General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

[Sammy Sofa]

You're implied expectations are still completely unrealistic as an expectation for some kind of "right" way to protest that isn't going to infuriate people, and is going to be taken "the right way" while still having anyone even bothering to pay attention in the first place. A discussion as to whether it's offensive or not is still a discussion because of the protests and a discussion that will bring up the actual reasons of the protest. There's never going to be a way to do this where it doesn't piss off a bunch of people and where the message isn't going to be intentionally muddled; that's impossible to avoid. Yet again, there is no time of the game where players could protest like this and it wouldn't get tagged as "inappropriate" or "offensive" by tons of people, especially since the NFL has so shamelessly draped itself in the flag and the military. That the protests have continued to inspire this much ongoing debate means they've succeeded.

 

Again, I go back to this:

 

Please point to one...just one...civil rights/racial protest that wasn't perceived as offensive or disrespectful or over the line or anything along those lines.

 

Just one. That's it. What is the model or the example these protests should be following that didn't infuriate people.

[ConstableRabbit]

Let's say at the start of the second half, before taking the field, an entire team comes out and all the players take a knee for an entire minute. They refuse to take the field until this is accomplished. Or maybe they all just bow their heads and raise a fist in the air. Or they all get down on their knees and put their hands above their head. There's no flag, no anthem, and the reasons are the same. Do you honestly think that the people bothered by the anthem protests wouldn't almost all also be similarly bothered by such a display? Of course they would.

Far fewer people would be incensed by a protest that didn't involve a real or perceived slight to the anthem or flag, yes. And there'd be far fewer excuses. The national conversation wouldn't be about patriotism, or respect for the military, or "love it or leave it." You'd have the same tired trope around athletes being spoiled and "stick to sports!!!!11" but there would be far less outrage.

[ConstableRabbit]

You're implied expectations are still completely unrealistic as an expectation for some kind of "right" way to protest that isn't going to infuriate people, and is going to be taken "the right way" while still having anyone even bothering to pay attention in the first place. A discussion as to whether it's offensive or not is still a discussion because of the protests and a discussion that will bring up the actual reasons of the protest. There's never going to be a way to do this where it doesn't piss off a bunch of people and where the message isn't going to be intentionally muddled; that's impossible to avoid. Yet again, there is no time of the game where players could protest like this and it wouldn't get tagged as "inappropriate" or "offensive" by tons of people, especially since the NFL has so shamelessly draped itself in the flag and the military. That the protests have continued to inspire this much ongoing debate means they've succeeded.

 

Again, I go back to this:

 

Please point to one...just one...civil rights/racial protest that wasn't perceived as offensive or disrespectful or over the line or anything along those lines.

 

Just one. That's it. What is the model or the example these protests should be following that didn't infuriate people.

Almost all protests are perceived as offensive or disrespectful to at least one party. Ideally, it's disrespectful to those whose actions you're protesting (e.g., a racist bus company).

 

In this case, the NFL players chose a third-rail approach that was assured to piss off half the country. My take is that that was an unnecessary approach; yours is that it was bound to piss people off so why bother discussing a different vehicle. Again, the discussion is more about the vehicle (e.g. "Should they be forced to?" "Is it offensive to our military?" etc.) than the actual issue ("What are we doing about rampant police brutality?" "Why are we putting up with giving cops unchecked power?") -- that's a damn shame.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let's say at the start of the second half, before taking the field, an entire team comes out and all the players take a knee for an entire minute. They refuse to take the field until this is accomplished. Or maybe they all just bow their heads and raise a fist in the air. Or they all get down on their knees and put their hands above their head. There's no flag, no anthem, and the reasons are the same. Do you honestly think that the people bothered by the anthem protests wouldn't almost all also be similarly bothered by such a display? Of course they would.

Far fewer people would be incensed by a protest that didn't involve a real or perceived slight to the anthem or flag, yes. And there'd be far fewer excuses. The national conversation wouldn't be about patriotism, or respect for the military, or "love it or leave it." You'd have the same tired trope around athletes being spoiled and "stick to sports!!!!11" but there would be far less outrage.

