Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100

Thread: NFL ruling on kneeling for national anthem

  1. #41
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65647390
    In response to anonamoose:

    There is no collective bargaining agreement with the union indicating that the players have the right to engage in on-field political protest. While the union may express dismay at this new rule (since it introduces a new avenue to fine/discipline players), I do not believe they could mount a successful legal challenge to this. I also don't believe the union as a whole feels strongly enough about this to strike over this matter.

    I don't understand your point about the NFL supporting the military. That is the league's choice, and does not give the players the right to engage in political protest on the field. It would be a different story if the players were simply choosing to not participate in military displays or the national anthem, but that's not the issue here. The players are allowed to opt-out, which is all they should be allowed to do. This way no one is forced to feign support for something they don't believe in, but they also can't disrupt any ceremonies the league wants to have.

    Additionally, the national anthem has played at NFL games since before any current player was born. Every single NFL player was aware that the national anthem was part of the game. They chose to work for the NFL teams anyway. By accepting the money and signing those huge contracts, they have accepted all terms of employment, which includes agreeing to follow directions of the employer (aside from anything excluded by prior agreement via the union).

    You also mentioned Michael Vick. He was punished under the morality clause which is in all standard major sports contracts. Denny Neagle of the Colorado Rockies was released without pay from his huge contract because he was caught with a hooker (and Colorado didn't want him anymore because he was terrible). Those are clear-cut cases of breaking the morality clause. However, expressing political dissent is not covered by that. That's why I'm saying these players need to protest on their own time.

  2. #42
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65647390
    In response to hongkonger:

    This is very different than YouTube censoring conservative videos, or Google firing a guy for expressing conservative views in the workplace.

    YouTube definitely has a right to censor what they want. They're a private company and can set their own standards. My issues with them involve the way they are going about it. They encourage content partners to uproot their lives and make a career out of creating high-quality YouTube content, and then after these people spend large amounts of time and money doing so, they suddenly get the rug yanked from under them by getting demonetized, and they're not even told specifically what they did wrong. Furthermore, YouTube will not make their rules clear (nobody knows how to avoid getting demonetized -- it just happens!)

    In the Google case, James Damore was not engaged in public workplace protest. Rather, he was discussing issues in a respectful manner on a company message board which was created for open internal discussion. The discussion was only made public because someone (not Damore) leaked it. Google then fired him for having expressed these dissenting opinions (even though he did so respectfully), claiming it was hate speech. Had Google simply asked him to stop these discussions and he continued anyway, I would have supported his firing (though I also would have criticized Google for attempting to create a liberal thought monolith in the workplace!)

    Here we don't have a few NFL players privately griping within the company that they don't want to stand for the anthem. This is an intentionally public display meant to give a big middle finger to all patriotic Americans. Not surprisingly, a lot of fans got pissed off seeing this, which hurts the NFL. That's a far cry from what Damore did, which was questioning the gender diversity policy on a closed company message board.

  3. #43
    Diamond hongkonger's Avatar
    Reputation
    706
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,640
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    In response to hongkonger:

    This is very different than YouTube censoring conservative videos, or Google firing a guy for expressing conservative views in the workplace.

    YouTube definitely has a right to censor what they want. They're a private company and can set their own standards. My issues with them involve the way they are going about it. They encourage content partners to uproot their lives and make a career out of creating high-quality YouTube content, and then after these people spend large amounts of time and money doing so, they suddenly get the rug yanked from under them by getting demonetized, and they're not even told specifically what they did wrong. Furthermore, YouTube will not make their rules clear (nobody knows how to avoid getting demonetized -- it just happens!)

    In the Google case, James Damore was not engaged in public workplace protest. Rather, he was discussing issues in a respectful manner on a company message board which was created for open internal discussion. The discussion was only made public because someone (not Damore) leaked it. Google then fired him for having expressed these dissenting opinions (even though he did so respectfully), claiming it was hate speech. Had Google simply asked him to stop these discussions and he continued anyway, I would have supported his firing (though I also would have criticized Google for attempting to create a liberal thought monolith in the workplace!)

    Here we don't have a few NFL players privately griping within the company that they don't want to stand for the anthem. This is an intentionally public display meant to give a big middle finger to all patriotic Americans. Not surprisingly, a lot of fans got pissed off seeing this, which hurts the NFL. That's a far cry from what Damore did, which was questioning the gender diversity policy on a closed company message board.
    No it isn't. It is meant to call attention to a serious problem. Any patriotic American would be appalled by the problem they are protesting rather than by the protesters.

