|
Post by trueblueatnyc on Aug 13, 2019 19:13:28 GMT -5
I think the biggest issue is that Kap said he wasnt anti- American flag or banner, but then made noise when Nike had their Red White Blue kicks come out. How does that take a stand against police brutality? Its a sneaker. Maybe he should be against Nike for abusing child labor in poor countries? But I guess he can pick and choose what offends us today. wasnt that betsy ross flag during the 13 colonies and during slavery? Betsy Ross was a quaker and part the abolitionist movement.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Aug 13, 2019 19:41:00 GMT -5
Olivier Vernon took a knee Snacks Harrison took a knee Landon Collins took a knee What do all 3 of those players have in common in 2019? Not on the Giants. Also, all three still in the NFL. The one out of those three that chose his next team plays on the Redskins....let that sink in haha.
A recent poll of native Americans by the Washington Post found the majority felt proud over the Redskin name.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Aug 13, 2019 19:46:12 GMT -5
That Kap is out of the NFL simply because of his political stance. Lots of players took that same stance are the still playing. He isn't on a team because he isn't good enough to make the headache worth it. You can kill someone and still play in the NFL if you are good enough. This all may be true. But it's still speculation. Speculation is totally fine, but I think it's dangerous to declare speculations on why people did or did not do things (like hire Kap) as either factually incorrect or correct. Maybe Kap is out because he isn't good enough. Or maybe he is out because teams don't want to anger a section of their fanbase. I, and I'm assuming everyone else on these boards, isn't an NFL owner, so we have no way of really knowing. Thus, we can't be declaring anything as "factually" anything. Besides, America has a long history of penalizing the first protestor far harsher than protestors who followed. That history can't be ignored in this discussion. How about the fact that he was offered a job by John Elway and he declined it? Or how about that the Ravens were interested in talking to him and his girlfriend posted some crap about their front office causing them to rescind the offer?
How about those facts?
|
|
|
Post by magilla on Aug 13, 2019 19:51:12 GMT -5
CK1 is anything but a victim and he has never once attempted to represent himself as a victim to the public. Then why did he bring a case against the NFL for conspiring against him to keep him out of the league ? The case flopped . That sounds like victim-ism to me. Add the fact he brought the case against the league after he opted out of his contract with the 49ers and turned down the Denver contract. It quacks it is a duck. No. The case didn’t flop. Lawyers for NFL advises owners to settle and that’s what they did. Standing up for yourself isn’t being a victim. CK1 stood up for himself.
|
|
|
Post by magilla on Aug 13, 2019 19:57:00 GMT -5
So all 32 owners unanimously agreed not to allow Kaep a job in the NFL? And of course he won the lawsuit, any blood sucking lawyer would jump on this case when it involves a billion dollar company that is the NFL. How did Vick get another chance in the league? He went to prison and was public enemy #1 around the Country. But yet he found employment in the league. Should I go into all the domestic violence that is in the league? Even are very own Plaxico got a second chance in the league. All these guys I mentioned have something Kaep doesn't have. They all can still play... And who is CK1? Is that what Kaep is calling himself now? What a douche. Mike Vick is a different case than CK1 and he’s also a much better player. If there was nothing to hide, owners should’ve taken it to court. Nevertheless, they decided against it because obviously there was something going on.
|
|
|
Post by Delicreep on Aug 13, 2019 20:00:10 GMT -5
wasnt that betsy ross flag during the 13 colonies and during slavery? Betsy Ross was a quaker and part the abolitionist movement. Didn't the Quakers help fake the moon landing? I think I read that somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Aug 13, 2019 20:00:48 GMT -5
Also, all three still in the NFL. The one out of those three that chose his next team plays on the Redskins....let that sink in haha.
A recent poll of native Americans by the Washington Post found the majority felt proud over the Redskin name.
Maybe, but would you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face? If not, why is that?
|
|
soflo
Special Teams
Posts: 1,718
|
Post by soflo on Aug 13, 2019 20:04:47 GMT -5
A recent poll of native Americans by the Washington Post found the majority felt proud over the Redskin name.
