It wasn't hard to be the leading argument when it's my group of friends, many of whom were in the military.

"By attacking and trying to oppress his "right to kneel", aren't you therefore disrespecting those who died defending those rights?

You're acting like the man hates the military and those who died serving, which simply isn't true. That has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make."

That was my argument.

In a sense i agree, although i feel that the NFL and Media's response is also weighed by the loss of life at play and not what they actually think. They won't comment on his chosen topic of protest because its an objectively bad idea in political outcomes, so they spin it to his right to protest.

The NFL can let Kaep's protest play out because of the seriousness of the topic, gay marriage on the other hand is so wildly unpopular due to its aggression on other people that its something they'd need to address. There's a reason that type of moral enforcement has gone to the wayside, people don't like people telling others what to do when it doesn't effect them, which is almost the antithesis of Kaep's protest which is about stopping unjust aggression. That type of moral bullying is unpopular even if it doesn't effect you in society, that's why its not a supported form of protest.

Exactly my point.

Just because some Americans feel like their veterans fought & died for the collective freedom of all Americans, does not mean that all Americans are supposed to feel this way. You may think your anthem represents your freedom, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

It is refreshing considering athletes today are afraid to make Mohammad Ali statements.

I like that it is putting a spotlight on the massive inequality that has been an integral part of our national identity since our nation's birth so many years ago.

"All men are created equal" should mean something. The United States of America, for the first time, when they overthrew the British, created a social contract whose strength lies in the freedom of men and women, and while this goal was very lofty, we have slowly been realizing this goal for over two hundred years, in sometimes painful ways.

Our national identity was forged from blood and steel and in the name of freedom. The American Dream belongs to all Americans, and if somebody has to sit through the national anthem to remind Americans that then I'm glad it is happening.

Of course the people who get really obsessed with football tend to not understand politics (obvious double fanatics here and of course others are exceptions to the rule) and are just dudes trying to wind down with a beer on the weekend and watch their team. I imagine their strong reaction against this man is due to them not wanting to be bothered by reality. But being able to turn a brutal reality off is a privilege (or disassociation), and things like that ought to not be so easy.



I'm not exactly sure what I fought for. My comrades and my mission were always first and foremost. But as for the overarching reason, I'm an idealist, so probably God & Country. It also seemed like a huge opportunity to get out of bad circumstances where I was seeing most of my friends get addicted to drugs, killed in weird and violent ways, go to prison, or otherwise just standing around on the block.

This post was edited by Skinned on Sep 23 2016 05:02am

What a soldier feels he's fighting for is not the point. Each person individually has the right to decide what their perception is on this.

Not sure what you mean, isn't he offering his individual perception coming from someone who is both a massive advocate for income inequality and police brutality and also a former soldier?

I would take someone like that's perception over someone who is more invested in either side of the issue such as a lifelong soldier or lifelong advocate, it implies he's more objective.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 23 2016 06:41am

Girls silencing me with a smile only works IRL, sorry. I just genuinely didn't understand your post in relation to skinned's.

My point:
Every person perceives their country's veterans as having fought for something good, something bad, or something along the spectrum in between those.

His point:
"I am a veteran and I perceived my fight as (...)"

My response: his perception of his own fight is irrelevant when other individuals' perceptions of his fight are concerned. He may or may not feel he fought for a good cause, but that does not change other people's perceptions.

I wholly reject the premise that listening to other's perspectives can't change our own. And as i said, as a person with a foot in both sides of the issue his perspective perhaps means more than most, certainly more than most who have a more biased standpoint with only one motivator rather than conflicting motivations. I understand what you're saying, but the conversation came off as, "only individual perspectives matter", "here's my perspective then", "a soldiers perspective doesnt matter only the individuals." Which seems to contradict itself, as afaik Skinned wasn't trying to push his perspective down any throats just offer it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 23 2016 07:28am