Is it me or in this insane sports world of today.......

[thecoffeecake]

4 hours ago, redruM said:

I have 2 brothers that were in the military, and while they WILL NEVER KNEEL for the anthem, they said they joined the military to protect the right of others to do so if they please.

This is also an excellent point. The flag supposedly stands for absolute personal freedom, and telling someone honoring these traditions a certain way is more important than what is the foundational principle of our national ethos should offend most Americans far more than a few guys exercising these rights.

[Jerzey]

We all have the right to be disrespectful.

[Jimmy Leeds]

16 hours ago, Jerzey said:

We all have the right to be disrespectful.

And we all have the right to be outraged by their disrespect

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, thecoffeecake said:

This is also an excellent point. The flag supposedly stands for absolute personal freedom, and telling someone honoring these traditions a certain way is more important than what is the foundational principle of our national ethos should offend most Americans far more than a few guys exercising these rights.

Do yourself a favor, ask yourself why the First Amendment supposedly gives NFL players the right to keep their jobs for the content of their speech and somehow gives them the right to not even face backlash from their customers, but people like James Damore and Brandon Eich could be either fired or forced to resign summarily for the content of their speech.  (I kind of doubt you even know who the latter individuals are).  

Never a more illogical and ignorant person has been created than the millennial SJW.  

[thecoffeecake]

23 hours ago, Daniel said:

Do yourself a favor, ask yourself why the First Amendment supposedly gives NFL players the right to keep their jobs for the content of their speech and somehow gives them the right to not even face backlash from their customers, but people like James Damore and Brandon Eich could be either fired or forced to resign summarily for the content of their speech.  (I kind of doubt you even know who the latter individuals are).  

Never a more illogical and ignorant person has been created than the millennial SJW.  

I never suggested it was illegal to fire someone from a job for things they do or say. You sign a contract when you start most jobs. You can be fired for breaking a non-disclosure agreement, can't you? The first amendment doesn't protect workers. In fact, it doesn't really protect anyone. What it says is that Congress is refrained from passing any laws that abridge freedom of speech or the press, it doesn't actually protect people from being punished for what they say or publish (just ask John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, which in part made it illegal to publish anything critical about the government; they couldn't prevent the publishing and distribution of ideas, but could certainly punish those responsible), nor does it make any reference to labor contracts. I don't know what constitution you're reading, or how this is relevant to the conversation.

My argument here has nothing to do with the confines of the law. What is has to do with is the popular conception that supposes that a foundational principle of our national ethos is total personal freedom, up until it conflicts with another individual's personal freedom. The same people who have 2nd amendment supporting bumper stickers and t-shirts that say "fvck ISIS" are the same people who suggest it's offensive to our country for someone to exercise personal liberties and take a knee during a song. So you have to be on one side or the other. You either believe in absolute personal freedom and don't have a problem with kneeling football players, because hundreds of thousands of Americans have died for the ideals of liberty, or you believe in restricting personal freedom in defense of our country's traditions. That's what I'm saying. 

[Jerzey]

Do you feel the same way about the Berkeley students/antifa protesting Milo Yannapolis violently?

[thecoffeecake]

1 hour ago, Jerzey said:

Do you feel the same way about the Berkeley students/antifa protesting Milo Yannapolis violently?

Feel which way, exactly? I'm not sure I took a side one way or another in that last post. I just wanted to make sure the lines of logic were clearly drawn, so the hypocrisy of supossed freedom loving Americans crying about some dudes kneeling is exposed.

But here is an excellent point that I'm glad you brought up. The alt-right uses the guise of freedom of speech to publicly spew racism, sexism, homophobia, and are the same people who think black football players should be punished for exercising their freedoms. If you can reason your way out of that one, I would absolutely love to hear it. 

If you think you caught me in a "your side is violent" trap, it didn't work, because I support the use of violence when necessary, as does almost every single person. Remember the American Revolution? Slave revolts? American Indian resistance? World War II? Yea, violence is occasionally necessary. 

