- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
![locked post](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/lock.gif)
Instead of talking about the flag why aren't we talking about the issue behind the protest
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:19 am
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:19 am
I've heard this said over and over by people on the side of the kneelers across social media and other outlets. The very obvious answer to why the predominant coverage at the moment is over the flag and anthem is that, as they've admitted, they've chosen to protest a symbol and ceremony that actually doesn't have any relation to their claimed grievance. But the other observation is that we actually have been. For several years now.
The protesters and their supporters are peddling a narrative that they refuse to recognize is in contention. They operate on the premise that their position is fundamentally true and undeniable and that anyone who disagrees is doing so dishonestly in an effort to maintain a system of "oppression" and "murder" of blacks by police due to support for systematic racism.
If they want to have a conversation, they have to be able to recognize that their premise is not universally accepted nor is it legitimately proven. They also have to be willing to accept counterarguments that make them uncomfortable as well. Concession and recognition of opposing viewpoints as sincere and worthy of give and take is a precondition to any two opposing sides having a meaningful "conversation." And this conversation dominated news coverage throughout the previous years following the highly publicized incidents of police shootings. They were openly discussed on news networks nightly as well as across internet forums of all types. Yet they play dumb and pretend that those who disagree with the protests are hiding from or refuse to discuss the issue behind the protests, which is a manifest falsehood.
Effectively, counter viewpoints are flatly rejected by the crowd that peddles the narrative that police are actively killing blacks unjustly in alarming numbers with racial malice. They then perpetuate vague and unquantifiable accusations of systematic white privilege and racism, some of which is even "subconscious," as their retort to arguments critical of their claims. They then proceed to distract from their argument by engaging in theatrics that don't present a clear argument and doesn't encourage a substantive discussion but rather provokes a response to their provocative demonstrations. And then turn around and complain that their message isn't being heard or is being deliberately twisted.
So the question is, do they actually want a conversation or do they rather demand that everyone submit to their unsubstantiated and conspiratorial narrative without recognizing the validity of any opinions but their own? I for one am perfectly happy to discuss their accusations, but I've seen nothing whatsoever from their side that indicates reciprocity. It looks to me that they are quite content with engaging in perpetual theatrics with no end in sight. And how can a meaningful dialogue take place if one side refuses to recognize as legitimate arguments to the contrary?
The protesters and their supporters are peddling a narrative that they refuse to recognize is in contention. They operate on the premise that their position is fundamentally true and undeniable and that anyone who disagrees is doing so dishonestly in an effort to maintain a system of "oppression" and "murder" of blacks by police due to support for systematic racism.
If they want to have a conversation, they have to be able to recognize that their premise is not universally accepted nor is it legitimately proven. They also have to be willing to accept counterarguments that make them uncomfortable as well. Concession and recognition of opposing viewpoints as sincere and worthy of give and take is a precondition to any two opposing sides having a meaningful "conversation." And this conversation dominated news coverage throughout the previous years following the highly publicized incidents of police shootings. They were openly discussed on news networks nightly as well as across internet forums of all types. Yet they play dumb and pretend that those who disagree with the protests are hiding from or refuse to discuss the issue behind the protests, which is a manifest falsehood.
Effectively, counter viewpoints are flatly rejected by the crowd that peddles the narrative that police are actively killing blacks unjustly in alarming numbers with racial malice. They then perpetuate vague and unquantifiable accusations of systematic white privilege and racism, some of which is even "subconscious," as their retort to arguments critical of their claims. They then proceed to distract from their argument by engaging in theatrics that don't present a clear argument and doesn't encourage a substantive discussion but rather provokes a response to their provocative demonstrations. And then turn around and complain that their message isn't being heard or is being deliberately twisted.
So the question is, do they actually want a conversation or do they rather demand that everyone submit to their unsubstantiated and conspiratorial narrative without recognizing the validity of any opinions but their own? I for one am perfectly happy to discuss their accusations, but I've seen nothing whatsoever from their side that indicates reciprocity. It looks to me that they are quite content with engaging in perpetual theatrics with no end in sight. And how can a meaningful dialogue take place if one side refuses to recognize as legitimate arguments to the contrary?
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:20 am to ChewyDante
Well for starters, I don't think and honest look at the inequality #s fits the narrative many are looking for.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:21 am to ChewyDante
quote:
It looks to me that they are quite content with engaging in perpetual theatrics with no end in sight.
