Athletes protest at Pan Am games

[JettaKnight]

If a guy really wants to express his political pablum, then let him do it on those NBC feel-good filler pieces between events. You know, the ones that show an athlete overcoming great odds like a wife who's lactose intolerant or owning a dog with just three legs.

 

[T.Lex]

Given the brouhahas in the last decade about meeting with POTUS for various things, I've wondered what would I would do if I did something in my private life to earn an invitation to meet the POTUS.

For me, it is basically the same answer as with Obama. (I would've really like to meet Bush as POTUS.) I would accept the invitation, exchange small talk, and only if offered an opportunity to bring up our differing approaches to things would I do so. "So, what do you think about my bumpstock ban?" "Well, sir," while my wife cringes "thanks for bringing that up."

The reality is that it is most likely too late in my life to stand on a podium like that, or meet the POTUS. And that's ok.

 

[Jludo]

No differently than anyone would view someone saying, "Thank my lucky stars." I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that finds something so innocuous as that "offensive". Atheists (some, certainly not all, probably not even most) seem to be easily upset though.

That's the point, it's not that he used his few seconds for a personal agenda, it's that we find the agenda disagreeable. He's not stealing someone's time or doing anything inherently different, we just don't like the message.

Is it something that should be judged by vote? If most people think thanking God is innocuous then it's fine, but if a majority of people found his message offensive then it's no good?

 

[Jludo]

All of this said I agree with the majority of sentiment here that it's a dumb kid looking for attention. I just dont see anything wrong with him doing something dumb on stage for personal attention mistakenly thinking he's doing something good. Its exactly how I feel when someone thanks God on the podium.

 

[JettaKnight]

That's the point, it's not that he used his few seconds for a personal agenda, it's that we find the agenda disagreeable. He's not stealing someone's time or doing anything inherently different, we just don't like the message.

Is it something that should be judged by vote? If most people think thanking God is innocuous then it's fine, but if a majority of people found his message offensive then it's no good?

Yes, yes it is.

I'm pretty sure I laid out a good argument as to why.

All of this said I agree with the majority of sentiment here that it's a dumb kid looking for attention. I just dont see anything wrong with him doing something dumb on stage for personal attention mistakenly thinking he's doing something good. Its exactly how I feel when someone thanks God on the podium.

Then might I recommend this: http://www.theamericanschoolofprotocol.com/classes/

 

[Jludo]

Yes, yes it is.

I'm pretty sure I laid out a good argument as to why.

I wasn't responding to your point.

 

[actaeon277]

Given the brouhahas in the last decade about meeting with POTUS for various things, I've wondered what would I would do if I did something in my private life to earn an invitation to meet the POTUS.

For me, it is basically the same answer as with Obama. (I would've really like to meet Bush as POTUS.) I would accept the invitation, exchange small talk, and only if offered an opportunity to bring up our differing approaches to things would I do so. "So, what do you think about my bumpstock ban?" "Well, sir," while my wife cringes "thanks for bringing that up."

The reality is that it is most likely too late in my life to stand on a podium like that, or meet the POTUS. And that's ok.

Since I believe in "telling it like it is", coworkers have a habit of moving me someplace "away", when important people visit work.
Not cause they love me (though they do ), but because they don't want more overtime.

 

[JettaKnight]

I wasn't responding to your point.

I know.

 

[jamil]

So if an athlete makes the podium, that's ours, as Americans, collective time to bask in our american glory for having gotten him where he is? For having given him the opportunity to do what he did?
No, it's a dumb sporting event, we shouldn't care one way or another. But we certainly shouldn't pretend we're somehow owed his respect or that it's taking anything away from us in raising those issues.


Itd be like an athlete pointing up to thank God for making the podium at the Olympics and people complaining this is a secular country and he shouldn't be using 'our collective time' to air personal beliefs.

It’s not a dichotomy. It’s not either/or. He won the individual event that got him on the podium AS A MEMBER OF A TEAM that represents his country AND PAID HIS WAY. If he wants to make statements on a personal level, then he should do it while not representing his nation. If he can’t figure out where the balance is, if he wants to be on his own, why is he on a team?

It’s a dumb sporting event to you and me. Flying ****s are too hard to come by and I certainly wouldn’t waste one on the Pan Am games. But obviously it is important to enough people that it’s a thing. He lets down the other people who are interested who disagree with him when he grandstands on other people’s time. And if we shouldn’t care then why are you here caring? I’m just here saying Acteon had a point.

 

[jamil]

How should an atheist view that display? It's still the airing of one's personal beliefs, done so purposefully, and with the intent to make public spectacle. Ultimately, I don't see the difference.

Well, as a non-believer myself, it doesn’t bother me. Thank whomever/whatever you want. That isn’t making any demand for what I should do.