Do I think all speech should be protected equally under the law? Absolutely. Do I think acts of violence should be legal? Absolutely not. Do I support antifa using illegal violence to suppress Nazi expression? I sure do.

You want to talk about disrespecting servicepeople and the foundational principles of our country, let's talk about allowing Nazis unopposed platforms to publicly express themselves. And if you still say "no no no, freedom of speech is absolute", then you also MUST support the idea that jihadists also deserve the same protections.

[Jerzey]

You’re putting a lot of words into a lot of people’s mouths there. Most people I know who don’t like the kneeling don’t like it because it’s disrespectful. Not because they’re black guys kneeling. 

Milo Yannapolis is not a nazi. He’s a gay republican who has conservative views and his event at Berkeley was met with violent protests. He wasn’t spreading hate speech. 

I wasn’t trying to catch you on a Your side is violent trick I was trying to make you see that both the football players kneeling and people who try to give conservative speeches like Milo  and Ben Shapiro are all practicing their rights but pissing people off because of it. Both sides seem pretty hypocritical about the things they will cling onto to fit whatever narrative they’re trying to sell.

This whole left and right bullsh!t has completely split the country worse than it’s ever been and everyone seems happy to be a bunch of sheep and pick sides. 

[DevsMan84]

My mom was born and spent the first few years of her life Nazi Germany and spent most of those years in hiding in a small rural town as her father was a local outspoken critic of the Nazi's.  They managed to survive and only came out of hiding shortly after the war ended.  When she sees news about Antifa protesting against "Nazi's" she laughs as she says they have zero clue who is a Nazi and what really makes one.

[DevsMan84]

10 hours ago, Jerzey said:

You’re putting a lot of words into a lot of people’s mouths there. Most people I know who don’t like the kneeling don’t like it because it’s disrespectful. Not because they’re black guys kneeling. 

Milo Yannapolis is not a nazi. He’s a gay republican who has conservative views and his event at Berkeley was met with violent protests. He wasn’t spreading hate speech. 

I wasn’t trying to catch you on a Your side is violent trick I was trying to make you see that both the football players kneeling and people who try to give conservative speeches like Milo  and Ben Shapiro are all practicing their rights but pissing people off because of it. Both sides seem pretty hypocritical about the things they will cling onto to fit whatever narrative they’re trying to sell.

This whole left and right bullsh!t has completely split the country worse than it’s ever been and everyone seems happy to be a bunch of sheep and pick sides. 

I don't think Milo is a Nazi either, but I have cooled on him quite a bit over the last year or two.  Before the election run he was pretty firmly Republican who was pretty bright and used a lot of logic and reason.  While he still uses that, he has also resorted to trolling to get eyeballs and I unfollowed him when he just seemed to be stuck in that schtick coma.

I like Ben Shapiro a lot better these days.  He is more mainstream conservative and he doesn't have an unending love for Donald.  While in Milo's eyes Donald can do no wrong, Shapiro will criticize him quite often.

The fact that Antifa were protesting Shapiro a month or two ago says all you need about their agenda.  They are nothing but far left mask-wielding anarchists who have no clear goal except to cause violence towards some very vague goal.

[Daniel]

15 hours ago, thecoffeecake said:

Feel which way, exactly? I'm not sure I took a side one way or another in that last post. I just wanted to make sure the lines of logic were clearly drawn, so the hypocrisy of supossed freedom loving Americans crying about some dudes kneeling is exposed.

But here is an excellent point that I'm glad you brought up. The alt-right uses the guise of freedom of speech to publicly spew racism, sexism, homophobia, and are the same people who think black football players should be punished for exercising their freedoms. If you can reason your way out of that one, I would absolutely love to hear it. 

If you think you caught me in a "your side is violent" trap, it didn't work, because I support the use of violence when necessary, as does almost every single person. Remember the American Revolution? Slave revolts? American Indian resistance? World War II? Yea, violence is occasionally necessary. 

Do I think all speech should be protected equally under the law? Absolutely. Do I think acts of violence should be legal? Absolutely not. Do I support antifa using illegal violence to suppress Nazi expression? I sure do.

