1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kaepernick sits out the anthem

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by HanSenSE, Aug 27, 2016.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    That's mogul to you. The next person who calls me a maven gets it.
     
  2. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

  4. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    During my short time as a columnist, I found out I sucked at it.

    During my short time reading this column, I found out I was better at it than this guy.
     
  5. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Tip of the iceberg, folks. Tip of the iceberg.
     
  6. Earthman

    Earthman Well-Known Member

    I liked Kaep better when he put his Beats on and tuned out
    the world. He should have left them on.
     
  7. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

  8. Earthman

    Earthman Well-Known Member

    What are the chances that Dr Dre is behind this ?

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Big Circus

    Big Circus Well-Known Member

    Great. Now I'm going to have that "I'm the Man" song in my head all day.

    More to the point, I've seen multiple NFL players issue lengthy quotes or tweets criticizing Kaepernick (Victor Cruz, Alex Boone and Justin Pugh, to name a few). I wonder if any of them had anything of substance to say, or if they were even asked, about players accused of domestic violence.
     
  10. amraeder

    amraeder Well-Known Member

    OK having read the column now, this doesn't seem to be what he's saying, exactly. It's not a "Let's watch the world burn" argument. My understanding of his column is basically a critique of those criticizing Kaepernick.
    His first argument is with those who scoff at the notion of the protest because it's a futile or meaningless. He admits that Kaepernick's protest won't change anything because America has a fundamental resistance to change. That's my understanding of the purpose of the second line Alma quoted, which actually appears first in the column. He goes on to argue that, even acknowledging that such actions don't change anything, to stay silent when seeing injustice is moral failing. And to ignore a protest simply because it won't lead to change is inexcusable.
    He then goes on to critique those who criticize Kaepernick's form of protest. If he were rebuilding Dante's Inferno, my hunch is he'd have these people in a lower circle. He seems to consider that an argument levied by the lazy or the idiotic, and either way, cowardly - that it ignores that the fundamental nature of Kaep's protest (and all protests against the unequal treatment of blacks) which is that "It’s to ask whether what he’s fighting against is represented by the flag rather than thriving in spite of it." Basically, given the status quo of unequal treatment in America, you can't protest it without raising the question of "is this status quo who we are as a country, or not?"
    His argument is that the real American thing is to believe that protesting the devaluing of black lives is standing up for what the flag truly represents, and therefore a great act of patriotism. While acting butt-hurt about the nature of Kaep's protest is decidedly unamerican, while attempting to use patriotism as a shield: "And now, in 2016, it’s [the flag] the one cowards wrap themselves in while promoting the decidedly un-American notion of exclusion."
    The second line -"There’s nothing American about settling for good enough, let alone being satisfied with not-as-bad-as-it-used-to-be." - is to bolster this notion that those protesting are standing up for the real values the flag represents, while those who claim offense in the name of patriotism are inherently unpatriotic.
    How those two lines Alma quoted interact - that wasn't the point of the article as I read it. They were two things he holds to be true, but they were offered in two different places to counter two different arguments against Kaep's protest. He never weaved them together to call for destabilizing protests. I think, fundamentally, that's why your/Alma's reading is wrong. Because he never connects the dots.
    But is that the logical conclusion of his article anyway, even if he wasn't explicitly arguing that? I don't think so. Just because fundamental resistance to change -> America's remarkable stability, it doesn't logically follow that ALL change is a threat to American stability. And there's no sign that he believes that it does. If you're fundamentally resistant to change, you're going to be resistant to the types of changes that would threaten American democracy (like a dissolution of the separation of powers or an executive ruling for a lifetime), but as a side effect, you're also resistant to changes that aren't fundamental to American democracy (like the status quo of race relations).

    TL;DR
    He's not calling for flashpoint protests that destabilizes shit and that's not the logical conclusion (intended or unintended) of the column.
     
  11. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    There seems to be a sizable group of people who theoretically support the right to protest as long as it never draws attention or disrupts anything.
     
  12. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    I always thought maven was a high-falutin' way of saying fanboi.
     
    Ace likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page