Hint: If the authorities are complaining about your protest tactics, you may be doing it right.

Hunger strikes. Peaceful protesting and it fights America's obesity problem. win-win

It's wrong to do it in the streets;
It's wrong to do it in the tweets.
You cannot do it on the field;
You cannot do it if you've kneeled.
And don't do it if you're rich,
You ungrateful son-of-a-bitch.
Because there's one thing that's a fact:
You cannot protest if you're black.

You can protest all you want, and we can boycott your games.

Boycotts and strikes are my favorites.

@peterwiggen at least give credit where credit's due.

Let's go over this again.

1. It is your right to protest by kneeling before the anthem
2. Mike Pence can walk out to protest your protest
3. I can insult the fact that you're protesting based on the actual REASON for why you're protesting, without actually wanting to take away your RIGHT to protest

are we clear?

Today we'll sit here drinking coffee in your incident room
Tonight you'll close the door and lock me in that bare bulb gloom
Love it ain't something riding on a motorbike
And love, I stopped loving you since the miners' strike...

Lets go over this again

You shouldnt be protesting things on the company dollar - was trumps argument

Pence protests football game while on taxpayer dollars

Hmm

Sorta sounds like bullshit yo

#fire pence make biden vp

@orathaic

Tomi Lahren, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Andrew Klavan, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity

Those are all either alt-right, conservative, or in some fashion *right wing* conservative commentators, and put together reach a collective audience in the millions, probably tens of millions to be honest.

ALL of them said that the peaceful protests were the right of the football players.

ALL OF THEM.

what they're arguing against (with variations between one another) is the actual thing they're protesting.


if they were kneeling because they though the reptilian overlords were taking over, then EVERYONE would bipartisan support criticizing their ideas.

NOT their right to protest: the THING THEY'RE PROTESTING.

whether it's disagreement as to how racist the police are, or disagreements of how politicizing the anthem is a useful strategy to draw people to your side:

it was NOT criticizing the RIGHT to PEACEFULLY PROTEST.



i feel like a broken record, but PLEASE tell me you understand that difference? just because you're exercising your right to protest doesn't automatically mean whatever point you're trying to make becomes magically valid.

all protests are acceptable.

no protests are above criticism.

As for Trump saying he;d personally fire them if he were employing them: call him out for being inappropriate. but he's not taking away their right to protest. he's no attacking that. i personally think Trump is a buffoon whom i wish was never in office, but to pretend like the Right-wing in this country is actively attacking the RIGHT of people to protest is pure unadulterated nonsense

“if they were kneeling because they though the reptilian overlords were taking over, then EVERYONE would bipartisan support criticizing their ideas.”

Uhhh, excuse me? I disagree, we need to fight back against the reptilian overlords.

Tristen you're not partisan you don't count

I hope that those who criticize those who are protesting understand that their criticism is reinforcing the reason they are protesting.

Full disclosure: I totally stole that poem from Trevor Noah.

Tristen?

@JK

"I hope that those who criticize those who are protesting understand that their criticism is reinforcing the reason they are protesting."

the reason they're protesting splits up into two groups:

1. the original wave of people believing the flag/anthem only are symbols of the inherently white supremacist system we have in place

2. the reactionary wave that got pissed that Trump attacked some of their friends, creating a more general anti-Trump wave.


at least this is my understanding. if this is incorrect please point out where.

So when i criticize those who are protesting, here are my criticisms of the protests:


1. it's ineffective.

instead of saying the flag is racist and we need change and we're kneeling until then, the more unifying move would be to say this flag doesn't stand for racism, that is a part of America that has been over the years more and more castigated and removed from mainstream America, and we will not tolerate any resurgence of such beliefs. THAT would be a move that attacked white supremacy, bring yourself as the bearer of Americanism (our country) and also not make every aspect of the pre-game in football politicized on a dichotomy (which makes your own side seem more absolutist.




2. your protests are not well defined

because YOU protest the flag, is it alright now for me to support the flag? We're clearly seeing different things, i'm primarily supporting the troops and what i believe America stands for: Liberty, Justice and Freedom. The protestors obviously are inferring something much different from me. But the whole movement for ending white oppression is one that holds little bearing. No there is not a massive anti-black culture in the police.