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: By “patriotic”, Druff means “fascist-supporting”, but the good kind.
    HILLARY WON

  4. #44
    Diamond hongkonger's Avatar
    Reputation
    706
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,640
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by spit this View Post
    Political correctness is ruining America
    Yes, that among many other things, like Trump.
    HILLARY WON

  5. #45
    Diamond mulva's Avatar
    Reputation
    541
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,957
    Blog Entries
    4
    Load Metric
    65647390
    i think the kneelers should stick to their guns and not let the white man push them around.

    after all, the NFL is wut, 90% black.

    this would be a positive step in having an all black league vs an all white league for the ultimate championship..you know like when liberty plays bethune cookman
    Quote Originally Posted by bottomset_69 View Post
    Johnny Manziel will be the 1st pick in the draft. I truly believe not only will Johnny Manziel be rookie of the year, quite possibly he will be MVP as his style will shock defensive coordinators. Manziel may only be 6 feet tall, but he has size 15 feet. And he has HUGE hands. I know some NFL scouts so I know what I am talking about.



  6. #46
    Gold anonamoose's Avatar
    Reputation
    127
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,038
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    In response to anonamoose:

    There is no collective bargaining agreement with the union indicating that the players have the right to engage in on-field political protest. While the union may express dismay at this new rule (since it introduces a new avenue to fine/discipline players), I do not believe they could mount a successful legal challenge to this. I also don't believe the union as a whole feels strongly enough about this to strike over this matter.

    wrong, they can. 5 seconds of Google would save you from looking dumb.

    I don't understand your point about the NFL supporting the military. That is the league's choice, and does not give the players the right to engage in political protest on the field. It would be a different story if the players were simply choosing to not participate in military displays or the national anthem, but that's not the issue here. The players are allowed to opt-out, which is all they should be allowed to do. This way no one is forced to feign support for something they don't believe in, but they also can't disrupt any ceremonies the league wants to have.

    actually they have been forced up until the recent change that allows them to stay in the locker room. Who are you trying to fool here?

    Additionally, the national anthem has played at NFL games since before any current player was born. Every single NFL player was aware that the national anthem was part of the game. They chose to work for the NFL teams anyway. By accepting the money and signing those huge contracts, they have accepted all terms of employment, which includes agreeing to follow directions of the employer (aside from anything excluded by prior agreement via the union).

    zzzz. Not how unions work

    You also mentioned Michael Vick. He was punished under the morality clause which is in all standard major sports contracts. Denny Neagle of the Colorado Rockies was released without pay from his huge contract because he was caught with a hooker (and Colorado didn't want him anymore because he was terrible). Those are clear-cut cases of breaking the morality clause. However, expressing political dissent is not covered by that. That's why I'm saying these players need to protest on their own time.

  7. #47
    Gold MrTickle's Avatar
    Reputation
    429
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,721
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Last time I was at a soccer game where they played the national anthem (only happens in finals) we sung a different song over the top of the national anthem. Pretty sure we booed it the time before that. There's no place for the patriotic political shit in sport.


     
    Comments
      
      Daly: This
      
      hongkonger: Bingo

  8. #48
    Platinum JimmyG_415's Avatar
    Reputation
    -78
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,516
    Load Metric
    65647390

    This is NOT about freedom of speech or freedom to protest.


    Oh, gee, thanks for clearing that up for me.
    I love how you just feel like you can state things like this, like it is a fact, a not just your small little opinion.

    This Trump triangulating (or using them if you are unfamiliar how manipulation works.) the military. Mr 'Bone Spurs' jumps in instead of asking why, he goes straight to 'they are disrespecting the military'.

    When really they don't like how the flag treats them, and it boggles my mind how a white man can tell them they are wrong.

    It is clear that most of the dedicated NFL fan base does NOT like the anthem kneeling, and wants to see it stop.
    Clear from what? Watching the Sean Hannity show?

    I said I don't like it, because 'stand for the anthem' now, 'mandatory attendance' to a 3 hr Trump rally next.

    I've always stood for it, now that I have to, I don't want to. That is the Trump effect.
    This is "fake patriotism" at its finest, like one person gave a F cares about it, when they are at home. They are sitting on their ass eating or drinking.
    Just turn the TV on a few minutes later. Silently kneeling, is not disrupting the workplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    As I'm sure you have all heard, earlier this week the NFL ruled that players cannot kneel, sit, or otherwise show disrespect during the national anthem: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-anthem-policy

    I'm 100% behind this decision, and it boggles my mind how any rational human being can think otherwise.

