President Trump is right again!

Original post by ByEeek

In the same way black people are treated unequally in society generally? I teach black and Asian girls in an all girls comprehensive school. In school they all have equal opportunities, but there are no illusions that once they go into the big bad world, the odds of success are severely stacked against them, just as the odds are stacked against white working class boys or children of armed force personnel.

So you think that black NFL players are treated unequally, in the same way that black people are treated in society generally?

And with especial reference to Colin Kaepernick right?

Do you know what was the size of Kaepernick's contract in 2014, when he signed his six year deal with the 49ers in 2014? I am guessing you don't.

$126 million.

Including a $12.33 million signing bonus.

Now he was a bust and the team flopped under him as Quarterback so the full $126 was never honoured. In fact he played so badly he only got $39 million in the end.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/colin-kaepernick-record-49ers-contract-2017-8

But I wouldn't waste too much sympathy on the guy, all the same. This guy is immensely wealthy, for life, and did nothing to achieve it, even in American football terms.

Let alone something of real moral worth.

If he is your poster boy for how "unequally" black people are treated by the NFL, I'd hate to see an example of someone who was treated well. :rolleyes:

Reply 83

Original post by generallee

Well you are a self confessed anarchist, aren't you?

You don't (presumably?) even believe in the very existence of the state for which a song sings.

I certainly believe in its existence. I oppose that existence, but that's a different question.

So are hardly likely to appreciate the importance of a "national anthem" honoring it and acting as a focal point for communal cohesion.

Its importance or lack thereof is besides the point. If you're going to view the state as some sort of political embodiment of an organic single "people" or "nation" which needs to be "united" or "bound together", as opposed to merely a functional entity arbitrating between different interest groups, that's very much identity politics.

Reply 84

Joep95

19

Original post by ByEeek

It would seem that a significant number of players disagree. Given you weren't a party to the conversation / run of events, can you really be an objective judge? In this world, people tend not to get p1ssed off just for the sake of things.

It seems like it is only you who is making this claim, I haven’t seen even Colin Kaepernick himself state it.

Can I be an objective judge of whether a qb is good enough? Why can I not be an objective judge about something I have watched for years?

Reply 85

Joep95

19

Original post by generallee

So you think that black NFL players are treated unequally, in the same way that black people are treated in society generally?

And with especial reference to Colin Kaepernick right?

Do you know what was the size of Kaepernick's contract in 2014, when he signed his six year deal with the 49ers in 2014? I am guessing you don't.

$126 million.

Including a $12.33 million signing bonus.

Now he was a bust and the team flopped under him as Quarterback so the full $126 was never honoured. In fact he played so badly he only got $39 million in the end.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/colin-kaepernick-record-49ers-contract-2017-8

But I wouldn't waste too much sympathy on the guy, all the same. This guy is immensely wealthy, for life, and did nothing to achieve it, even in American football terms.

Let alone something of real moral worth.

If he is your poster boy for how "unequally" black people are treated by the NFL, I'd hate to see an example of someone who was treated well. :rolleyes:

You forgot it was actually Colin Kaepernick who opted out not the 49ers.

Reply 86

Original post by anarchism101

I certainly believe in its existence. I oppose that existence, but that's a different question.

Are you telling me that you didn't realise that the latter was what I was expressing, not the former?

Seriously?

Of course you did. So why are you playing semantic silly bugge rs??

Original post by anarchism101

Its importance or lack thereof is besides the point. If you're going to view the state as some sort of political embodiment of an organic single "people" or "nation" which needs to be "united" or "bound together", as opposed to merely a functional entity arbitrating between different interest groups, that's very much identity politics.

It isn't beside my point, it IS my point.

As a anarchist you are hardly likely to accord much importance to national anthems. And you don't do you? Why not just admit it?

I have no idea what kind of anarchist utopia you are attempting to bring into existence, but I do know there will be no room in it for God Save the Queen.

Reply 87

ivybridges

18

What I find uncontrollably funny about this whole situation is that the moaning is coming from the political corner that slams anyone who dares protest because of being offended or having even the slightest emotional response to an issue. However, here is a grown man, the President of what is seen to be the largest leading Democratic power on the world stage, whinging 'oh my gosh, its so offensive to our great country' because people used their democratic right to free protest.

What happened to being called a snowflake for absolutely every single emotional response that comes from an issue? Doesn't apply when its somebody aligned with the right wing of politics?

Reply 88

Original post by joecphillips

You forgot it was actually Colin Kaepernick who opted out not the 49ers.

Good point.

Thanks for the correction.

Reply 89

Original post by generallee

Are you telling me that you didn't realise that the latter was what I was expressing, not the former?

Seriously?

Of course you did. So why are you playing semantic silly bugge rs??

I thought it an odd choice of words, but thought I'd better clarify anyway, even if just for the benefit of anyone else reading.

It isn't beside my point, it IS my point.

As a anarchist you are hardly likely to accord much importance to national anthems. And you don't do you? Why not just admit it?

I have no idea what kind of anarchist utopia you are attempting to bring into existence, but I do know there will be no room in it for God Save the Queen.

What does my opinion on the importance of national anthems have to do with whether or not they can be a form of identity politics?

Reply 90

Original post by anarchism101

What does my opinion on the importance of national anthems have to do with whether or not they can be a form of identity politics?

Nothing whatsoever.

You brought in your view that it was a form of identity politics (which actually I don't dissent from) to divert the conversation away from what I accused you of.

Having no understanding, on an emotional level, of the importance of national anthems.

You claimed that was beside the point. It was beside your point, not mine.

Reply 91

Original post by generallee

Nothing whatsoever.

You brought in your view that it was a form of identity politics (which actually I don't dissent from) to divert the conversation away from what I accused you of.

How, when I expressed that view before you first responded to me?

Reply 92

Original post by anarchism101

I thought it an odd choice of words, but thought I'd better clarify anyway, even if just for the benefit of anyone else reading.

There were probably lots of readers who were wondering whether I was accusing you of doubting the existence of the United States as a political entity, so that was wise of you to clear up.

Reply 93

Original post by generallee

There were probably lots of readers who were wondering whether I was accusing you of doubting the existence of the United States as a political entity, so that was wise of you to clear up.

Meh, I think you'd be surprised. Also, your post seemed to be referring to states in general, as well as just the one in question in this thread.

Reply 94

Original post by anarchism101

How, when I expressed that view before you first responded to me?

No offence, but I think this little contretemps of ours (your point, my point, beside the point!) has passed its sell by date.

It is starting to bore even me, let alone anyone else unfortunate to read it... :frown:

Reply 95