ConstableRabbit

This is a good analogy overall but misses one piece: If half of your potential customers (people who don't buy today) overwhelmingly say that they need the product to do XYZ or cost less in order to buy, the company would probably try implementing some of those changes to see if it impacts sales/profitability. They wouldn't just say "well, a lot of people say these things and don't mean it... no one is going to buy the product so we shouldn't listen to them. Let's just keep the product as-is and hope some people change their minds."

Showplaning, really.

Given the sheer number of night games, the weather in AT&T would suck for most of the season anyway. Yep. Remember when sori would've nixed a deal to the Giants because it'd be too cold? I remember it well -- I was living in SF at the time and was in a particularly bad mood about the shitty summer evening weather.

This is going to be the best season of Locked Up Abroad yet.

And not real sure why Heyward would want to do waive his NTC for that...unless maybe weather is a big deal for him. Given the sheer number of night games, the weather in AT&T would suck for most of the season anyway.

Are you horsefeathering kidding me?

LOL

That's an incredibly foolish and obtuse distillation of my point. I wasn't suggesting that the protests should be less visible; I was responding to Tim's question on how the players could protest in a way that would be less offensive to large swaths of the population: the same population that the protesters are trying to reach. There are ways to do so, inclusive of ways that would likely get more participation from players, including more white players, who have been disturbingly absent from protests thus far. Of the guys who aren't joining the protests, there are probably a few groups: Group 1: They're racist Group 2: Not racist but don't think that police brutality is a problem Group 3: Not racist and think police brutality is a problem but concerned about the optics of kneeling during the national anthem ("not worth it") Group 1 is hopeless. Group 2 is likely very small but there's hope. Group 3 can be a very strong advocate -- and can be a more powerful one with a change in vehicle. What kind of protest could they do that wouldn't piss anybody off and make it easy enough on group 3 to participate? Protests are supposed to upset people. In this case, some combination of dumb, ignorant/uninformed, and/or racist people. See above. It really depends on goals. There are people who think kneeling is disrespectful/offensive, and those who do not. Then you have people who are dumb, ignorant/uninformed, and/or racist. Just about all of those people fall into the "it's offensive" bucket -- but not necessary visa-versa (i.e. I'd assume there are also some people who think that kneeling is disrespectful that can be reached/change their views). However, the message is not going to get through to those people. You're not going to change hearts and minds by leading with something that disgusts them. By this standard, I think that the protests could be more effective. If the goal is to piss people off (it might be!) I think they're doing a great job.

I’d imagine that the sentiment is more along the lines of “I’m concerned that kneeling sends conflicting messages” but hey, maybe all of them are racist. I don't know what you think my post was talking about, but I was calling your idea that black players should protest less visibly so white people would get involved idiotic and tone-deaf That's an incredibly foolish and obtuse distillation of my point. I wasn't suggesting that the protests should be less visible; I was responding to Tim's question on how the players could protest in a way that would be less offensive to large swaths of the population: the same population that the protesters are trying to reach. There are ways to do so, inclusive of ways that would likely get more participation from players, including more white players, who have been disturbingly absent from protests thus far. Of the guys who aren't joining the protests, there are probably a few groups: Group 1: They're racist Group 2: Not racist but don't think that police brutality is a problem Group 3: Not racist and think police brutality is a problem but concerned about the optics of kneeling during the national anthem ("not worth it") Group 1 is hopeless. Group 2 is likely very small but there's hope. Group 3 can be a very strong advocate -- and can be a more powerful one with a change in vehicle.

I’d imagine that the sentiment is more along the lines of “I’m concerned that kneeling sends conflicting messages” but hey, maybe all of them are racist.

Did it even result in any skin quality improvements? His original excuse was that the whitening was a side effect of a treatment to remove acne scars.

WTF

The main disconnect here seems to be that you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the people opposing the protests that their main beef is legitimately "disrespecting the anthem/troops/veterans." Personally, I think that's mostly disingenuous dog-whistling, and that's one of the main reasons to do a protest like this in the first place. Expose those people because, again, they are a huge part of what's being protested. There is definitely some dog-whistling going on. But we're using racism to explain away any reason why there are [EDIT: people who] think that's legitimately disrespectful. You have people who don't fully understand the extent of what's happening in this country and the players seek to draw attention to these injustices. But they're skeptical and by doing something offensive they turn off. This is generally a non-controversial issue but one that doesn't have enough attention paid to it. A very small subset of the US is watching the Philando Castile video and saying "well that guy definitely deserved to die." I would imagine the subset within the NFL is even smaller, yet white players are afraid to kneel: I'd wager that the reason is more likely that they're afraid of doing something offensive/disrespectful than racism.

I'd argue that not everyone who thinks that kneeling is offensive or disrespectful or doesn't understand the scope of what the players are protesting are like your racist friend. There's likely a spectrum in play. The point was that we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, which is unproductive.

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.

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.

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!?!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not operating under the assumption that most of the people opposed simply aren't aware of the reasons; I'm operating under the assumption that many are aware and are too offended to care -- and that's become the story/national discussion (i.e., whether it's offensive or not). And, due to this, there are definitely people who don't fully know/understand why the protest is happening. The headlines aren't about police brutality, they're about kneeling during the national anthem (and many don't even mention the reasons at all or only vaguely reference "social justice issues"). That's a really stupid/sad outcome for an important message. They're preaching to the choir and pissing off the parishioners, hoping that the sermon resonates. It's silly. If you had a time machine back to the beginning of last season, are you saying that you'd recommend that they choose kneeling during the national anthem as the way forward?

Yeah, it's pretty damn bonkers how quickly it blew up in everyone's faces. I thought it was amazing that they signed him, and that it was all but a lock that not only would he be as good as he had been, but that the Cubs were going to get him to that next level power-wise. Me too. Not to mention the thought that taking him from StL and adding him to our lineup would really put us over the top. Instead, it ended up being a net negative swing.

What? No. I never said that I expect protesters to abide by some sort of code of convenience. That would be beyond foolish. I am of the belief that a protest is ineffective when it doesn't enact change. When articles like the Deadspin one come out with questions like "Why don't these people get it?" or, as you've put it, "the problem is with them," it's clear that messaging could be better. Are you denying that a large portion of the US citizenry thinks that not standing during the national anthem is disrespectful? All of those people are those who you need to convince that police brutality is a major issue. They're literally the same people.