Maybe, but would you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face? If not, why is that? Eh, would you gonna call a Canadian a Canuck? I don't think anyone would and it's not a word that some would consider offensive or under scrutiny.
|
|
soflo
Special Teams
Posts: 1,718
|
Post by soflo on Aug 13, 2019 20:08:22 GMT -5
Betsy Ross was a quaker and part the abolitionist movement. Didn't the Quakers help fake the moon landing? I think I read that somewhere. Well if NASA involved the Quakers in any sort of science expedition then that would definitely explain why we never got to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Aug 13, 2019 20:10:20 GMT -5
A recent poll of native Americans by the Washington Post found the majority felt proud over the Redskin name.
Maybe, but would you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face? If not, why is that?
Not maybe according to the Post. They actually wrote the results of their 2016 poll found 90% didn't have a problem with it. But to answer your question no, I would only use the name when discussing the football team.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Aug 13, 2019 20:10:54 GMT -5
Maybe, but would you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face? If not, why is that? Eh, would you gonna call a Canadian a Canuck? I don't think anyone would and it's not a word that some would consider offensive or under scrutiny. Yes. That's like calling a northerner a Yankee. It is harmless. The Syracuse and St Johns collegiate names were changed because they were references to Natives and gave an immediate description of their skin color. Redskin is pretty point blank.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Aug 13, 2019 20:12:44 GMT -5
Maybe, but would you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face? If not, why is that?
Not maybe according to the Post. They actually wrote the results of their 2016 poll found 90% didn't have a problem with it. But to answer your question no, I would only use the name when discussing the football team.
Exactly. And I'm not trying to single out you, but this is a point I bring up all the time. Why cant you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face if it's not derogatory? The answer is, because it feels wrong and is wrong. Imagine a team called the Darkskins or something.
|
|
soflo
Special Teams
Posts: 1,718
|
Post by soflo on Aug 13, 2019 20:17:08 GMT -5
Eh, would you gonna call a Canadian a Canuck? I don't think anyone would and it's not a word that some would consider offensive or under scrutiny. Yes. That's like calling a northerner a Yankee. It is harmless. The Syracuse and St Johns collegiate names were changed because they were references to Natives and gave an immediate description of their skin color. Redskin is pretty point blank. Yeah, but if the point here is that a majority of native Americans don't care about the term, then it's really all about what other people BESIDES THEM think, i.e. Native Americans may not place the type of importance on skin color that people besides them do. They might in fact find this preoccupation with sensitivity to skin color rather ridiculous, especially if the numbers are showing they don't care about the name. So it's only offensive from the perspective of the person who isn't the native american, probably because the non-native american has had it ingrained in their head to believe it's wrong or that it matters. Again, this is part of the whole, "Deciding to be offended on behalf of people who should be offended, even if they aren't offended." Ergo, you wouldn't call a native american a redskin to his face based purely on your social training, which they think is crazy. It's much the same with calling a canadian a canuck. They wouldn't care.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Aug 13, 2019 20:17:10 GMT -5
Also, all three still in the NFL. The one out of those three that chose his next team plays on the Redskins....let that sink in haha.
A recent poll of native Americans by the Washington Post found the majority felt proud over the Redskin name.
Also, the WASHINGTON POST conducted the survey so it could be slanted to favor their team. And on top of that, the other most popular words on the survey were "annoyed" and "disrespectful".
|
|
soflo
Special Teams
Posts: 1,718
|
Post by soflo on Aug 13, 2019 20:20:02 GMT -5
A recent poll of native Americans by the Washington Post found the majority felt proud over the Redskin name.
Also, the WASHINGTON POST conducted the survey so it could be slanted to favor their team. And on top of that, the other most popular words on the survey were "annoyed" and "disrespectful". Isn't the Washington Post severely left leaning? I also thought they had writers that refused to say the name redskin and replaced it with The Washington Team.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Aug 13, 2019 20:20:09 GMT -5
Yes. That's like calling a northerner a Yankee. It is harmless. The Syracuse and St Johns collegiate names were changed because they were references to Natives and gave an immediate description of their skin color. Redskin is pretty point blank. Yeah, but if the point here is that a majority of native Americans don't care about the term, then it's really all about what other people besides them think, i.e. Native Americans may not place the type of importance on skin color that people besides them do. They might in fact find this preoccupation with sensitivity to skin color rather ridiculous, especially if the numbers are showing they don't care about the name. So it's only offensive from the perspective of the person who isn't the native american, probably because the non-native american has had it ingrained in their head to believe it's wrong or that it matters. Again, this is part of the whole, "Deciding to be offended on behalf of people who should be offended, even if they aren't offended." Ergo, you wouldn't call a native american a redskin to his face based purely on your social training, which they think is crazy. It's much the same with calling a canadian a canuck. They wouldn't care. So if 251 of natives (in this small 500 person survey), it's ok? What about the other 249 who were disappointed or annoyed as the survey says were also big key words used?
