl producers and consumers -- people need the right to protest (like by kneeling during an anthem), and other people need the right to protest that protest (like no longer purchasing the product by those kneeling to the anthem).
i thought it was clear that kaepernick had one of the worst seasons of any quarterback before nobody picked him back up. i dont follow it much anymore
Not even close. He played in 12 games in 2016 and had a passer rating of 90.7. That puts him 26th among all quarterbacks that year (there are 32 total teams). Also, that ranking is kinda bogus. #3 on the list is Chase Daniel who only threw one pass all year. It was a completion, so his QB rating is really high because his completion percentage is 100%. If I throw out all the QB's who started less than half the season in 2016, then Kaepernick ranks somewhere in the high-teens. Very much middle-of-the-road.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So if each team has carries 2 or 3 quarterbacks, then there are probably 70-90 in the whole league, and Kaepernick ranks in the top 20. It really shouldn't be in doubt whether or not he's good enough to play. He clearly has the ability to be average.
But if you're average, it means there are a ton of other guys out there just like you. Any other QB is more or less just as good as you are. So if a team can get an average QB without all the activism and nonsense, they will. And they should. But when other activists parse the narrative to their liking, all the public hears is "QB jobless cuz of activism". And the response is "but free speech tho!"
Kaepernick seems to think he deserves a job because he's just as good as anyone else out there. But because of the headaches that he brings (which he created himself) he now has to demonstrate some kind of advanced talent. He has to make his value worth the additional headaches. And he hasn't done that. So when an NFL owner has to choose between Kaepernick and the noise he brings, or some other forgettable average knucklehead who can deliver the same on-field performance, then they choose the average knucklehead. So CK remains unemployed.
I thought we were the same person! What have I been watching!!??Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Now the owners are realizing there's value in preventing the fallout from leaving a quarterback jobless in a way that can easily be, and will be read as punishment for the player choosing to speak up about a social issue.
The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now. They should have made sure CK kept a job, so long as the attention was on, yet come out strong with superficial patriotism and even stronger with statements on the value of the first amendment. "We wish he wouldn't take a knee, but we are glad we live in a country where our brave sons and daughters have fought to give him that right."
Boom, NFL is a hero to all.
I realize there is still some debate about this. But the 'reading' of the situation should be obvious. CK would have a job if we wasn't an activist. His unemployment is a direct result of his decision to mix his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
HE made that decision. HE committed those acts. And now he is a victim because his actions have consequences?? That is some serious snowflake bullshit.
What blows my mind, is that there are people that think that this is somehow morally objectionable. Try it at your job. Stand up in the cafeteria, raise your fist, and say "black power". Maybe leave some anti-abortion pamphlets in the break room. Show your support for cops by hanging one of those blue-stripe flags in your cubicle. I promise you that your boss wont' like it, and will put a stop to it in order to prevent a disruptive distraction in the workplace.
Why do NFL owners not have the same right? I admit its anecdotal evidence, but the Steelers loss demonstrated to me that this is a distraction. It results in a lack of focus. And that hurts the on-field product. Shouldn't the team be allowed to manage its personnel in a way that best benefits its stakeholders?
When you say "the league" are you talking about the NFL itself, the corporate entity that oversees the management of the sport? Or is the "league" referring to a general collective all 32 teams?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Who should have?Quote:
They should have made sure CK kept a job,
Ummmm.....hello? That's what they did the entire time CK was in the league doing this stuff. This has been going on for over a year. The big dust up this week is because Trump opened his mouth about it.Quote:
so long as the attention was on, yet come out strong with superficial patriotism and even stronger with statements on the value of the first amendment. "We wish he wouldn't take a knee, but we are glad we live in a country where our brave sons and daughters have fought to give him that right."
Boom, NFL is a hero to all.
This is actually getting funny now. All I heard the last five days was massive outrage at Trump. When he says "fire the people who don't agree with my beliefs" it's called Orwellian and unconstitutional. Boost's latest post however just argues the inverse. Teams should be forced to HIRE someone just to demonstrate political sympathy? How's that not Orwellian or unconstitutional?
CK's actions offended the vast vast vast majority of the team's paying customers. And you're saying it's an injustice that he's jobless??
If you need yet another illustration of the hypocrisy on the left....
On one hand the left says.......
"Colin Kaepernick shouldn't lose his job for exercising his first amendment rights! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!"
On the other hand the left says....
"A woman exercising her second amendment rights at work?? Nah, we hate guns. Fuck the constitution. Corporate rules apply here. Good luck with your Gofundme page bitch"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26...y-suspect.html
Imagine this scenario...
Imagine CK is a white guy who heavily sympathizes with pro-life causes. And instead of taking a knee during the anthem to protest America's treatment of minorities, he instead holds his arms and sways as if he is cradling a baby.
What do you think the media narrative would be then? What would be the NFL's reaction then?
