If there’s a subtle implication, I’m missing it. Dumb it down for me please.
I doubt 32,000,000 America’s give a shit about skin color.
1 Like
I realize that this thread has far more important points of discussion than whether Kaepernick merits a spot on an NFL roster based on his performance on the field, but the ongoing charade that “Colin is unsigned because he just isn’t good enough to merit a roster spot” is ridiculous.
In a league where good (or even “average”) quarterback play is so scarce that the Dolphins brought Jay Cutler out of the TV booth when Tannehill got hurt, the Bears signed Mike Glennon for $45 million this offseason, the Colts traded for the Patriots’ third-stringer (Jacoby Brissett) a week before the season started because Andrew Luck is still hurt, the 49ers are starting Brian Hoyer, the Jets are starting Josh McCown, the Browns are starting DeShone Kizer with Cody Kessler and Kevin Hogan as the backups, and the Vikings started Case Keenum last week in a game with significant implications for their playoff chances (and this is before we even get to the backups), the “He’s just not good enough to play” holds zero water.
Does CK’s quarterback play have some flaws? Sure; he definitely isn’t the apparent superstar-in-making that he was in his first year on the field, but even his last two years of play are enough to merit a roster spot. The 49ers were awful last year, but his play was one of the better things about that team (for an easy example of this - compare him vs. the other guy the 49ers started last year, since they were on the same team, with the same coaches and same “weapons” around them: CK had 59% completions, 6.8 YPA, 16 TD, 4 INT plus 468 rushing yards versus Gabbert’s numbers of 56% completions, 5.8 YPA, 5 TD’s, 6 INT’s - then consider that Gabbert is currently on a roster, and tell me with a straight face that the Cardinals picked Gabbert just because he’s a better quarterback).
As for his “monster contract that no one wants” - in the words of our current president, wrong. He’s a free agent now, he doesn’t have any contract. Any NFL team can sign him for the veteran minimum. Again, the Bears threw $45 million at a guy with less than 1/10th the career achievements. Two years ago the Texans threw $72 million at Brock Osweiler based on seven mediocre starts; he was so bad that they gave the Browns a draft pick just to take that contract away. But a guy that’s started a Super Bowl and threw 16 TD’s vs. 4 INT’s last year (on a terrible team with a coach that got fired for the second time in two years) suddenly just isn’t a good enough QB any more? Come on, dude.
He’s clearly not signed because of his social stance. Which is fine - NFL owners are free to include that as part of their assessment of who they want to employ. I would actually admire the owners more if they just admitted that and someone said “Frankly, I believe that he would not be worth the distraction to have on our roster” rather than letting NFL Network stooges perpetuate the charade that his lack of a roster spot just because he’s not good enough at football or that he would be too expensive. Instead, we get this “Sure, we’d love to sign Colin, but we just decided that we like our quarterback situation with Scott Tolzien and Jacoby Brissett, and we think those guys are going to be great football players for us.”
4 Likes
So, you have no point other than you don’t like it.
It sucks so many people on here find a problem with peacefully protesting a very serious, very widespread civil rights and social problem… All because those problems faced by millions momentarily interrupt a dumb game and upset your delicate sensibilities.
1 Like
That’s debatable.
Playing completely different teams.
Okay, fine.
If he agrees to it…
This is exactly my point.
The actual, stated, purpose of the anthem, as sporting events is to honor troops’ sacrifice. Now, yes, people have a first amendment right and the anthem can mean something other than its official purpose to a given person, but the official purpose is still its purpose.
The flagsitters are very much like the Westboro Baptist Church that shows up to service member’s funerals with their “God hates fags” signs. Yes, they have a First Amendment right to do what they are doing.
But they are still disrespectful assholes and should pick a different venue.
3 Likes
“reading comprehension and critical thinking” … and add introspection
I had a number of points. I even posted direct evidence that your narrative is utterly wrong. You ignore evidence that doesn’t fit what you’ve already decided to believe and then fault others for not abiding by your erroneous conclusions. All while ignoring your own ideology and methodology when inconvenient.
Wait what? Your option 3 is basically throwing your hands up in the air and saying ‘idk!! Definitely isn’t racism tho!’.