Basic statistics like there are more blacks in prison tell us nothing about the actual real world causes. You've only shown me a statistical discrepancy. Why are there more black people in prison? here's a quick hint: on average, they commit more crimes. Now before you call me racist, let me back that up real quick.

the number of crimes reported follow close in hand with the number of crime arrests, for homicide, rape, and a series of other crimes. this is true for black populations, white populations, and hispanic populations

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf

so... what does this mean? Well, in cities where homicide rates are high, if a murder is reported and the suspect is said to be black, this happens just as often as the number of times a murderer is arrested as black.

so for your claim of "systemic racism" to be true in the justice department, then we would expect to find crime reports (filled out by all races) to be different from crime arrests, showing the police are profiling.

But instead, the numbers are quite consistent.

So, is the systemic racism in America, black people reporting that blacks commit crimes? Another statistic that also goes out the window in these talks is that very fact, in black communities, it's often local residents calling in the crime (duh).

Another statistic is that most police in heavily black communities tend to be black. communities, hire from within the community, duh. thus the proportional populations are seen in arrests.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00905.x/full

this is a hilarious study claiming that black officers racially profile black men more often. what the study doesn't consider? the data behind reporting, ACTAUL crime rates, AND the fact that black officers tend to police high-black areas more often, because: that's how geography works when you police your local community.

this is not to say that racism doesn’t occur, but ALL disparate is not racism. Trying to figure out how much of the disparity is racism is an ongoing, and not clear, problem

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-black-americans-killed-by-police/

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451466/police-violence-against-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say

meanwhile, we have "systemic advantages" FOR minority groups nowadays, in fact, that's a major platform for the Democratic party, that up until last year had 8 consecutive years in the Presidency, and for over 2 years had both houses of congress with a supermajority, AND over 80% control in the largest metropolitan areas, which also have 1. the largest black populations, 2. the largest income inequality disparities, 3. largest poverty rates, 4. lowest income mobility. And much of that seeps into the black population within cities. How is it that the political party that champions minorities is responsible for some of the worst economic tidings for said minorities within local districts?




SO. Let's revisit what you said, @JK

"I hope that those who criticize those who are protesting understand that their criticism is reinforcing the reason they are protesting."

so... my criticism is reinforcing the protests?

well, for group 2 this makes no logical sense. The reactionary movement against Trump has been mainly focused around the actual right to protest, of which i have not criticized. that is an entire non-sequitur.

for group 1 i can understand how one could get caught in a logical loop in which they perceive i'm oppressing them. they protest the flag because there is systemic white oppression. i am supporting the flag and criticizing them for something they KNOW *perceive* to be true. therefore i'm evil.

Them working off of false assumptions is not my fault @JK.

Some times the goal of a protest is to raise awareness. Other times it is to demonstrate strength in numbers. Other times it is to encourage solidarity regaring a sensitive subject among who might not make waves individually.

IMO most of the "Group 2" protesters would have been "Group 1" protesters, but initially didn't want to make a scene. When Trump, who uncritically supports law enforcement officers and espouses violence against his political "enemies", goes against the original protesters, he signalled--again--that he is part of the perceived problem! Many Group 2 protesters finally got angry enough to break through the wall of fear, act bravely and publicly, and accept the consequences of their actions, which simultaneously put their livelihoods at risk and indicate their strong beliefs.

@JK

I understand it can raise awareness, but in your original quote

"I hope that those who criticize those who are protesting understand that their criticism is reinforcing the reason they are protesting."

you said that the CRITICISM reinforced their REASON.

not that Trump's criticism garnered more support for them... that is obvious, or at least Trump's criticism drove people out of the center scrambling to either side

#fire pence make biden vp

^ someone failed basic civics; perhaps a high school dropout

i take offense of your protest of my complaint of your agitation of my strike over your politicization of my civic action against your criticism of my commentary about your reaction to my castigation of your response to my dialectic of your position in the matter of my reasons for your argument.

so there!

Right. Those who criticize the #TakeTheKnee protesters are by and large the same folks who benefit from white privilege, blindly support LEOs even when shown specific evidence to the contrary, and are wealthy. It should be obvious that if you are the object of a protest/boycott/strike/whatever, then you won't like the protesters. But doubling down against them really just proves the point, especially when the protest is partially against police brutality and systemic oppression for which the POTUS is all to happy to beat the drums!

Yes, the people being protested think protesting should be allowed. Show me someone "concerned about disrespecting vets" and I'll show you a white supremacist who wants to cut taxes and shrink the government by eliminating social services that support a lot of vets.

do you have to be 'white' to be a 'white supremacist?

can you be hispanic and/or native american and still be concerned about disrespecting vets?