They are trying to motivate the black vote.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:24 am to ChewyDante
The problem is the players don't know why they are protesting.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:25 am to ChewyDante
I didn't read all that shite but I've always felt like the owners could pay the players like 200k and get the same results. The players only other option is to go back to bogalusa and pour concrete for a living or whatever
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:27 am to ChewyDante
ever seen a kid in the grocery store crying because Mom wouldn't get them a toy or a candy bar? It's easier and the first reaction of a child to throw a hissy fit, rather than making a counter argument for herself/himself on why they deserve the candy bar or toy. same thing, just liberal adults.
examples in professional sports, since this is the topic:
All NFL players kneeling for an unknown reason / Warriors refusing trip to White House.
vs
The Golden State Warriors using the trip to the White House to have an adult conversation with the President on what they care about and how things can improve.
examples in professional sports, since this is the topic:
All NFL players kneeling for an unknown reason / Warriors refusing trip to White House.
vs
The Golden State Warriors using the trip to the White House to have an adult conversation with the President on what they care about and how things can improve.
This post was edited on 9/26/17 at 11:31 am
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:27 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Instead of talking about the flag why aren't we talking about the issue behind the protest
You don't get to intentionally disrespect a sacred institution for the purpose of getting attention...and then complain when those who are offended don't listen to your issue.
It's that simple. The protest was laughably misdirected. It was a scorched earth approach that was intentional. People are rightfully pissed.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:27 am to ChewyDante
quote:
They operate on the premise that their position is fundamentally true and undeniable and that anyone who disagrees is doing so dishonestly in an effort to maintain a system of "oppression" and "murder" of blacks by police due to support for systematic racism.
well even if they're right, their proposed solutions (if any) are batshit crazy and don't address the actual structural issues causing the inequalities they are seeing.
quote:
If they want to have a conversation, they have to be able to recognize that their premise is not universally accepted nor is it legitimately proven. They also have to be willing to accept counterarguments that make them uncomfortable as well.
well they won't do that b/c of the structure of their beliefs/arguments
like you said, any counter will be spun as being a tentacle of oppression
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:29 am to ChewyDante
I'm no fan of the cops and think a lot of this they brought on themselves.
BUT....
To have an honest talk about the issue behind the protest might force people on one side to openly and honestly talk about other issues that they'd prefer swept under the rug (i.e. national crime statistics, generation of fatherless children, devaluing education in certain populations etc).
BUT....
To have an honest talk about the issue behind the protest might force people on one side to openly and honestly talk about other issues that they'd prefer swept under the rug (i.e. national crime statistics, generation of fatherless children, devaluing education in certain populations etc).
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:31 am to ChewyDante
No. They want to be seen as victims, en perpetuum.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:31 am to ChewyDante
The protesters do not care about the facts. They want you to bow to their feelings, irrespective of facts.
Anybody who signals in solidarity with these stupid assholes is also a stupid a-hole.
Anybody who signals in solidarity with these stupid assholes is also a stupid a-hole.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:38 am to ChewyDante
My question is why are conservatives pretending like the part they take exception with is that its the anthem... When in reality it seems that it is the cause itself that enrages them... Feels a bit disingenuous...
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:40 am to ChewyDante
quote:
So the question is, do they actually want a conversation
No. They want to lecture and then have acquiescence.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:48 am to ChewyDante
.....because it's a fake issue. Just like the fake news the MSM likes to peddle there is no issue behind this fake protest. Remember this. Radical Leftist Progressive Liberals do not respect opposing points of view, they only accept their view. A view or opinion that contradicts their view is meaningless to these people. They will infringe upon your space, interrupt your right to enjoy a NFL game peacefully, shout you down, and if you refuse to keep quiet AND accept their view they will attack you physically. These NFL protesters are the future brown shirts of a dangerous out-of-control radical progressive liberal movement.
Fortunately millions of Americans are waking up to the danger of this attempt to suppress opposing views. That is why they elected Donald J. Trump as their President.
Like the brave men who died in battle defending this country, the flag is the rallying point for those struggling to preserve our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
Annuit Coeptis
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconusaflagsmiley.gif)
Fortunately millions of Americans are waking up to the danger of this attempt to suppress opposing views. That is why they elected Donald J. Trump as their President.
