I actually dont think any players were going to kneel this year. I think most realized the message had been twisted and wasnt being received. Reid said he didnt plan to. Kaep said he didnt plan to. I think he said he couldn't guarantee he wouldnt if another unarmed person was killed. now i think many players are upset and we are going to see more actions
Kaep wouldn't commit to NOT kneeling when Seattle wanted to bring him in. Hence why he's still looking for a job.
posted by geeblockthere wasnt a rule saying they couldn't kneel for the anthem so that seems unnecessary
Just the opposite IMO. Rules not covered by contract are at the discretion of the employer.
posted by geeblockI actually dont think any players were going to kneel this year. I think most realized the message had been twisted and wasnt being received. Reid said he didnt plan to. Kaep said he didnt plan to. I think he said he couldn't guarantee he wouldnt if another unarmed person was killed. now i think many players are upset and we are going to see more actions
You are living in a dream world if you believe no players were going to kneel this year had there not been a rule change by the owners/NFL.
Kaep is a slightly better Tebow in that his talent level is probably best suited to back-up and occasional starter in the right system AND in that his talent level isn't worth the distractions brought forth by them being who they are because NFL teams don't tend to like mediocre or sub-mediocre players grabbing attention for non-football related reasons.
Without the protests, Kaep would likely kick around the league for a decade or so, serving as a somewhat competent back-up and short-term starter, but the odds of him ever looking like he did over his one good stretch at the beginning of his career for any actual length of time would be pretty small. It simply comes down to him not being good enough to outweigh the distractions he'd potentially bring.
As for the NFL overall as pertains to this issue, they do what they do best -- shoot themselves in the foot due to an inability to figure anything out (I mean, every year it seems that "what constitutes a catch?" gets more over-complicated). I said this on the pro sports forum before, but only a few players were actively kneeling when Trump had his "fire up the base" comments about firing those sons of bitches, which spiked them to kneel a lot for a few weeks, leading to Pence hilariously and blatantly staging his own reverse-protest. And then it died down and wasn't really an issue throughout the playoffs and with the general environment at the top being "unless you're elite, you might not be employed if you do this because regardless of your intentions, a lot of people are seeing it differently", most players didn't seem likely to continue the protests. And so the NFL owners had a meeting to proclaim rules and bylines as to what they can and cannot do, with the only notable result being to piss off a lot of people, so instead of "If them guys keep disrespectin' muh flag, I ain't watchin'!!!!", it's "If the NFL keeps disrespectin' muh players, I ain't watchin'!!!!" this year.
In short, by making rules about it, the NFL might have appeased one group of idiots, but pissed off another in the process. GOOD JOB!!!!
posted by HereticKaep is a slightly better Tebow in that his talent level is probably best suited to back-up and occasional starter in the right system AND in that his talent level isn't worth the distractions brought forth by them being who they are because NFL teams don't tend to like mediocre or sub-mediocre players grabbing attention for non-football related reasons.
Without the protests, Kaep would likely kick around the league for a decade or so, serving as a somewhat competent back-up and short-term starter, but the odds of him ever looking like he did over his one good stretch at the beginning of his career for any actual length of time would be pretty small. It simply comes down to him not being good enough to outweigh the distractions he'd potentially bring.
As for the NFL overall as pertains to this issue, they do what they do best -- shoot themselves in the foot due to an inability to figure anything out (I mean, every year it seems that "what constitutes a catch?" gets more over-complicated). I said this on the pro sports forum before, but only a few players were actively kneeling when Trump had his "fire up the base" comments about firing those sons of bitches, which spiked them to kneel a lot for a few weeks, leading to Pence hilariously and blatantly staging his own reverse-protest. And then it died down and wasn't really an issue throughout the playoffs and with the general environment at the top being "unless you're elite, you might not be employed if you do this because regardless of your intentions, a lot of people are seeing it differently", most players didn't seem likely to continue the protests. And so the NFL owners had a meeting to proclaim rules and bylines as to what they can and cannot do, with the only notable result being to piss off a lot of people, so instead of "If them guys keep disrespectin' muh flag, I ain't watchin'!!!!", it's "If the NFL keeps disrespectin' muh players, I ain't watchin'!!!!" this year.
In short, by making rules about it, the NFL might have appeased one group of idiots, but pissed off another in the process. GOOD JOB!!!!
lol this pretty much sums it up. Would read again.
With decision making like this, it's very difficult to understand why the NBA is creeping up on the NFL.
posted by like_thatWith decision making like this, it's very difficult to understand why the NBA is creeping up on the NFL.
I've wondered for many years why Goodell still has a job, much less the obscenely massive raise he got to $40M PER YEAR!!!! Talk about being in the right place at the right time and still being massively successful no matter how bad you are at the job.
I'm convinced Goodell has very damaging dirt on CTE.....J.Edgar Hoover of the NFL (I could see him wearing dresses, too).
This is a little off topic, but... I finally got around to really watching the vid for This Is America and his facial expressions crack me up! The vid as a whole is quite entertaining but the song is uninspiring IMO. I got the references of shootings and all that, but not once did I try to look at it from a dance theory perspective that so many others do. Just my two cents.
