Kaepernick

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't personally care if Obama's level of involvement with his own inauguration decorations (to me that's just giving him a preemptive pass on it if he didn't approve it). it's his inauguration, he should know if he's flying a racist flag behind himself. 

I don't see one of those flags, myself.  

it's the same flag as the nike shoe flag. 

I know.  I don't see a racist flag behind Obama.  And my guess is he didn't either.  

It clearly isn't a racist flag. That is Kaep's faux outrage. He exists to stir the pot.

Is the Betsy Ross flag racist? Nike listened to Colin Kaepernick, but hate group monitors say no, conservatives push back.

 The Anti-Defamation League does not include it in its database of hate symbols. Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the ADL's Center on Extremism, said extremist groups have occasionally used it, but the flag is most commonly used by people for patriotic purposes. "We view it as essentially an innocuous historical flag," Pitcavage said. "It's not a thing in the white supremacist movement."

The ADL would be quick to call it out as racist if it actually was. This entire thing is contrived outrage. It's working, I guess. And it is fucking stupid.

"It has been used by some extremist groups as a means of telegraphing a return to more traditionalist (re: predominantly white and male) American ideals. “Under the guise of ‘heritage,’ symbols of early U.S. history have long been adopted by hate groups set on returning to a time when all non-white people were viewed as subhuman and un-American,” says Keegan Hankes, research analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “Historically, these symbols have been used by white supremacists, both to hearken back to a time when black people were enslaved, while also painting themselves as the inheritors of the ‘true’ American tradition.”

So every time a hate group tries to take something from us, we need to let them have it and move on.  No thanks.  

I added to my post.

So what do you suggest? Let's say racists decide to start using this flag more (they likely will), and African Americans really view it as a symbol of hate against them. Are you going to mount the flag on your car and remind those people of slavery and discriminiation against them in the name of protecting that flag from the white supremacists? Or are you going to confront the white supremacists and nationalists/patriots head on and try to get them to stop using the symbols before you do? Me, I think I'll just follow what African Americans think (or other minorities, in the same context). Whatever they like best with shit like this, I'm good with it. Their opinion about it (in reaction to the practices of racists, white nationalists, and "patriots") is the only thing that really matters to me, and yes, that includes things related in the same way to Canada's history (I have already supported the removal of numerous statues and school names in Canada that were deemed inappropriate by First Nations). I'm not about to let random symbols from a largely dirty, deplorable past that nobody ever usually thinks about be more important than the feelings of minority groups who have suffered through history who exist now.

Well I'm not planning on making it Custer's last stand.  But none of us would even be thinking about it if it wasn't for Kap.  So in a way, he has created some sense of 'awareness' which leads to some more splitting of the country, which is bad.  Like I said, I think we would all be better served if he used his power to try to unite and marginalize them, taking back the symbol, not splitting away.  Obama tried to do that with the country, I think.  

I understand what you're saying, but, as I've said in several other threads about a bunch of things lately, the country's already split. Irreparably, IMO. I certainly think it's easy to pick which side to be on, too. But why should Kaepernick be the bad guy here? I very much believe that he is not. He's a good guy. It's not his fault that it's so damned easy to find things in America that hearken back to atrocities committed against black people.

cincybearcat

Wait...there are only 2 sides and you have to pick one?

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't personally care if Obama's level of involvement with his own inauguration decorations (to me that's just giving him a preemptive pass on it if he didn't approve it). it's his inauguration, he should know if he's flying a racist flag behind himself. 

I don't see one of those flags, myself.  

it's the same flag as the nike shoe flag. 

I know.  I don't see a racist flag behind Obama.  And my guess is he didn't either.  

It clearly isn't a racist flag. That is Kaep's faux outrage. He exists to stir the pot.

Is the Betsy Ross flag racist? Nike listened to Colin Kaepernick, but hate group monitors say no, conservatives push back.