Like the brave men who died in battle defending this country, the flag is the rallying point for those struggling to preserve our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
Annuit Coeptis
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconusaflagsmiley.gif)
This post was edited on 9/26/17 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:50 am to ChewyDante
Smart take. Agreed.
The left doesn't care about truth; they care about narrative. As long as the narrative advances the social and political agenda, there need be no emphasis on accuracy.
Trayvon Martin: Boy walking to get skittles
Mike Brown: Hands up, don't shoot
Sandra Bland: murdered over a taillight
Freddy Gray: murdered in the back of a police van
Alton Sterling: killed for selling CDs
Tamir Rice: killed for playing with a "toy" gun (that looked just like a real gun)
The list goes on. The only legitimate examples of excessive force were with Eric Garner and Walter Scott. Everything else has been a ruse with the intent to incite racial tension.
Hell, remember Jackie Coakley and her fake rape claim at UVA? Advocates still use that case as an example of a sexual assault on campuses - even though it's proved to be false. Why? Because in their mind, "it could have happened."
Personally, I don't care what people do during the national anthem. But I do take offense to institutions of power (i.e. the Press) not asking questions, not conducting a modicum of research to verify the veracity of these claims. The violence, the anguish, the political strife would have been easily minimized had someone just asked questions.
That's why I hold the Press and Media to full account. That's why I support suppression of the first amendment to known provocateurs who intentionally skew the truth. To me, it's akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. The country is far too divided and volatile to allow these cowards to profit from social agitation.
The left doesn't care about truth; they care about narrative. As long as the narrative advances the social and political agenda, there need be no emphasis on accuracy.
Trayvon Martin: Boy walking to get skittles
Mike Brown: Hands up, don't shoot
Sandra Bland: murdered over a taillight
Freddy Gray: murdered in the back of a police van
Alton Sterling: killed for selling CDs
Tamir Rice: killed for playing with a "toy" gun (that looked just like a real gun)
The list goes on. The only legitimate examples of excessive force were with Eric Garner and Walter Scott. Everything else has been a ruse with the intent to incite racial tension.
Hell, remember Jackie Coakley and her fake rape claim at UVA? Advocates still use that case as an example of a sexual assault on campuses - even though it's proved to be false. Why? Because in their mind, "it could have happened."
Personally, I don't care what people do during the national anthem. But I do take offense to institutions of power (i.e. the Press) not asking questions, not conducting a modicum of research to verify the veracity of these claims. The violence, the anguish, the political strife would have been easily minimized had someone just asked questions.
That's why I hold the Press and Media to full account. That's why I support suppression of the first amendment to known provocateurs who intentionally skew the truth. To me, it's akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. The country is far too divided and volatile to allow these cowards to profit from social agitation.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:52 am to ChewyDante
quote:
So the question is, do they actually want a conversation or do they rather demand that everyone submit to their unsubstantiated and conspiratorial narrative without recognizing the validity of any opinions but their own?
Read Rules for Radicals and your questions will be answered.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 11:56 am to ChewyDante
The protests are about a perceived injustice, or that is what it started as, no one wants to debate the issues.
Athletes could actually do a good job helps g reshaping urban America if they were worried about real issues. The NFL has some bright guys that have been exposed to many different points of view. Thry could take the lead. I think Sherman actually does this pretty well
Athletes could actually do a good job helps g reshaping urban America if they were worried about real issues. The NFL has some bright guys that have been exposed to many different points of view. Thry could take the lead. I think Sherman actually does this pretty well
Posted on 9/26/17 at 12:04 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
Instead of talking about the flag why aren't we talking about the issue behind the protest
The protesters don't want to have this discussion. It's all part of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. You focus on a target and make them look like shite in order to defeat them and sow chaos. Then your side picks up the pieces after the chaos produces a complete dismantling of the current system.
A perfect example is: liberal progressives have been unsuccessful in changing immigration law in their favor; they want those minority votes. So they disregard/violate immigration law by creating sanctuary cities/states.
In this recent issue, the NFL has clear rules for respectful behavior during the National Anthem. Once again, the progressives know they won't be able to change the rules (because most Americans are respectful of the National Anthem by tradition) so they violate the rules in order to infuse chaos.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 12:09 pm to ChewyDante
These protests are designed to do what? What's the grievance and how does this method of protest remedy that grievance? Furthermore, can the protesters say that their form of protest have been a net positive? I think that there are quite a few Americans, especially service members and veterans, who might feel like these protests do more harm than good.
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)