 

Then "stick to sports!" would just be the foisted narrative instead; they'd make up any and every excuse to try and denigrate the protests. There's no magic time or method of protest in these settings where the people opposed are just going to shut up and take it, and certainly not one where they're mostly going to approach it reasonably. They will find any excuse to try and denigrate and dismiss the protests and the protestors because ultimately they can't stand what the protests are actually about. They don't want to have to confront something ugly and ongoing in this setting, which is the whole point of protests like this in the first place. You force people out of their comfort zone with what you're trying to say. And, yeah, you're going to lose a ton of people you never had in the first place, but again, you make the cracks where you can. Every little bit helps. Far more than attempting to cater unnecessarily to people who want to see this shut down by any means necessary.

[Sammy Sofa]

Almost all protests are perceived as offensive or disrespectful to at least one party. Ideally, it's disrespectful to those whose actions you're protesting (e.g., a racist bus company).

 

In this case, the NFL players chose a third-rail approach that was assured to piss off half the country. My take is that that was an unnecessary approach; yours is that it was bound to piss people off so why bother discussing a different vehicle. Again, the discussion is more about the vehicle (e.g. "Should they be forced to?" "Is it offensive to our military?" etc.) than the actual issue ("What are we doing about rampant police brutality?" "Why are we putting up with giving cops unchecked power?") -- that's a damn shame.

 

Again, you're looking at this completely unrealistically. The reason that things like the racist bus company exist and the imbalance of police power is due in no small part to the people who are willfully opposed to these protests. You're talking like the people that are pissed off are people who are missed opportunities, but they're not; they're one of the main parts of what's being protested! They're culpable! They are the bus company.

[ConstableRabbit]

Almost all protests are perceived as offensive or disrespectful to at least one party. Ideally, it's disrespectful to those whose actions you're protesting (e.g., a racist bus company).

 

In this case, the NFL players chose a third-rail approach that was assured to piss off half the country. My take is that that was an unnecessary approach; yours is that it was bound to piss people off so why bother discussing a different vehicle. Again, the discussion is more about the vehicle (e.g. "Should they be forced to?" "Is it offensive to our military?" etc.) than the actual issue ("What are we doing about rampant police brutality?" "Why are we putting up with giving cops unchecked power?") -- that's a damn shame.

 

Again, you're looking at this completely unrealistically. The reason that things like the racist bus company exist and the imbalance of police power is due in no small part to the people who are willfully opposed to these protests. You're talking like the people that are pissed off are people who are missed opportunities, but they're not; they're one of the main parts of what's being protested! They're culpable! They are the bus company.

The cops that kill innocent people are the bus company.

[CyHawk_Cub]

"Effecting change" is a tough standard to apply to determine propriety/effectiveness of protest. How much time is afforded protest before judging effectiveness? 6 months, 6 years? As mentioned previously, no substantive protest is popular at the time it happens. Anything not status quo is unpopular (ineffective?) in the throes of it.

[javy knows my name]

Almost all protests are perceived as offensive or disrespectful to at least one party. Ideally, it's disrespectful to those whose actions you're protesting (e.g., a racist bus company).

 

In this case, the NFL players chose a third-rail approach that was assured to piss off half the country. My take is that that was an unnecessary approach; yours is that it was bound to piss people off so why bother discussing a different vehicle. Again, the discussion is more about the vehicle (e.g. "Should they be forced to?" "Is it offensive to our military?" etc.) than the actual issue ("What are we doing about rampant police brutality?" "Why are we putting up with giving cops unchecked power?") -- that's a damn shame.

 

Again, you're looking at this completely unrealistically. The reason that things like the racist bus company exist and the imbalance of police power is due in no small part to the people who are willfully opposed to these protests. You're talking like the people that are pissed off are people who are missed opportunities, but they're not; they're one of the main parts of what's being protested! They're culpable! They are the bus company.

The cops that kill innocent people are the bus company.

 

Ohhhhhhhk I get it now.