@JK

"Right. Those who criticize the #TakeTheKnee protesters are by and large the same folks who benefit from white privilege, blindly support LEOs even when shown specific evidence to the contrary, and are wealthy."

1. wealthy? that's by nature not true. you're REALLY underestimating how much white trash watches football.

2. you didn't actually address my argument, statistics or any points... so maybe you're blindly ATTACKING cops.

3. nice. more vagaries with "white privilege." just because you say it doesn't make it so, and your lack of specificity degrades the quality of your own argument. furthermore, i'm still waiting to see what white privilege you're pointing too. is it how most companies have affirmative action hiring programs? colleges' known bias to accepting minority groups (except asians!)? Blatant racism against white people by the media.

here's ONLY salon.

https://puu.sh/xUnHT/e03810a04d.png



"It should be obvious that if you are the object of a protest/boycott/strike/whatever, then you won't like the protesters."

Once again, you're not actually addressing an argument. you're ignoring that part, and it's becoming blatantly obvious to everyone following this thread. what you say IS obvious. it also doesn't add anything! you're not telling me statistics or facts that prove the validity of the argument.



"But doubling down against them really just proves the point, especially when the protest is partially against police brutality and systemic oppression for which the POTUS is all to happy to beat the drums!"

1. doubling down is good IF YOU HAVE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE!!! haha

2. where ARE your facts? it's pretty sad, i've produced 6 links to my sources. you have done... nothing. hmmmmm

How can someone who is an 'officer of the court' be so anti-police?

@JY: You're missing the point.

The protesters believe there is a problem with our society that needs to be addressed. You have more or less correctly identified it in "Group 1". Some call it Black Lives Matter. Some call it "white privilege". I'll just call it The Man Keeping You Down. However, and this is key, it doesn't matter whether *you* believe in their or not in the context of this argument. Whether or not The Man Is Keeping You Down is a separate discussion.

The real point is that when NFL players make this type of protest, *THEY FEEL* the entire weight of The Man being slammed against them even more. And to be fair, in this respect, it doesn't matter whether The Man is *actually* keeping them down. They believe it to be true or at one time was true in their life's experience, and so it is a worthy concern.

So when people who represent The Man tell them that their way of protesting is wrong, it is yet another example of The Man Keeping Them Down!

No need for any web links or data.

Here's the breakdown which applies to any situation:

Group A believes Group B is oppressing/wants to oppress them.
Group A protests against Group B.
Group B tells Group A's protest is behavior outside the norms for Group B.
Group A's belief that Group B is oppressing/wants to oppress them is CONFIRMED.

Q.E.D.

@JK

i understand what you mean, it's purely a perception thing. as for the original comment

"I hope that those who criticize those who are protesting understand that their criticism is reinforcing the reason they are protesting"

then... what is the correct response to the protesters? submit?

@JY: Well, I have heard plenty of right-leaning folks say "Just ignore those alt-right neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. They're insignificant and will go away." Why shouldn't that be the suggestion here? It really boils down to a bunch of football junkies being uncomfortable with protests being beamed into their living rooms where it feels like violation of their private homes. And that's why it's so powerful.

"The more you tighten your grip, the more (citizens) will slip through your fingers."

Really, to me, the counter-protesters (those who don't like #TakeTheKneel) should be protesting the NFL and not the NFL players. Boycott. Don't watch TV. Don't put your kids in Pop Warner football. Cheer for Iowa State. ;) Those are the things that will make changes happen. Those who hurl invective against those who make a point silently are doomed to fail to win over hearts and minds.

White rage is counterproductive for society. Whatever happened to noblesse oblige?

@"JamesYanik (156 )
10:32 PM
Let's go over this again.

1. It is your right to protest by kneeling before the anthem
2. Mike Pence can walk out to protest your protest
3. I can insult the fact that you're protesting based on the actual REASON for why you're protesting, without actually wanting to take away your RIGHT to protest

are we clear?"

Yep, thats fine. Its only a pity Trump doesn't seem to agree...