 

[Jludo]

He can stand on the podium and point up to thank god
Not a personal agenda
He can kneel on the podium
Personal agenda

What is the inherent difference between the two?
Is it only that we collectively feel one disrespectful and the other innocuous?

Let's say he was kneeling, the only reporter there looked at his twitter feed and did a story about how he had a leg cramp instead, is that being done 'on other peoples time' ?
There's no inherent difference in the act or anyone's time being stolen until you look at his Twitter after the event.

Also to Jamils point I only care in as much as it's fun to play devil's advocate and argue.

 

[jamil]

That's the point, it's not that he used his few seconds for a personal agenda, it's that we find the agenda disagreeable. He's not stealing someone's time or doing anything inherently different, we just don't like the message.

Is it something that should be judged by vote? If most people think thanking God is innocuous then it's fine, but if a majority of people found his message offensive then it's no good?

He’s using the platform paid for by other people who might not agree with the agenda he’s pushing.

Activists suck. They suck because they try to force the change they want on people who don’t want it. Well, if you’re an activist, what if you’re full of ****? If you’re advocating by persuasion, and you’re full of ****, people will just reject you. No harm done.

You want to change the world? Convince people through persuasion, not coercion, not through inciting the mob, doxxing, narrative control, and not through abusing the platform other people helped give you. Do it with your own ***damn platform. As John Q. Public. Individual. Nobody. One vote. Just like everyone else.

 

[Dead Duck]

How about it's just unprofessional and down right disrespectful. Not to mention unpatriotic. The only people who see this as a heroic contribution to some misinformed cause, are enabler morons from his little clique. I think they call themselves The Democrats.

He's a preforming monkey that failed at his job. "Just stand there and represent your country with honor and dignity."- they said.
He couldn't even do that. He needs to be taken out and be publicly tarred and feathers and to never compete in any event where he has the potential to embarrass his country again. Basically.... He's Fired!


There is a time and place to be a Douchenozzle... and that was not it.

 

[Jludo]

He’s using the platform paid for by other people who might not agree with the agenda he’s pushing.

Activists suck. They suck because they try to force the change they want on people who don’t want it. Well, if you’re an activist, what if you’re full of ****? If you’re advocating by persuasion, and you’re full of ****, people will just reject you. No harm done.

You want to change the world? Convince people through persuasion, not coercion, not through inciting the mob, doxxing, narrative control, and not through abusing the platform other people helped give you. Do it with your own ***damn platform. As John Q. Public. Individual. Nobody. One vote. Just like everyone else.

So you are against this sort of thing in principle, not just this specific example?

 

[jamil]

So you are against this sort of thing in principle, not just this specific example?

Well yeah. Activism is retarded. I'm against this iteration as much as any.

Jamil's rules for changing the world:
1) Try persuading people rather than coercing people, because what if you're full of ****?
2) Try not to be full of ****.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You want to change the world? Convince people through persuasion, not coercion, not through inciting the mob, doxxing, narrative control, and not through abusing the platform other people helped give you.

I don't disagree, but I see it being similar to asking stand-up comedians to be funny but not offensive, or asking advertisers not to use skinny, beautiful models, or asking political candidates not to run a negative campaign.

"Do your job, but don't use that really effective tool because I find it distasteful".

 

[Jludo]

Well yeah. Activism is retarded. I'm against this iteration as much as any.

Jamil's rules for changing the world:
1) Try persuading people rather than coercing people, because what if you're full of ****?
2) Try not to be full of ****.

Right exactly how coercive is kneeling instead of standing at a podium? Other than it apparently really hurts peoples feelings.
2) be an activist for something I agree with

 

[JettaKnight]

He can stand on the podium and point up to thank god
Not a personal agenda
He can kneel on the podium
Personal agenda

What is the inherent difference between the two?
Is it only that we collectively feel one disrespectful and the other innocuous?

This has been explained six ways to Sunday already.

Let me give another explanation: He's not saying, "This is something important to me." Nope. He's saying, "The US must change to what I want." Read his explanation - it all about him trying to tell you what to do.

 

[Mongo59]

Right exactly how coercive is kneeling instead of standing at a podium? Other than it apparently really hurts peoples feelings.
2) be an activist for something I agree with

3) do it for the NFL, they need to lose more of their fan base...

 

[Jludo]

This has been explained six ways to Sunday already.

Let me give another explanation: He's not saying, "This is something important to me." Nope. He's saying, "The US must change to what I want." Read his explanation - it all about him trying to tell you what to do.

So that argument sounds like you dont disagree in principle so long as you deem it respectful?His kneeling in and of itself is nothing, it's a rorschach test. His explanation on twitter later is what matters.

If he had just said 'this is something that's important to me' you would have been ok with that?