 The Anti-Defamation League does not include it in its database of hate symbols. Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the ADL's Center on Extremism, said extremist groups have occasionally used it, but the flag is most commonly used by people for patriotic purposes. "We view it as essentially an innocuous historical flag," Pitcavage said. "It's not a thing in the white supremacist movement."

The ADL would be quick to call it out as racist if it actually was. This entire thing is contrived outrage. It's working, I guess. And it is fucking stupid.

"It has been used by some extremist groups as a means of telegraphing a return to more traditionalist (re: predominantly white and male) American ideals. “Under the guise of ‘heritage,’ symbols of early U.S. history have long been adopted by hate groups set on returning to a time when all non-white people were viewed as subhuman and un-American,” says Keegan Hankes, research analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “Historically, these symbols have been used by white supremacists, both to hearken back to a time when black people were enslaved, while also painting themselves as the inheritors of the ‘true’ American tradition.”

So every time a hate group tries to take something from us, we need to let them have it and move on.  No thanks.  

I added to my post.

So what do you suggest? Let's say racists decide to start using this flag more (they likely will), and African Americans really view it as a symbol of hate against them. Are you going to mount the flag on your car and remind those people of slavery and discriminiation against them in the name of protecting that flag from the white supremacists? Or are you going to confront the white supremacists and nationalists/patriots head on and try to get them to stop using the symbols before you do? Me, I think I'll just follow what African Americans think (or other minorities, in the same context). Whatever they like best with shit like this, I'm good with it. Their opinion about it (in reaction to the practices of racists, white nationalists, and "patriots") is the only thing that really matters to me, and yes, that includes things related in the same way to Canada's history (I have already supported the removal of numerous statues and school names in Canada that were deemed inappropriate by First Nations). I'm not about to let random symbols from a largely dirty, deplorable past that nobody ever usually thinks about be more important than the feelings of minority groups who have suffered through history who exist now.

Well I'm not planning on making it Custer's last stand.  But none of us would even be thinking about it if it wasn't for Kap.  So in a way, he has created some sense of 'awareness' which leads to some more splitting of the country, which is bad.  Like I said, I think we would all be better served if he used his power to try to unite and marginalize them, taking back the symbol, not splitting away.  Obama tried to do that with the country, I think.  

I understand what you're saying, but, as I've said in several other threads about a bunch of things lately, the country's already split. Irreparably, IMO. I certainly think it's easy to pick which side to be on, too. But why should Kaepernick be the bad guy here? I very much believe that he is not. He's a good guy. It's not his fault that it's so damned easy to find things in America that hearken back to atrocities committed against black people.

I don't think he's a bad guy.  I like him a lot.  If you look deeper into these pages, I defended him from the start.  I just think he's wrong on this particular topic.  Wrong as in, how he handled it.  

mrussel1

brianlux said:

I haven't read all of the 5,432 new Kaep posts put up today but just from the ones I've glanced at, I have to say I'm surprised at the reaction to Kaepernick's efforts to shine a light on some of our less than illustrious history.  Do all of you who disapprove of his actions also hate Howard Zinn's work?  I'm baffled.

I found Zinn interesting.  I read People's history long ago.  I remember thinking it was too cynical and ignored important events that didn't support his argument.  I don't think it's infallible historical writing though.  

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

mcgruff10

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Obama's second inauguration. 

What's your point? Flying flags in government from a historical perspective is far different than a private company choosing what they want to put on their product. Nobody is saying we should pretend the flag doesn't exist.

that's funny, since you just stated the exact same argument folks had for keeping monuments and confederate flags from the civil war era in government. 

"historical perspective". 

What does the confederate flag have to do with this? Governments taking down confederate monuments is no where in the same league as a company choosing not to associate their brand and product with something. If Nike was trying to get the flag taken down from government institutions you may have a point.

That's what we call a strawman.

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

Lol

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

Haha, I did think you said civil war, not revolutionary (obviously). Really didn't give it any thought, as I thought you were joking (or hoped).