The statistics fall well outside of standard deviation. Because there is a higher murder rate amongst a particular race than all other races, one must assume that there has to be SOME reason for it, to explain the consistent statistical variation from what one would expect we’re race not relevant. I’m not saying both of the options I proposed would be true. I’m saying it has to be one or the other. ‘theres no reason for it’ is not a reasonable third option.
There is either something about black people, in and of themselves, that makes them more likely to kill people, or there’s something about the system within which they work that makes this statistic so. Those are the ONLY POSSIBILITIES. You have to be able to understand this from a basic position of logic.
1 Like
Its Ok. I’m considering both sides with some regard for the validity of each. I know that doesn’t happen too often, especially on the internet.
One of the problems that has developed broadly is the belief that if you aren’t tonsils deep on something you are against it. I’m not against, nor am I for other people kneeling during the national anthem- and what ever they think that action represents.
BUT- I can understand why that pisses some people off.
Its like an exercise in rhetoric. Please pardon the messiness. It wouldn’t be exercise if I was already good at it.
2 Likes
No no no. The facts do NOT tell you black people are inherently predisposed to committing these crimes. The facts tell you that it’s happening, but not that it is inherent to their blackness. That’s an important distinction.
1 Like
If I could like this twice, I would. Quoting for placeholder 2nd like.
Not at all. You’ve presented your stance very well.
No, it isn’t. I just didn’t take it any further. You wrote your list based on what Ben stated. I wrote #3 as an additional option. I did not; however, say that’s it’s, we’re done, nothing we can do about it. There are literally hundreds, probably thousands, of conversations nationwide about what to do about the issue. I’ve shared numerous ideas throughout the years on here.
Of course, there is SOME reason for the disparity. There are potentially a whole bunch of reasons.
Ya, I disagree. I think it’s a combination of cultural and socioeconomic issues with root causes mostly in poor choices, poor leadership, poor resource allocation, and probably 10 other things that leads to the statistic.
Has nothing to do with the “system” (note, not that the “system” can’t or doesn’t play a role) and it has nothing to do with Black people inherently being more violent.
No, it’s better than nothing. But he’s missing the point a bit. The purpose of playing/singing the anthem and saluting the flag is to salute sacrifice of the troops. Period. It’s a mini- Memorial Day.
It’s for the Union Soldiers who died to free the slaves. Is it OK for Kaperatick (sp?) to piss on them because they were largely white?
It’s just not the place for a protest, of any kind.
And, no, it’s not up for interpretation. The purpose of the anthem before events is pretty well drilled into you in the military. I used to know the code section. This is why I think guys like Boyer, Villenueva, and the various other veterans on this thread are so pissed off – they are actually informed not only of the purpose, but emotionally attached to those who served. It’s why USAA (insurance for vets) is probably dropping its sponsorship of the NFL.
1 Like
I think Bob Costas brings up some very good points in this video that can add to the discussion particularly patriotism lately almost exclusively being synonymous with the military.
Was talking to a buddy about this just yesterday (in a discussion spawned by the anthem protests, ironically enough).
“The very action of self expression and the freedom to speak from one’s heart — no matter those views — is what Pat and so many other Americans have given their lives for, Even if they didn’t always agree with those views. It is my sincere hope that our leaders both understand and learn from the lessons of Pat’s life and death, and also those of so many other brave Americans.” Marie Tillman
I think you’re simply equating system with government at this point. Which is not my intended use of the word. I meant it in a broader way, which would be more similar to things you mentioned directly above this.
I’m sure it is well drilled into the military. It’s not drilled into private citizens, even well educated ones like me. This leads me to wonder why, in this instance, you’re holding private citizens to military standards. I doubt you do this in other areas, right?
3 Likes
What? No. There are many more variables to consider. An easy one would be the murder rate among people in poverty. If poor people have a higher murder rate, and there are more poor black people, they would have a higher murder rate if looking at black vs. other but that doesn’t mean being black was the cause. You are ignoring countless variables and focusing on skin color.
You could do the same process for why the murder rate in Mexico is higher. They all speak spanish so spanish speaking people must be more inclined to murder! Except there are other factors, just because they have something in common doesn’t mean that is the cause.
1 Like
Then the statistic would hold up for poor white people. And it does not. Try again.
1 Like