    This is NOT about freedom of speech or freedom to protest.

    This is about an employer's right to prevent political protest at the workplace which would damage their business.

    It is clear that most of the dedicated NFL fan base does NOT like the anthem kneeling, and wants to see it stop. Therefore, the NFL does not want to see the kneeling continue, as it will hurt their brand and profitability.

    An employer ALWAYS has the right to dictate that employees refrain from controversial or off-putting behavior while at work. It is never your right to use your workplace as a platform for political protest.

    These football players are receiving millions of dollars to work for NFL teams, and in fact only have their high-visibility platform (TV coverage) thanks to the NFL. Therefore, the NFL has every right to set down rules regarding their behavior.

    If the players were protesting the anthem on their own time, this would be more complicated. However, it is totally absurd that people think that employees should just be able to decide for themselves if they want to disrupt the workplace with political protests, and expect their to be no consequences if they continue when asked not to.

    These players have no right to decide that they can hurt the NFL brand because they feel like it.

    This is not about "forced patriotism", either. The players ARE allowed to stay in the locker room during the anthem if they choose. Seems like a good enough concession to me. Now nobody is forced to be part of the anthem ceremony, but they also can't disrupt it.

     
    Comments
      
      hongkonger: This
    San Francisco crowned the ‘world’s best’ city to live: survey
    https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...o-live-survey/

  9. #49
    Platinum garrett's Avatar
    Reputation
    29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    4,259
    Load Metric
    65647390
    always surprising to me how well they get paid and they can't just shut up and do their job

     
    Comments
      
      Muck Ficon: Their job is to play football. Not stand up during a song.
      
      Hockey Guy: You obviously understand this issue perfectly. Now shut up Garrett.
      
      splitthis: Offset

  10. #50
    Diamond Tellafriend's Avatar
    Reputation
    1581
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    7,078
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellafriend View Post
    For fucks sake druff, how many faggot hongdong posts do we have to tolerate in a single thread? This place is becoming more trouble than it’s worth.
    Tellatubby is fast approaching the bottom ten

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:

    So says the guy with a limited number of daily posts LOL.

  11. #51
    Silver El Gallo's Avatar
    Reputation
    463
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    926
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    In response to hongkonger:

    This is very different than YouTube censoring conservative videos, or Google firing a guy for expressing conservative views in the workplace.

    YouTube definitely has a right to censor what they want. They're a private company and can set their own standards. My issues with them involve the way they are going about it. They encourage content partners to uproot their lives and make a career out of creating high-quality YouTube content, and then after these people spend large amounts of time and money doing so, they suddenly get the rug yanked from under them by getting demonetized, and they're not even told specifically what they did wrong. Furthermore, YouTube will not make their rules clear (nobody knows how to avoid getting demonetized -- it just happens!)

    In the Google case, James Damore was not engaged in public workplace protest. Rather, he was discussing issues in a respectful manner on a company message board which was created for open internal discussion. The discussion was only made public because someone (not Damore) leaked it. Google then fired him for having expressed these dissenting opinions (even though he did so respectfully), claiming it was hate speech. Had Google simply asked him to stop these discussions and he continued anyway, I would have supported his firing (though I also would have criticized Google for attempting to create a liberal thought monolith in the workplace!)

    Here we don't have a few NFL players privately griping within the company that they don't want to stand for the anthem. This is an intentionally public display meant to give a big middle finger to all patriotic Americans. Not surprisingly, a lot of fans got pissed off seeing this, which hurts the NFL. That's a far cry from what Damore did, which was questioning the gender diversity policy on a closed company message board.
    Was Rosa Parks trying to make a point about the mass transit system? How is kneeling in protest a fuck you to patriotic Americans. I’m a patriotic American and I would also kneel in protest. It has nothing to do with the song or the flag. My son doesn’t like the way the country is being run so during the pledge at school he just sits down quietly and goes about his day. It’s a private school and it’s required, but he chooses not to.

    It always feels like the undertone of your arguments is thsg liberals are less patriotic, and that is some bullshit.

     
    Comments
      
      hongkonger: Thank you
      
      MumblesBadly: Exactly! Fuck that conservotard “not patriot” accusation.
    We pray for understanding as we all occasionally request back door action by accident, when we tried to call an electrician. It happens, it simply happens.