Is Trump really going to pardon Martha Stewart and Blagojevich, or is that fake news? Although I could see him doing it just to troll people.
edit: I see already people have been trolled, I mean triggered.
posted by gutIs Trump really going to pardon Martha Stewart and Blagojevich, or is that fake news? Although I could see him doing it just to troll people.
edit: I see already people have been trolled, I mean triggered.
He is pardoning D'Souza.
posted by supermanHe is pardoning D'Souza.
I don't really understand that, either.
But if you're going to pardon someone for attempting to sell a Senate seat, then you might as well pardon a guy convicted for an illegal contribution to a Senate candidate.
So, Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump the C-word. It personally wouldn't have bothered me all that much and maybe it didn't bother Ivanka Trump that much, I don't know. But outrage everywhere. She then apologizes and so does TBS, the company who runs her show.
Much to my shock and dismay, CNN has come forward pretty much stating that conservatives were/are correct when they point out double standards (referencing and comparing Roseann Barr). But it's a welcome change coming from that stunt show.
And then Brian Stelter has to ruin it by pretty much saying that it's not as bad as racism and that you cannot judge them equally. I guess he suddenly forgot he that he's a "feminist ally", which is creepy in and of itself (yes, white knighting is creepy as shit). But let's forget that women, from the beginning of time, have been enslaved and targeted right up to this very day in other parts of the word. But he's more interested in round-mouthing "muh racism!!!!" that he doesn't have much time for misogyny anymore. And this is part of the problem that most folks have with CNN these days.
posted by CenterBHSFanAnd then Brian Stelter has to ruin it by pretty much saying that it's not as bad as racism and that you cannot judge them equally.
I kind of agree with that. And on the liberal outrage scale, racism definitely outranks sexism (especially when the latter case is a woman calling another woman a name).
But, yeah, Samantha Bee should be off the air for that comment. Remember the outrage (and boycotts) when Rush called Sandra Fluke a whore?....which, incidentally, was hilarious because he was just equating wanting someone else to pay for her birth control with being paid for sex.
Why are some of the comedians and media talking heads on the left so vile and nasty with conservative women/blacks? They really enjoy shaming people who dare to leave the reservation.
I would agree also, if he wouldn't keep switching to "which is worse right now?" He does this all the time. One day it's racism, the next day it's Islamaphobia, the next day after that the worst is misogyny. Pick one. Either they are all the worst all the time or none of them are. That's my point.
Or, maybe he can think racism is the worst on Thursdays, then misogyny is the worst on Fridays, Islamophobia is the worst on Saturdays, etc.
Brian Stelter is pretty much the embodiment of a feckless cunt.
For the record, I don't care about Samantha Bee or Roseanne Barr. They can crack all they jokes they want, about whatever they want. Just like Bill Maher can and Chris Rock can. As I said before nobody can own words, or jokes for that matter.
I used to think that it was taboo to say certain things, but over time I came to the conclusion that if one person can say things, so can another. If equality is what regressives want (not true, btw) then that's what they can get.
posted by CenterBHSFanFor the record, I don't care about Samantha Bee or Roseanne Barr. They can crack all they jokes they want, about whatever they want. Just like Bill Maher can and Chris Rock can. As I said before nobody can own words, or jokes for that matter.
I used to think that it was taboo to say certain things, but over time I came to the conclusion that if one person can say things, so can another. If equality is what regressives want (not true, btw) then that's what they can get.
Agreed and an employer can make any decision or policy they want. The selective outrage and logic is what is obnoxious. For both sides.
posted by like_thatAgreed and an employer can make any decision or policy they want. The selective outrage and logic is what is obnoxious. For both sides.
True. I'd also mention the hypocritical notion that because "we" (those on one side of the political spectrum) are better than "they", it gives "us" license to behave in a manner that doing the same makes "them" the awful people they are.
posted by queencitybuckeyeTrue. I'd also mention the hypocritical notion that because "we" (those on one side of the political spectrum) are better than "they", it gives "us" license to behave in a manner that doing the same makes "them" the awful people they are.
Yes, this logic is laughable at best and it has primarily been used as an excuse to behave in a disgusting manner whenever it deals with Trump.
Yep.
And what's the progressive (marxist) term for calling an animal, an animal?
https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1002675058198876161
PeterSwedenVerified account @PeterSweden7 23h23 hours ago
London last 24 hours. - 7 stabbins.
- 1 shooting with machine gun.
But I thought gun control was supposed to work
posted by CenterBHSFan
But I thought gun control was supposed to work
I know there are some theories and discussion, but I'd like to see a study analyzing WHY our society/culture is more violent than other countries. Those other countries have problems with gangs and drugs, too, but why aren't they as violent?
It would probably end up being called racist
posted by iclfan2It would probably end up being called racist
Well, the murder rate by white people in this country is still higher than any other OECD country. I think the non-homicide violent crimes are also higher in the US.
I'm sure most are familiar with the data, but below shows the explosion in murder rate with the rise of gangs/drugs in the 60's, but while gun ownership has continued to increase we have actually fallen back to the 1960 rate (actually, practically a 100-yr. low currently). I wonder what the theory is on why the rate suddenly quadrupled in the early 1900's?
Stockton is cash-strapped, California is broke, and broken, but hey, let's give everyone $500 per month.
Mind numbing.