 

I disagree. What they're protesting are the conditions that allow for the cops to kill with impunity. You know, the same thing that BLM is about.

[Sammy Sofa]

"Effecting change" is a tough standard to apply to determine propriety/effectiveness of protest. How much time is afforded protest before judging effectiveness? 6 months, 6 years? As mentioned previously, no substantive protest is popular at the time it happens. Anything not status quo is unpopular (ineffective?) in the throes of it.

 

Exactly; this is a fluid thing. There's no one moment where you're going suddenly see a bunch of converts, or a timeframe to when it's "fixed." This is all about the long game; how this will be remembered and talked about. If it gets one person to change their mind, or someone's kid to remember how ridiculous their dad was flipping out over this and deciding to be different, or if it gets someone who becomes a cop to decide down the line they're not going to just look the other way when they see their power abused....it's all about the cracks.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Again, you're looking at this completely unrealistically. The reason that things like the racist bus company exist and the imbalance of police power is due in no small part to the people who are willfully opposed to these protests. You're talking like the people that are pissed off are people who are missed opportunities, but they're not; they're one of the main parts of what's being protested! They're culpable! They are the bus company.

The cops that kill innocent people are the bus company.

 

Ohhhhhhhk I get it now.

 

I disagree. What they're protesting are the conditions that allow for the cops to kill with impunity. You know, the same thing that BLM is about.

 

And something that Kaep said long ago; this is about the system that fosters things like militarized killer cops. The people wailing and gnashing their teeth about these protests are fully part of that.

 

Hell, this whole thing is just a modified version of how civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's and 70's were constantly attacked as being (or being the pawns of) "communists and communist agitators." Attempt to devalue and attack the validity of the protests and the protests by throwing into question their patriotism and loyalty and even their very identity as Americans. This playbook has been around forever, and trying to spin this as an attack on "the troops" or "veterans" is just a modernized version of that.

[ConstableRabbit]

Different strokes, I guess. Either way, I hope that folks start paying attention — it’s a huge issue and one that I care about.

 

Thanks for the discourse, guys.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe it was a dumb idea for the protest vehicle for a generally non-controversial cause to be something that half the country finds deeply offensive -- the same half of the country that would need to be made aware of the issue at the first place. Given that the discussion has been so centered on the aforementioned vehicle -- I'd guess that many don't even know the extent of what's being protested, and it's certainly not changing hearts and minds.

the know, and they don't care.

[Tim]

Different strokes, I guess. Either way, I hope that folks start paying attention — it’s a huge issue and one that I care about.

 

Thanks for the discourse, guys.

Can you offer up a way for football players to protest that would have gotten as much attention, but would not have been controversial?

[biittner77]

Different strokes, I guess. Either way, I hope that folks start paying attention — it’s a huge issue and one that I care about.

 

Thanks for the discourse, guys.

Can you offer up a way for football players to protest that would have gotten as much attention, but would not have been controversial?

 

Linking arms? I suppose people could somehow take offense but it would be a tougher case to make that it's disrespectful.

 

It seems like the focus of the protest has shifted to Trump can go horsefeathers himself more so than calling attention to police brutality. As a result, both sides have dug in their heels. Is it giving Trump too much credit to think that this is why he commented on it in the first place? Kaepernick was already out of the league. There were maybe going to be a couple people kneeling until he commented on it. Maybe I'm too cynical but I see that Trump has deflected the attention away from where it should be and toward himself where he wants it. Meanwhile, actual discussion about solutions to the very real problem have gone nowhere or have gotten no attention.

[Tim]

Different strokes, I guess. Either way, I hope that folks start paying attention — it’s a huge issue and one that I care about.

 

Thanks for the discourse, guys.

Can you offer up a way for football players to protest that would have gotten as much attention, but would not have been controversial?

 

Linking arms? I suppose people could somehow take offense but it would be a tougher case to make that it's disrespectful.

