Racism: glorified hyperbole in America

[BVS]

That's just a load of crap.

Agree or disagree with his stance, the entire point of America is that he should be afforded the freedom to make his stance.

Perhaps Kaepernick just wants to make America great again.

Rich white man calls the system rigged and he's considered "anti-establishment" and they want to give him the keys to the kingdom.

Rich black man calls the system oppressive and he's called a traitor and suggestions of bounties for his head are all over the internet.

Very telling...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Rich white man calls the system rigged and he's considered "anti-establishment" and they want to give him the keys to the kingdom.

Rich black man calls the system oppressive and he's called a traitor and suggestions of bounties for his head are all over the internet.

Very telling...

I mean... Trump's entire thing is that we need to make America great again, but when somebody exercises his constitutional rights to protest American policy, Trump thinks he should find another country if he doesn't like it.

 

[Oregoropa]

That's just a load of crap.

Agree or disagree with his stance, the entire point of America is that he should be afforded the freedom to make his stance.

Perhaps Kaepernick just wants to make America great again.

A bit hyperbolic on my part. There are some players that will love to put a hard hit on Kap because of his action.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

A bit hyperbolic on my part. There are some players that will love to put a hard hit on Kap because of his action.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Like all the players who took out the Rams for their Ferguson protest last year?

Oh wait, that's right. Nobody did a thing.

 

[Bluer White]

A bit hyperbolic on my part. There are some players that will love to put a hard hit on Kap because of his action.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

QB will need to get on the field first

 

[corianderstem]

There's a wonderful novel about the authoritarianism/violence of sports culture called Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. I can't recommend it enough. It's coming out as a movie soon, directed by Ang Lee.

That book was really great.

I don't really have an opinion on Kaepernick other than I don't like him, but that's more of a football thing than a protest thing. I will say that I had a bigger response to what's-his-name's opinion piece about why he doesn't support the national anthem, as I didn't know Francis Scott Key was such a racist asshole.

Honestly, had Kaepernick said "I'm not standing up because dude, have you read about the history of the song and of Francis Scott Key? Fuck that guy, that shouldn't be our anthem" instead of his actual response (which sounded so vague that it just reeked of "hmm, no one's talking about me, I think I'm gonna have to fix that"), I would have more respect for his gesture.





oops, guess I did have an opinion after all.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

here's the thing these armchair patriots always forget: there's no law stating you have to stand for the pledge or anthem. there's no law stating you have to put your right hand on your heart during either. there's also established legal precedent showing burning the flag is free speech, not a hate crime or treason or anything.

the media and these hyper-patriots need to focus on something else. first there was douglas during the olympics, now this. of course they're both black athletes. that's why the media focuses on them and doesn't report when trump doesn't put his hand on his heart either.

my point is that this is all just crap. none of it matters. so someone doesn't stand up for something that hive mentality tells us we should. so what? there's no violent call to arms, he's just protesting what he feels is wrong with society, and that's his right imo. i've probably worded this all badly but there you go.

 

[Bluer White]

here's the thing these armchair patriots always forget: there's no law stating you have to stand for the pledge or anthem. there's no law stating you have to put your right hand on your heart during either. there's also established legal precedent showing burning the flag is free speech, not a hate crime or treason or anything.

This isn't news

Kaep and your 'armchair patriots' have the same standing.

Or sitting

 

[Bluer White]

Kaep also says this:

"I mean, you have Hillary who's called black teens or black kids super-predators.

You have Donald Trump who's openly racist.

I mean, we have a presidential candidate (Hillary) who's deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate. That doesn't make sense to me, because if that was any other person, you'd be in prison.

So what is this country really standing for?"

Consider the source and move on

 

[Vlad n U 2]

The first two lines are on the money, at the very least.

 

[Bluer White]

The first two lines are on the money, at the very least.

True Vlad, true.

The U.S. election thread shows our sorry state of affairs...

 

[Irvine511]

The "super predators" term really needs some context.

It's not as if she coined that phrase, or even made it mainstream. It was very much part of the conversation about crime that had just peaked during the early 1990s before plummeting during the Clinton years.

The term has been proven utterly wrong, and what's more important is that it may show that Democrats must present politically as being tough on crime (and we get things like Bill Clinton leaving the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally handicapped man in Arkansas, or O'Malley giving the green light for the Baltimore PD to crack skulls), but it's not as if Hillary Clinton was somehow an outlier on this topic.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Just because she wasn't alone doesn't make it excusable. And while putting something in its relative time is important, that doesn't mean there wasn't people who were actively disagreeing with that rhetoric at the time as well.