Aside from the benefits of being in the Commonwealth, I think it's moronic that Canada still has any connection to the Crown. It's ludicrous.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

Haha, I did think you said civil war, not revolutionary (obviously).

I know, it was a bit humorous though, you gotta admit!  I didn’t say it, btw, it was Mcgruff

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

Wait...there are only 2 sides and you have to pick one?

I pick the constituion side......

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

Haha, I did think you said civil war, not revolutionary (obviously).

I know, it was a bit humorous though, you gotta admit!  I didn’t say it, btw, it was Mcgruff

I know! But I didn't call myself "history girl". I called myself a "history gal." In response to mrussel1, Mr. History.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

I was going to bring my kids to a revolutionary war re-enactment this weekend but after a lot of thought I don’t want them to be exposed to that racist flag the colonists will be waving. 

Why not? The racists lose, don't they?

The Crown? Yes the crown your country still swears allegiance to lost....

Haha, “history girl”

Haha, I did think you said civil war, not revolutionary (obviously).

I know, it was a bit humorous though, you gotta admit!  I didn’t say it, btw, it was Mcgruff

I know! But I didn't call myself "history girl". I called myself a "history gal." In response to mrussel1, Mr. History.

Ha, right on

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Meltdown99 said:

https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1146131383510654977

Wonder how he really feels...

i hate that stupid argument. "if you don't like it, leave!". no, if I don't like it, I'll try to change it for the better. 

But I still disagree with him. 

I hate that argument too.  It's lazy.  

And Un-American.

I was with Kaep all the way when he was kneeling.  He was kneeling in protest of an atrocity that was and is occurring.  On this, though, no. First, he's threatening to create a very slippery slope.  Racism and oppression are very intertwined with American history. A lot of people (myself included) need to learn a lot more about it.  That said, it's still history and it still happened.  And this flag is still part of Americana.  Should MLB teams stop wearing uniforms that throw-back to when the game was segregated?  It almost smells like book-burning.

Look, I'm not in a position not to tell him not to like that flag.  But just about anything in our history can be connected to racism.  That's both sad and reality.  And I'm not convinced it makes a lot of sense for him (or any one person) to have made that decision.

And of course, it's just more silly ammo for the right to use...they're as outraged about Nike bowing to Kaep on this as they should be about kids in cages drinking out of toilets.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't personally care if Obama's level of involvement with his own inauguration decorations (to me that's just giving him a preemptive pass on it if he didn't approve it). it's his inauguration, he should know if he's flying a racist flag behind himself. 

I don't see one of those flags, myself.  

it's the same flag as the nike shoe flag. 

I know.  I don't see a racist flag behind Obama.  And my guess is he didn't either.  

It clearly isn't a racist flag. That is Kaep's faux outrage. He exists to stir the pot.

Is the Betsy Ross flag racist? Nike listened to Colin Kaepernick, but hate group monitors say no, conservatives push back.

 The Anti-Defamation League does not include it in its database of hate symbols. Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the ADL's Center on Extremism, said extremist groups have occasionally used it, but the flag is most commonly used by people for patriotic purposes. "We view it as essentially an innocuous historical flag," Pitcavage said. "It's not a thing in the white supremacist movement."

The ADL would be quick to call it out as racist if it actually was. This entire thing is contrived outrage. It's working, I guess. And it is fucking stupid.

"It has been used by some extremist groups as a means of telegraphing a return to more traditionalist (re: predominantly white and male) American ideals. “Under the guise of ‘heritage,’ symbols of early U.S. history have long been adopted by hate groups set on returning to a time when all non-white people were viewed as subhuman and un-American,” says Keegan Hankes, research analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “Historically, these symbols have been used by white supremacists, both to hearken back to a time when black people were enslaved, while also painting themselves as the inheritors of the ‘true’ American tradition.”

So every time a hate group tries to take something from us, we need to let them have it and move on.  No thanks.  

I added to my post.