  12. #52
    Gold Wiganer's Avatar
    Reputation
    386
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,566
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Machine gun the cunts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyde View Post
    I stay to myself and keep out of trouble and/or potentially problematic scenarios

  13. #53
    Platinum garrett's Avatar
    Reputation
    29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    4,259
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Pretty funny Muck Ficon red repped me above, and is saying the same exact thing as I was....

    lmao what a blockhead!

     
    Comments
      
      jsearles22: For caring about rep
      
      splitthis: Offset
      
      Kuntmissioner: Pretty sure split is considering garrett as her ticket back into a sex life
      
      nunbeater: For caring about PATTERN

  14. #54
    Platinum Jayjami's Avatar
    Reputation
    879
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,164
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Druff is right on this one. We should be more like the well behaved athletes in this stadium, dipping our nation’s flag to the great leader of Germany. It would be “disrespectful” to do otherwise.

    Last edited by Jayjami; 05-28-2018 at 07:39 AM.

  15. #55
    Platinum
    Reputation
    336
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,694
    Load Metric
    65647390
    I don't think Patriotism has much to do with either side of this debate.

    On one side is some black athletes saying "Fuck you white asshole and your racist country" in their own way.

    And on the other side is White America saying, "Look at those uppity n*****s. We need to put a stop to this right now."

    I think that pretending patriotism is a motive at all for anyone is disingenuous. I also find it completely intellectually dishonest saying the protesters are showing their true patriotism by protesting. No they aren't, they are expressing exactly what I said above, so lets not pretend otherwise.

  16. #56
    Gold MrTickle's Avatar
    Reputation
    429
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,721
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Is it not patriotic to want to use protest to improve civil rights for fellow citizens? Sounds pretty patriotic to me.

  17. #57
    Diamond hongkonger's Avatar
    Reputation
    706
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,640
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by MrTickle View Post
    Is it not patriotic to want to use protest to improve civil rights for fellow citizens? Sounds pretty patriotic to me.
    HILLARY WON

  18. #58
    Diamond hongkonger's Avatar
    Reputation
    706
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,640
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    In response to hongkonger:

    This is very different than YouTube censoring conservative videos, or Google firing a guy for expressing conservative views in the workplace.

    YouTube definitely has a right to censor what they want. They're a private company and can set their own standards. My issues with them involve the way they are going about it. They encourage content partners to uproot their lives and make a career out of creating high-quality YouTube content, and then after these people spend large amounts of time and money doing so, they suddenly get the rug yanked from under them by getting demonetized, and they're not even told specifically what they did wrong. Furthermore, YouTube will not make their rules clear (nobody knows how to avoid getting demonetized -- it just happens!)

    In the Google case, James Damore was not engaged in public workplace protest. Rather, he was discussing issues in a respectful manner on a company message board which was created for open internal discussion. The discussion was only made public because someone (not Damore) leaked it. Google then fired him for having expressed these dissenting opinions (even though he did so respectfully), claiming it was hate speech. Had Google simply asked him to stop these discussions and he continued anyway, I would have supported his firing (though I also would have criticized Google for attempting to create a liberal thought monolith in the workplace!)

    Here we don't have a few NFL players privately griping within the company that they don't want to stand for the anthem. This is an intentionally public display meant to give a big middle finger to all patriotic Americans. Not surprisingly, a lot of fans got pissed off seeing this, which hurts the NFL. That's a far cry from what Damore did, which was questioning the gender diversity policy on a closed company message board.
    It doesn't matter if it's public or private. A company may think an internal controversy is destructive to them as well. Your contention is that employers have a unilateral right to determine if speech or expression is disruptive to their business and to fire anyone them deem disruptive. If that's true there's no difference between the NFL and Google. It is not actually true but if it were, Damore wouldn't have any more recourse than the NFL players. In reality, both are acting unfairly, but legally. In the NFL's case it's the teams that will be fined because the NFL doesn't want to deal with the union. It can fine its own member clubs. If it tried to fine players that would be different.
    HILLARY WON

  19. #59
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by El Gallo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    In response to hongkonger:

    This is very different than YouTube censoring conservative videos, or Google firing a guy for expressing conservative views in the workplace.

    YouTube definitely has a right to censor what they want. They're a private company and can set their own standards. My issues with them involve the way they are going about it. They encourage content partners to uproot their lives and make a career out of creating high-quality YouTube content, and then after these people spend large amounts of time and money doing so, they suddenly get the rug yanked from under them by getting demonetized, and they're not even told specifically what they did wrong. Furthermore, YouTube will not make their rules clear (nobody knows how to avoid getting demonetized -- it just happens!)