I think it's a brilliant way to "protest", it's a non violent way to make a statement, it's got great power and reaches a huge audience. It's got global attention. The players are acting in a calm, simple way that has "gravitas", there's a "solemnity", a wonderful power to their actions. The hysterical shrieking of the opponents, their barely contained anger etc is a sort of litmus like indicator of just how powerful, potent, how intelligently demonstrative this form of protest actually is. And I believe it's voluntary, players don't have to participate, but if they want to, they can. The absolute worst thing the NFL could do in response would be to try and suppress it, to try that would be a strategic blunder imho. I think the best strategy for the NFL is to " stay out of it", to neither support, nor suppress.

@Orathaic

...what? so when did Trump say you shouldn't have the right to protest?

I guess this is the impression i'm getting from the daily show/this week tonight/the late show.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/917955545197314048

And no, not the right to protest; but when the state tells you that your chosen protest is inappropriate and tries to influence people to get you fired; the infringes on your right. The action, not the words.

If a person tells you they don't like your protest and they want you to stop, that is fine, that is their 1st amendment rights in action. But when the state tells you they think you should stop, that is infringing on your 1st amendment rights.

I hope you see the difference.

@orathaic

well as for Trump's tweet saying he would fire them: yeah, i'm personally against the President talking about the private sector, but at the same time it was his opinion, and not a direct persuasion. saying "if they worked for me i'd fire them" on twitter to a twitter audience of several million sounds much more like him giving his opinion in a robust manner, and less like him trying to call out a certain team. if he had mentioned an owner of an NFL team that'd be a lot worse.

but ALLLLLL of this.... all of that having been said: it's still not taking away rights.

"But when the state tells you they think you should stop, that is infringing on your 1st amendment rights."

1. that's not even what he did
2. no it's not. the state is allowed to have an opinion outside of policy. you make not like it but i'm sorry it DOES NOT infringe upon your first amendment rights.


do you want to know how i know this? because 1. i've read the constitution and 2. NOBODY has sued Donald Trump over it. if it ACTUALLY infringes upon 1st amendment rights, then Trump would have committed a crime.

is the NYT publishing papers talking about Trump's criminal act in all this? CNN? MSNBC?

no.

they hate Trump, BUT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY INFRINGE UPON RIGHTS

@"saying "if they worked for me i'd fire them" on twitter to a twitter audience of several million sounds much more like him giving his opinion in a robust manner, and less like him trying to call out a certain team."

Yeah, it may just be his personal opinion; it is only a pity that he has been using twitter to announce policy, or his opinion on what he's going to do at work which may/may not become official policy...

That may be where the blur between what is and isn't appropriate for Trump to tweet comes from. And where the criticism from left wing commentators/comedians is coming from.

But you have to see that while 'BUT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY INFRINGE UPON RIGHTS' - this may be true - blurring the lines between personal opinion and policy within the presidency, this probably isn't good for a democracy.

And if it is actually Trump who doesn't see the difference, then you've got bigger problems...

Still the question remains, what is an appropriate time and method for protesting?

On their own time, not representing an organization. They are Pro Athletes, they can talk to media whenever they have free time.

If I protest at my job I would be fired, they should too.

But until a few days ago when Trump pushed the NFL, it was not against official NFL policy to kneel or sit out the national anthem. The only thing was when owners had players stay in the locker room and violate a rule about being on the field 10 minutes before game time. So it was the owners that were causing problems.

Some players have sat out the national anthem for religious reasons. Is Trump going to block a player's religious rights when he just pushed that as an excuse for business to not give abortion health insurance?

@orathaic

"this may be true"

1. it is true
2. why did you claim otherwise?

just stay consistent on that, and i can agree with you that Trump shouldn't really be acting like a political commentator now since he's President.

but if you take that extra step and say he's infringing on their rights, i have to for honesty's sake disagree with you.


@Randomizer

"when he just pushed that as an excuse for business to not give abortion health insurance?"

remember when the old debate was whether or not abortion should be illegal. now it's legal, and the debate is "can we at least not pay for yours???"

give an inch, they take a mile

...alright, right now i'm bringing up abortion. i have a midterm tomorrow and i can't do this. start a different thread if it gets brought up anymore, i will not participate

Out of Work ways to Protest: Social Media or email your country's political ruler (Canadian Ex: Justin Trudeau) making your concerns known.

At Work ways to Protest: Talk to your Human Resources or Union Representative about your work concerns (Ex: Right to a safe work place, Negotiate a higher wage etc.).

Race and Religious Protesting: Show all people respect regardless of their race, religion etc... Don't force people to do things/be somebody they are not. Inform, but don't force people to see your way.

These Diplomatic ways of addressing social injustices would be the best ways of protesting.