So what do you suggest? Let's say racists decide to start using this flag more (they likely will), and African Americans really view it as a symbol of hate against them. Are you going to mount the flag on your car and remind those people of slavery and discriminiation against them in the name of protecting that flag from the white supremacists? Or are you going to confront the white supremacists and nationalists/patriots head on and try to get them to stop using the symbols before you do? Me, I think I'll just follow what African Americans think (or other minorities, in the same context). Whatever they like best with shit like this, I'm good with it. Their opinion about it (in reaction to the practices of racists, white nationalists, and "patriots") is the only thing that really matters to me, and yes, that includes things related in the same way to Canada's history (I have already supported the removal of numerous statues and school names in Canada that were deemed inappropriate by First Nations). I'm not about to let random symbols from a largely dirty, deplorable past that nobody ever usually thinks about be more important than the feelings of minority groups who have suffered through history who exist now.

Well I'm not planning on making it Custer's last stand.  But none of us would even be thinking about it if it wasn't for Kap.  So in a way, he has created some sense of 'awareness' which leads to some more splitting of the country, which is bad.  Like I said, I think we would all be better served if he used his power to try to unite and marginalize them, taking back the symbol, not splitting away.  Obama tried to do that with the country, I think.  

I understand what you're saying, but, as I've said in several other threads about a bunch of things lately, the country's already split. Irreparably, IMO. I certainly think it's easy to pick which side to be on, too. But why should Kaepernick be the bad guy here? I very much believe that he is not. He's a good guy. It's not his fault that it's so damned easy to find things in America that hearken back to atrocities committed against black people.

I don't think he's a bad guy.  I like him a lot.  If you look deeper into these pages, I defended him from the start.  I just think he's wrong on this particular topic.  Wrong as in, how he handled it.  

Fair enough... I think he has a pretty valid point myself, clearly, and there are others who surely will too. What I really don't think is that this is "faux outrage" on his part (I don't think you were the one saying it was). I think his feelings about it are real. He's got a philosophy about it and is sticking to it.

jeffbr

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't personally care if Obama's level of involvement with his own inauguration decorations (to me that's just giving him a preemptive pass on it if he didn't approve it). it's his inauguration, he should know if he's flying a racist flag behind himself. 

I don't see one of those flags, myself.  

it's the same flag as the nike shoe flag. 

I know.  I don't see a racist flag behind Obama.  And my guess is he didn't either.  

It clearly isn't a racist flag. That is Kaep's faux outrage. He exists to stir the pot.

Is the Betsy Ross flag racist? Nike listened to Colin Kaepernick, but hate group monitors say no, conservatives push back.

 The Anti-Defamation League does not include it in its database of hate symbols. Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the ADL's Center on Extremism, said extremist groups have occasionally used it, but the flag is most commonly used by people for patriotic purposes. "We view it as essentially an innocuous historical flag," Pitcavage said. "It's not a thing in the white supremacist movement."

The ADL would be quick to call it out as racist if it actually was. This entire thing is contrived outrage. It's working, I guess. And it is fucking stupid.

"It has been used by some extremist groups as a means of telegraphing a return to more traditionalist (re: predominantly white and male) American ideals. “Under the guise of ‘heritage,’ symbols of early U.S. history have long been adopted by hate groups set on returning to a time when all non-white people were viewed as subhuman and un-American,” says Keegan Hankes, research analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “Historically, these symbols have been used by white supremacists, both to hearken back to a time when black people were enslaved, while also painting themselves as the inheritors of the ‘true’ American tradition.”

So every time a hate group tries to take something from us, we need to let them have it and move on.  No thanks.  

I added to my post.