 

It seems like the focus of the protest has shifted to Trump can go horsefeathers himself more so than calling attention to police brutality. As a result, both sides have dug in their heels. Is it giving Trump too much credit to think that this is why he commented on it in the first place? Kaepernick was already out of the league. There were maybe going to be a couple people kneeling until he commented on it. Maybe I'm too cynical but I see that Trump has deflected the attention away from where it should be and toward himself where he wants it. Meanwhile, actual discussion about solutions to the very real problem have gone nowhere or have gotten no attention.

Linking arms would not have gotten nearly the same level of attention in the first place. It's easier to ignore.

 

An effective protest requires creating a certain level of discomfort or controversy to draw the attention.

[ConstableRabbit]

Different strokes, I guess. Either way, I hope that folks start paying attention — it’s a huge issue and one that I care about.

 

Thanks for the discourse, guys.

Can you offer up a way for football players to protest that would have gotten as much attention, but would not have been controversial?

My point wasn't about "controversy" -- every protest is somewhat controversial. Rather, I was saying that this particular protest vehicle is offensive/disrespectful to many. If you think about the scope (how many people consider it to be offensive?) extent (how offensive is it?), kneeling during the anthem is relatively high on both. A few ideas that would have far lower scope and extent of offensive/disrespectful.

1. Wearing shirts featuring victims of police brutality for warmups, etc. (or holding photos of victims in pregame/postgame) -- you'd probably have far more participation from players on this, too since no one's worried about appearing disrespectful to military. Counter is the "it's anti-police" but think that's a far weaker complaint overall because it's a far more abstract objection than kneeling during the anthem.

2. Donating game checks. You could have one player from each team donate their game check to this cause: 50% to victims' families, 50% to local policy departments to help fund sensitivity training. The players could pool it to make it the equivalent of the average game check. Goes against the "spoiled, selfish athletes don't know what it's like", "put your money where your mouth is" gripe.

3. Each team "adopting" a victim of police brutality in their home city. Dedicating each game to them, mentioning in post-game comments, etc. This is probably the weakest alternative but if it were well-coordinated, could be impactful.

[jersey cubs fan]

My point wasn't about "controversy" -- every protest is somewhat controversial. Rather, I was saying that this particular protest vehicle is offensive/disrespectful to many.

Good

 

Those people suck. If you feel disrespected by people protesting police brutality you are an awful person. Taking a knee is not controversial. If you are choosing to interpret it as so it is because you are a bad person with bad priorities.

[jersey cubs fan]

2. Donating game checks. You could have one player from each team donate their game check to this cause: 50% to victims' families, 50% to local policy departments to help fund sensitivity training. T

that's an incredibly stupid idea.

 

 

pay the cops to protest them killing people

 

unbelievable

 

it's not a lack of sensitivity that is causing cops to support cops who kill people for no good reason

[SouthSideRyan]

Different strokes, I guess. Either way, I hope that folks start paying attention — it’s a huge issue and one that I care about.

 

Thanks for the discourse, guys.

Can you offer up a way for football players to protest that would have gotten as much attention, but would not have been controversial?

My point wasn't about "controversy" -- every protest is somewhat controversial. Rather, I was saying that this particular protest vehicle is offensive/disrespectful to many. If you think about the scope (how many people consider it to be offensive?) extent (how offensive is it?), kneeling during the anthem is relatively high on both. A few ideas that would have far lower scope and extent of offensive/disrespectful.

1. Wearing shirts featuring victims of police brutality for warmups, etc. (or holding photos of victims in pregame/postgame) -- you'd probably have far more participation from players on this, too since no one's worried about appearing disrespectful to military. Counter is the "it's anti-police" but think that's a far weaker complaint overall because it's a far more abstract objection than kneeling during the anthem.

2. Donating game checks. You could have one player from each team donate their game check to this cause: 50% to victims' families, 50% to local policy departments to help fund sensitivity training. The players could pool it to make it the equivalent of the average game check. Goes against the "spoiled, selfish athletes don't know what it's like", "put your money where your mouth is" gripe.

3. Each team "adopting" a victim of police brutality in their home city. Dedicating each game to them, mentioning in post-game comments, etc. This is probably the weakest alternative but if it were well-coordinated, could be impactful.