Yep.Quote:
His unemployment is a direct result of his decision to mix his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities. HE made that decision. HE committed those acts. And now he is a victim because his actions have consequences?? That is some serious snowflake bullshit.
If you're going to act unprofessionally in this manner, then either your cause needs to have an awful lot of public support (a very clear majority), or you need to be fucking world class so no team dares drop you.
I wouldn't employ him, not unless he was clearly the best player in his position I could realistically sign.
Trump preparing executive order to allow across state lines sale of health insurance.
Fucking yes. To fix healthcare, this is needed. Big time. Granted, the EO probably won't work technically but it could lead to real action by states and Congress. The EO helps box scum politicians in so that they have to do the right thing instead of what they normally do.
https://i.redd.it/cqqcukwzqeoz.png
Barry's brother makes thought-provoking points.
Can't Critique The Malik!
Ummm.. BananaStand, you read a whole lot into my post that absolutely was not there.
I guess I wasn't completely clear, but this being a poker forum, I thought the fact that I was critiquing their play, not their morals would be picked up on. I'm fairly agnostic on whether CK deserved to lose his job over this, whether or not he did lose his job over this (I don't follow football closely, and I'm not sure who to believe regarding his skills), whether it's morally objectionable to fire a player for this sort of protest, etc.
What I do know is that it appears they did fire him for it, and there are now a whole host of players taking a knee, who are almost certainly less valuable to their given teams than CK was, and who are not going to be fired over it. What gives?Whether they had the moral high ground in firing him-- whether he was being disrespectful or whether he was using his position to respectfully highlight a social issue that he finds important, the 49'ers appear to have made an example of him, and the other teams at least tacitly supported this move when they refused to open their club to CK. And the move backfired. Football is mired in a more divisive atmosphere now. Their apparent bluff was called, and now they're paying up.
Again, I'm fairly agnostic about the morality on all sides here-- but I think there's some strange doublethink going on in your post. As I understand it, you think that it is not morally objectionable for an employer to fire staff for not participating in patriotic pageantry. Therefore it follows, there is no issue with an employer forcing staff, by threat of termination, to perform overt patriotic gestures.
I don't want to misrepresent the facts on the ground, nor do I want to misrepresent your position here-- so please let me know where I made a leap.
Your use of the word "fired" makes your whole post into an egregious misrepresentation of facts on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Colin Kaepernick HAD a contract with the 49ers for the 2016 and 2017 seasons, with 2017 being what's called a "player-option". That means that CK can decide at the start of the year whether or not he wants to play under that contract for that year.
In other words, if CK wanted to play this year, all he had to do was say "yes please"
CK exercised his player option, and opted out of his contract believing he could hit the open market and make more money from another team.
He grossly over-estimated his own value.
DisagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
Some loaded language there, but yes. I think it's totally fine if an employer chooses to enforce consequences if one of its employees chooses to do something that offends the overwhelming majority of its paying customers. There are lots of jobs out there with rules and people who get fired for breaking those rules. Show up on time, wear steel toed boots, and for fucks sake..DON'T PISS OFF THE CUSTOMERS!Quote:
As I understand it, you think that it is not morally objectionable for an employer to fire staff for not participating in patriotic pageantry.
RightQuote:
Therefore it follows, there is no issue with an employer forcing staff, by threat of termination, to perform overt patriotic gestures
So where's the doublethink? Yes, a team can make its own rules about the anthem and it can punish players for not following the rules. I'm not even sure why that's ambiguous My comment regarding your post was in relation to this passage here:
What you said here is that another entity, the league, should intervene and force a team to put CK on its roster. Yet the players are saying that it's not right for another entity, the president, to intervene and call for teams to fire players. That's double thinkQuote:
The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now. They should have made sure CK kept a job,
Again, boost, it seems your entire argument hinges on the idea that CK was somehow 'punished' by a team for his actions. He wasn't. He chose to become a free agent and test his value on the open market. And when he found that the market didn't want him, his average level of play, his inability to perform in a pro-style offense, and the media headaches that he brings with him.......then folks cried "racist conspiracy!"
Did you know that Dr Seuss books are racist now?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...as-racist.html
But only if a white person is reading them
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnew....jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Dr. Suess update....
LIBRARY BITCH BUSTED!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/29...at-in-hat.html
I really hope we start to see more of these hypocrisies exposed.
Cultural gaslighting is crazy stuff.
Teh funny thing is they only got recognition because someone important said so. They are basically utter shit. So it isn't that they are racist (which they may be) it's just they are shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you wear shoes....you're a racist.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06...niversity.html
Um not really. I think it's closer to... if you hang a shoelace that looks like a noose from a black person's door, it might be inccorectly perceived as racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is a non-story that shouldn't even make the local papers, let alone make it across the Atlantic for my digestion.