    In the Google case, James Damore was not engaged in public workplace protest. Rather, he was discussing issues in a respectful manner on a company message board which was created for open internal discussion. The discussion was only made public because someone (not Damore) leaked it. Google then fired him for having expressed these dissenting opinions (even though he did so respectfully), claiming it was hate speech. Had Google simply asked him to stop these discussions and he continued anyway, I would have supported his firing (though I also would have criticized Google for attempting to create a liberal thought monolith in the workplace!)

    Here we don't have a few NFL players privately griping within the company that they don't want to stand for the anthem. This is an intentionally public display meant to give a big middle finger to all patriotic Americans. Not surprisingly, a lot of fans got pissed off seeing this, which hurts the NFL. That's a far cry from what Damore did, which was questioning the gender diversity policy on a closed company message board.
    Was Rosa Parks trying to make a point about the mass transit system? How is kneeling in protest a fuck you to patriotic Americans. I’m a patriotic American and I would also kneel in protest. It has nothing to do with the song or the flag. My son doesn’t like the way the country is being run so during the pledge at school he just sits down quietly and goes about his day. It’s a private school and it’s required, but he chooses not to.

    It always feels like the undertone of your arguments is thsg liberals are less patriotic, and that is some bullshit.
    Rosa Parks was not an employee of the mass transit system.

    Your son is not an employee of the school. If the school lets him sit, that's fine.

    The kneeling is a middle finger to patriotic Americans because it's basically protesting the country itself, rather than specific policies. Kneeling during a tribute to Trump would be different (though the NFL should still have a right to forbid that.)

    This is not about liberal versus conservative.

    This is about a private company's right to forbid political protest at work by employees.

  20. #60
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65647390
    Quote Originally Posted by hongkonger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    In response to hongkonger:

    This is very different than YouTube censoring conservative videos, or Google firing a guy for expressing conservative views in the workplace.

    YouTube definitely has a right to censor what they want. They're a private company and can set their own standards. My issues with them involve the way they are going about it. They encourage content partners to uproot their lives and make a career out of creating high-quality YouTube content, and then after these people spend large amounts of time and money doing so, they suddenly get the rug yanked from under them by getting demonetized, and they're not even told specifically what they did wrong. Furthermore, YouTube will not make their rules clear (nobody knows how to avoid getting demonetized -- it just happens!)

    In the Google case, James Damore was not engaged in public workplace protest. Rather, he was discussing issues in a respectful manner on a company message board which was created for open internal discussion. The discussion was only made public because someone (not Damore) leaked it. Google then fired him for having expressed these dissenting opinions (even though he did so respectfully), claiming it was hate speech. Had Google simply asked him to stop these discussions and he continued anyway, I would have supported his firing (though I also would have criticized Google for attempting to create a liberal thought monolith in the workplace!)

    Here we don't have a few NFL players privately griping within the company that they don't want to stand for the anthem. This is an intentionally public display meant to give a big middle finger to all patriotic Americans. Not surprisingly, a lot of fans got pissed off seeing this, which hurts the NFL. That's a far cry from what Damore did, which was questioning the gender diversity policy on a closed company message board.
    It doesn't matter if it's public or private. A company may think an internal controversy is destructive to them as well. Your contention is that employers have a unilateral right to determine if speech or expression is disruptive to their business and to fire anyone them deem disruptive. If that's true there's no difference between the NFL and Google. It is not actually true but if it were, Damore wouldn't have any more recourse than the NFL players. In reality, both are acting unfairly, but legally. In the NFL's case it's the teams that will be fined because the NFL doesn't want to deal with the union. It can fine its own member clubs. If it tried to fine players that would be different.
    I hate discussing the legalities of things like this because it distracts from the main point of the discussion: Is the NFL wrong for telling players they can't kneel during the anthem?

    Yes, Google can find internal controversy destructive, but it's unfair for them to set up internal message boards for employee discussions, and then fire the one guy who expresses conservative opinions on them. Again, had they simply made a blanket rule that politics cannot be discussed on these boards, and Damore broke it, his firing would have been understandable.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wager between two anonymous people - What is your ruling?
    By CryptoNinja in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-27-2018, 11:29 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-02-2017, 09:39 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-14-2016, 02:02 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-23-2016, 05:05 AM
  5. Official PFA Anthem
    By Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 09:46 AM