 

Rich black men protesting is always going to be offensive/disrespectful to many.

[SouthSideRyan]

2. Donating game checks. You could have one player from each team donate their game check to this cause: 50% to victims' families, 50% to local policy departments to help fund sensitivity training. T

that's an incredibly stupid idea.

 

 

pay the cops to protest them killing people

 

unbelievable

 

it's not a lack of sensitivity that is causing cops to support cops who kill people for no good reason

 

Additionally, Kaepernick has donated money and still gets the lol, you have it so rough rich boy. Give up all your money if you really have an issue, and then move far away so I don't have to see you.

[ConstableRabbit]

2. Donating game checks. You could have one player from each team donate their game check to this cause: 50% to victims' families, 50% to local policy departments to help fund sensitivity training. T

that's an incredibly stupid idea.

 

 

pay the cops to protest them killing people

 

unbelievable

 

it's not a lack of sensitivity that is causing cops to support cops who kill people for no good reason

It's not what I'd do -- it could be a way to counter the "why aren't you donating to the police departments who want to do a good job!?!"

[ConstableRabbit]

My point wasn't about "controversy" -- every protest is somewhat controversial. Rather, I was saying that this particular protest vehicle is offensive/disrespectful to many.

Good

 

Those people suck. If you feel disrespected by people protesting police brutality you are an awful person. Taking a knee is not controversial. If you are choosing to interpret it as so it is because you are a bad person with bad priorities.

*shrugs*

 

I guess we're going to continue to write articles about how anyone who's offended by it is racist/willfully neglectful and not get anywhere. I don't think it has to be that way; others do. Not much more to discuss, really.

[ConstableRabbit]

Can you offer up a way for football players to protest that would have gotten as much attention, but would not have been controversial?

My point wasn't about "controversy" -- every protest is somewhat controversial. Rather, I was saying that this particular protest vehicle is offensive/disrespectful to many. If you think about the scope (how many people consider it to be offensive?) extent (how offensive is it?), kneeling during the anthem is relatively high on both. A few ideas that would have far lower scope and extent of offensive/disrespectful.

1. Wearing shirts featuring victims of police brutality for warmups, etc. (or holding photos of victims in pregame/postgame) -- you'd probably have far more participation from players on this, too since no one's worried about appearing disrespectful to military. Counter is the "it's anti-police" but think that's a far weaker complaint overall because it's a far more abstract objection than kneeling during the anthem.

2. Donating game checks. You could have one player from each team donate their game check to this cause: 50% to victims' families, 50% to local policy departments to help fund sensitivity training. The players could pool it to make it the equivalent of the average game check. Goes against the "spoiled, selfish athletes don't know what it's like", "put your money where your mouth is" gripe.

3. Each team "adopting" a victim of police brutality in their home city. Dedicating each game to them, mentioning in post-game comments, etc. This is probably the weakest alternative but if it were well-coordinated, could be impactful.

 

Rich black men protesting is always going to be offensive/disrespectful to many.

Fewer than those who think that kneeling during the anthem is disrespectful. And they might get some more white players to join with a vehicle that has a lower risk for disrespecting/offending.

[Brian707]

 

 

Additionally, Kaepernick has donated money and still gets the lol, you have it so rough rich boy. Give up all your money if you really have an issue, and then move far away so I don't have to see you.

 

 

Do you think Kapernick and others are only doing the protests for themselves?

[jersey cubs fan]

It is very clear and obvious what the players are protesting.

 

 

Those people choosing to act as though it is not clear what the protest is about, are making up excuses to justify not supporting the players, because they know the players are right, or they are just willfully ignorant.

 

I had this very same conversation with somebody this past summer. He kept hammering on the idea of "what does he (kap) even want", and I kept answering. He'd hem and haw about the mixed message but would also eventually come around to realize he knew exactly what kap wanted. It was as if I had to keep reminding him he was on the verge of saying some incredibly stupid racist [expletive] before he'd back off that line. And then start right back up. It's tiresome.