You want to talk about disrespecting servicepeople and the foundational principles of our country, let's talk about allowing Nazis unopposed platforms to publicly express themselves. And if you still say "no no no, freedom of speech is absolute", then you also MUST support the idea that jihadists also deserve the same protections.

This is truly scary thinking, and why SJWs are more dangerous than these neo-Nazis.  Political violence is illegal and wrong whoever is doing it, and thats what you’re condoning whether you think so or not.  That is if you think neo-Nazi rallies can be violently or forcefully suppressed by self proclaimed members of “the Resistance”, they can violently and forcefully suppress your rallies.  

Ironically, you’re giving these people more attention than they deserve.  Neo-nazis and the Klan are not relevant in American political life.  There are literally fewer members in their ranks than there are at the fourth quarter of a Jaguars preseason game and half of them are government informers.  That’s what’s so preposterous about SJWs and  BLM, is that they think these people are the root of all their problems.

My wife’s grandparents were both in concentration camps and most of their families were murdered by actual Nazis.  When they came here though they understood that the American Nazi Party has the same right to march through Skokie as the Kiwanas Club.  

Edited October 23, 2017 by Daniel

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, DevsMan84 said:

I don't think Milo is a Nazi either, but I have cooled on him quite a bit over the last year or two.  Before the election run he was pretty firmly Republican who was pretty bright and used a lot of logic and reason.  While he still uses that, he has also resorted to trolling to get eyeballs and I unfollowed him when he just seemed to be stuck in that schtick coma.

I like Ben Shapiro a lot better these days.  He is more mainstream conservative and he doesn't have an unending love for Donald.  While in Milo's eyes Donald can do no wrong, Shapiro will criticize him quite often.

The fact that Antifa were protesting Shapiro a month or two ago says all you need about their agenda.  They are nothing but far left mask-wielding anarchists who have no clear goal except to cause violence towards some very vague goal.

The thing about antifa and the related university snowflakes is that at bottom they’re anti-intellectuals and pseudointellectuals, respectively.  (If you want a sense of how berserk much of university academic life has become, check out the twitter feed, New Real Peer Review, which just posts actual abstracts of papers from areas like “gender studies”).

Their main premise is supposedly fighting fascism, but they have zero clue what it actual is, it’s history, etc.  Some of them try to link it to capitalism or even libertarianism, which is pretty hilarious.  Attempting to understand the world would require them to think for themselves, which is a tall order.

[DevsMan84]

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

The thing about antifa and the related university snowflakes is that at bottom they’re anti-intellectuals and pseudointellectuals, respectively.  (If you want a sense of how berserk much of university academic life has become, check out the twitter feed, New Real Peer Review, which just posts actual abstracts of papers from areas like “gender studies”).

Their main premise is supposedly fighting fascism, but they have zero clue what it actual is, it’s history, etc.  Some of them try to link it to capitalism or even libertarianism, which is pretty hilarious.  Attempting to understand the world would require them to think for themselves, which is a tall order.

I often read on social media what antifa posts or what they believe in.  Quite frankly none of it makes sense and like I said before it is all very vague.  They label anything even remotely conservative (even long-time mainstream conservative views) as either racist, homophobic, or whatever label they can attach to it.

I liken antifa to basically far-left article comments come to life.  It's all the same talking points that have been pounded into their heads by college professors and celebrities.  However, the silver lining is that once these kids (yes most of antifa are the 30 and under crowd) get a bit older and experience the real world a bit, they usually start to come back down to Earth.

[DevsMan84]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

This is truly scary thinking, and why SJWs are more dangerous than these neo-Nazis.  Political violence is illegal and wrong whoever is doing it, and thats what you’re condoning whether you think so or not.  That is if you think neo-Nazi rallies can be violently or forcefully suppressed by self proclaimed members of “the Resistance”, they can violently and forcefully suppress your rallies.  