 

[cobl04]

It's interesting, the Kaepernick thing. Two things that sum up my opinion

[TWEET]769558042333569026[/TWEET]

[TWEET]770752032466669568[/TWEET]

 

[trojanchick99]

This is ridiculous. People are apoplectic about this? And yet, Ray Lewis is totally OK?

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I just wish Colin wasn't so stupid with his words after the fact.

And since I do support him, I kinda wish it was an athlete I enjoy watching as an athlete... because this is probably my favorite thing I've ever seen him do.

 

[Irvine511]

Just because she wasn't alone doesn't make it excusable. And while putting something in its relative time is important, that doesn't mean there wasn't people who were actively disagreeing with that rhetoric at the time as well.

No one is saying its excusable, but it is/was understandable in the context of the time.

It's easy to remain pure when you can take positions because you never have to suffer from political consequences (like, say, if you are from a tiny, white state). But the Clintons struggled mightily in the 1990s to realign and "triangulate" after the party suffered shattering defeats in the 1980s and 1994 midterms. We can wish that they had been more liberal, but it may not have been politically possible at the time -- and the appearance of being tough on crime may make other battles possible, and other pieces of legislation possible. They remained in power, and made more leftward incremental change possible.

 

[gump]

That book was really great.

Have you read his short-story collection, Brief Encounters with Che Guevara? It's wonderful.

 

[DaveC]

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I would support bukini shaming rather than a ban. A ban is prejudicial and takes away freedom of expression.

Likewise, shaming those wearing burkinis for the hypocrisy that it entails with women attempting to be modern while bowing to backwards social customs would be a good thing only if France were anti-religious on the whole and willing to go after other cults such as Christianity with the same fervor.

 

[Bluer White]

When I first read about this French story, thought it was a joke. Civilized government shouldn't have any say in beachwear.

(nude beaches excluded?)

 

[Diemen]

I would support bukini shaming rather than a ban.

How enlightened of you.

Likewise, shaming those wearing burkinis for the hypocrisy that it entails with women attempting to be modern while bowing to backwards social customs

Speaking for women once again. Thank God you're here to explain the only reason they would wear a burkini.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

How enlightened of you.







Speaking for women once again. Thank God you're here to explain the only reason they would wear a burkini.

I don't think he articulates his thought very well (or perhaps it's just provocative). But, I think it's somewhat of a fair point -- though it's not so much about women as it is about how institutional Islam does train women to be ultra conservative in the way they dress.

You can call it culture or religion, but that doesn't mean that it's in any way liberating. I think the right to choose your religion is important. The most important part of this discussion. But it's a catch 22 for liberalism and traditional Islamic clothing.

That being said, shaming someone is sort of useless. And childish. And rude. I think it's mostly up to Muslim women to push their own boundaries. If you want to shame someone, shame the people that shame the Muslim women for bending their rules. That's the best settling point I can think of from a socially liberal perspective.

 

[Diemen]

That being said, shaming someone is sort of useless. And childish. And rude.

Exactly. The idea that Western men shaming Muslim women accomplishes anything beyond externalizing a smug feeling of superiority is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't help the women.

 

[Oregoropa]

No talking about France in this thread. It's "Glorified Hyperbole in America"


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

it's not so much about women as it is about how institutional Islam does train women to be ultra conservative in the way they dress.

right, because at the same time we're also concerned about how the Amish and Hasidic Jews also train their women to be ultra conservative in the way they dress.

 

[gump]

Exactly. The idea that Western men shaming Muslim women accomplishes anything beyond externalizing a smug feeling of superiority is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't help the women.

It's almost as though people should be able to determine for themselves what they should or should not wear.

 

[corianderstem]

It's okay, you guys - you can be against religion telling women what to wear AND the government telling women what to wear.

Mind-blowing, I know.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

right, because at the same time we're also concerned about how the Amish and Hasidic Jews also train their women to be ultra conservative in the way they dress.

Who is "we?"

Like I said, freedom of an adult's choice is the most important thing. Speaking of Amish, don't they like, allow their people a year in the city life and give them the choice to stay or go?

Anyways, besides the point. Totally besides the point. To whatever extent any religion or culture suggests that a woman (or a man, at that) needs to cover themselves I disagree with. In the particular case of Islam, it is very much so a man-on-woman act. Nobody look at my wife because she's for my private eyes only. It's somewhat possessive. I think ultimately that's for an adult Muslim woman to decide how she feels about that though. I respectfully disagree with the idea of it, as I do with most religious topics.

 

[Irvine511]

It's okay, you guys - you can be against religion telling women what to wear AND the government telling women what to wear.

Mind-blowing, I know.

But then who will to tell women what they can and cannot wear?