So what do you suggest? Let's say racists decide to start using this flag more (they likely will), and African Americans really view it as a symbol of hate against them. Are you going to mount the flag on your car and remind those people of slavery and discriminiation against them in the name of protecting that flag from the white supremacists? Or are you going to confront the white supremacists and nationalists/patriots head on and try to get them to stop using the symbols before you do? Me, I think I'll just follow what African Americans think (or other minorities, in the same context). Whatever they like best with shit like this, I'm good with it. Their opinion about it (in reaction to the practices of racists, white nationalists, and "patriots") is the only thing that really matters to me, and yes, that includes things related in the same way to Canada's history (I have already supported the removal of numerous statues and school names in Canada that were deemed inappropriate by First Nations). I'm not about to let random symbols from a largely dirty, deplorable past that nobody ever usually thinks about be more important than the feelings of minority groups who have suffered through history who exist now.

Well I'm not planning on making it Custer's last stand.  But none of us would even be thinking about it if it wasn't for Kap.  So in a way, he has created some sense of 'awareness' which leads to some more splitting of the country, which is bad.  Like I said, I think we would all be better served if he used his power to try to unite and marginalize them, taking back the symbol, not splitting away.  Obama tried to do that with the country, I think.  

I understand what you're saying, but, as I've said in several other threads about a bunch of things lately, the country's already split. Irreparably, IMO. I certainly think it's easy to pick which side to be on, too. But why should Kaepernick be the bad guy here? I very much believe that he is not. He's a good guy. It's not his fault that it's so damned easy to find things in America that hearken back to atrocities committed against black people.

I don't think he's a bad guy.  I like him a lot.  If you look deeper into these pages, I defended him from the start.  I just think he's wrong on this particular topic.  Wrong as in, how he handled it.  

Fair enough... I think he has a pretty valid point myself, clearly, and there are others would surely will too. What I really don't think is that this is "faux outrage" on his part (I don't think you were the one saying it was). I think his feelings about it are real. He's got a philosophy about it and is sticking to it.

I used that phrase. I'm a cynical guy when it comes to him. I never liked him as a player (rival QB when his team was half-decent, and over-hyped next to Russell Wilson, who is still playing at the top level). I supported his right to protest and kneel during the anthem, and we had players on our team who I also supported who did so out of solidarity to Kaep. But I didn't support his cries of racism when he couldn't get a starting job in the NFL. I know my team had him in camp and he wore our jersey while working out, but his ego never would have allowed him to be a bench player and backup. Especially for the money he wanted. Anyway, he parlayed his protests into a nice Nike endorsement that kept his name in the press, and is now using that Nike endorsement to convince them to kowtow to his opinion. Keeps his name in the press again, and keeps Nike's name in the discussion as well. Again, I realize I'm cynical with this guy, but he's a blowhard and was way too over-hyped for me. But kudos for the donations he makes, and for any actual convictions he has which cause him to take actions he believes in. I just don't buy what he sells most of the time. Never have. Not because of the issues or his skin color, but because of his off-putting personality. I think he's off-base here. It's just a kooky dude's opinion and now apparently a corporate decision by Nike. Good for him and good for Nike, I guess. I wouldn't have purchased those shoes anyway. But I also won't accept that the flag is a symbol of white supremacy or hate. 

mrussel1

^^ hey is that right?  He was in Seattle's camp and he didn't want to be a backup, and wanted starter money, after everything that was happening?  I always thought no one would give him a chance.  And btw, I didn't think the owners were racists for not giving him a chance, I think they lacked the cajones to have him on their team because of Trump and his minions.  But if you're saying he could have been in the league, but chose to do so, that's quite a bit different. 

mickeyrat

I think we're going to need an ongoing updated list of the things we can no longer use or say or do because weakminded fearfilled lemmings use them to promote their backwards weakass ideas

oftenreading

Kaepernick had a contract with Nike for several years prior to his protest. From about 2012, I believe. 

brianlux

 

mickeyrat said:

I think we're going to need an ongoing updated list of the things we can no longer use or say or do because shithead dumbfucks use them to promote their backwards weakass ideas

Two are highlighted right there because we're not supposed to use them here, lol.

I love rich language but I also like the idea of not using Carlinese on forums.  Not that I mind.  Not that I'll never effin do it myslef, haha!