Ironically, you’re giving these people more attention than they deserve.  Neo-nazis and the Klan are not relevant in American political life.  There are literally fewer members in their ranks than there are at the fourth quarter of a Jaguars preseason game and half of them are government informers.  That’s what’s so preposterous about SJWs and  BLM, is that they think these people are the root of all their problems.

My wife’s grandparents were both in concentration camps and most of their families were murdered by actual Nazis.  When they came here though they understood that the American Nazi Party has the same right to march through Skokie as the Kiwanas Club.  

Bingo, however a new trend has come along where any group that goes along with any sort of conservative thought are immediately thrown into the same group as Neo-nazi's and the klan.  Often times it is the SPLC, who as an organization has so slanted towards the left over the past two decades, that are labeling these groups as hate groups when it is anything but.

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, DevsMan84 said:

However, the silver lining is that once these kids (yes most of antifa are the 30 and under crowd) get a bit older and experience the real world a bit, they usually start to come back down to Earth.

Sadly, I don’t believe this is the case as we’re already starting to see to some extent.  When they go into the workforce and something bad happens to them, they’ll lawyer up and claim that someone who expressed a conservative view on something, say opposition to same sex marriage or anti-BLM, created a hostile work environment and triggered them.  More often than not employers don’t want to deal with it and will side with the SJW and it only takes a few judges eventually to hold that it could be illegal discrimination.  If you read Google’s official statement when it fired James Damore, that’s pretty much what they were doing.

[DevsMan84]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Sadly, I don’t believe this is the case as we’re already starting to see to some extent.  When they go into the workforce and something bad happens to them, they’ll lawyer up and claim that someone who expressed a conservative view on something, say opposition to same sex marriage or anti-BLM, created a hostile work environment and triggered them.  More often than not employers don’t want to deal with it and will side with the SJW and it only takes a few judges eventually to hold that it could be illegal discrimination.  If you read Google’s official statement when it fired James Damore, that’s pretty much what they were doing.

So much for "at-will" employment.  This is also why talking politics at work is never a good idea.

[DevsMan84]

BTW "triggered" is a word I wish would die.  It used to carry weight but now all it does is replace the word annoyed but with hyperbole.

[Jimmy Leeds]

WTF is SJW?  lol

[DevsMan84]

Just now, Jimmy Leeds said:

WTF is SJW?  lol

Social Justice Warrior.  They are produced en-mass by our nation's institutions of higher learning.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Aah, thanks. I thought you meant Single Jewish Woman!

[DevsMan84]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Leeds said:

Aah, thanks. I thought you meant Single Jewish Woman!

lol could be that too.  My wife used to be one of those until she married me:)

[Daniel]

32 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

So much for "at-will" employment.  This is also why talking politics at work is never a good idea.

I wouldn’t mind such a rule, but more often than not, you’re free to talk politics at work, but only if it’s of a specific type.

[Devils Pride 26]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

The thing about antifa and the related university snowflakes is that at bottom they’re anti-intellectuals and pseudointellectuals, respectively.  (If you want a sense of how berserk much of university academic life has become, check out the twitter feed, New Real Peer Review, which just posts actual abstracts of papers from areas like “gender studies”).

Their main premise is supposedly fighting fascism, but they have zero clue what it actual is, it’s history, etc.  Some of them try to link it to capitalism or even libertarianism, which is pretty hilarious.  Attempting to understand the world would require them to think for themselves, which is a tall order.

You ever read "The Omnious Parallels", Daniel? I think you'd like it.

 

Antifa (communists) and the neo nazis (national socialists) want the exact same thing at heart. 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Devils Pride 26 said:

You ever read "The Omnious Parallels", Daniel? I think you'd like it.

 

Antifa (communists) and the neo nazis (national socialists) want the exact same thing at heart. 

Nah, I’m over my libertarianism.  

Reading a book called Sleepwalkers about the origins of WWI, probably the biggest tragedy in human history.

The second volume of Stephen Kotkin’s biography of Stalin comes out next week.  Looking forward to that.

[Jimmy Leeds]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Reading a book called Sleepwalkers about the origins of WWI, probably the biggest tragedy in human history.

Like it?