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Aug 13, 2019 20:20:33 GMT -5
Not maybe according to the Post. They actually wrote the results of their 2016 poll found 90% didn't have a problem with it. But to answer your question no, I would only use the name when discussing the football team.
Exactly. And I'm not trying to single out you, but this is a point I bring up all the time. Why cant you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face if it's not derogatory? The answer is, because it feels wrong and is wrong. Imagine a team called the Darkskins or something.
Let me see if I got this straight. If I see a rather large man or woman would it be proper for me to call them Giants?
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Aug 13, 2019 20:22:35 GMT -5
Exactly. And I'm not trying to single out you, but this is a point I bring up all the time. Why cant you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face if it's not derogatory? The answer is, because it feels wrong and is wrong. Imagine a team called the Darkskins or something.
Let me see if I got this straight. If I see a rather large man or woman would it be proper for me to call them Giants? Nice.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Aug 13, 2019 20:22:40 GMT -5
Also, the WASHINGTON POST conducted the survey so it could be slanted to favor their team. And on top of that, the other most popular words on the survey were "annoyed" and "disrespectful". Isn't the Washington Post severely left leaning? I also thought they had writers that refused to say the name redskin and replaced it with The Washington Team.
I'll take your word for it, but I have never read their site simply because they block my access due to my ad blockers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 20:24:11 GMT -5
Betsy Ross was a quaker and part the abolitionist movement. Didn't the Quakers help fake the moon landing? I think I read that somewhere. You're about to receive a phone call.
|
|
soflo
Special Teams
Posts: 1,718
|
Post by soflo on Aug 13, 2019 20:26:13 GMT -5
Yeah, but if the point here is that a majority of native Americans don't care about the term, then it's really all about what other people besides them think, i.e. Native Americans may not place the type of importance on skin color that people besides them do. They might in fact find this preoccupation with sensitivity to skin color rather ridiculous, especially if the numbers are showing they don't care about the name. So it's only offensive from the perspective of the person who isn't the native american, probably because the non-native american has had it ingrained in their head to believe it's wrong or that it matters. Again, this is part of the whole, "Deciding to be offended on behalf of people who should be offended, even if they aren't offended." Ergo, you wouldn't call a native american a redskin to his face based purely on your social training, which they think is crazy. It's much the same with calling a canadian a canuck. They wouldn't care. So if 251 of natives (in this small 500 person survey), it's ok? What about the other 249 who were disappointed or annoyed as the survey says were also big key words used? The number I've always heard (of the native americans who didn't care) was 90%.
|
|
|
Post by Delicreep on Aug 13, 2019 20:28:45 GMT -5
Didn't the Quakers help fake the moon landing? I think I read that somewhere. You're about to receive a phone call. I don't have a phone...that's how they get you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 20:31:24 GMT -5
You're about to receive a phone call. I don't have a phone...that's how they get you.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Aug 13, 2019 20:35:24 GMT -5
Yeah, but if the point here is that a majority of native Americans don't care about the term, then it's really all about what other people besides them think, i.e. Native Americans may not place the type of importance on skin color that people besides them do. They might in fact find this preoccupation with sensitivity to skin color rather ridiculous, especially if the numbers are showing they don't care about the name. So it's only offensive from the perspective of the person who isn't the native american, probably because the non-native american has had it ingrained in their head to believe it's wrong or that it matters. Again, this is part of the whole, "Deciding to be offended on behalf of people who should be offended, even if they aren't offended." Ergo, you wouldn't call a native american a redskin to his face based purely on your social training, which they think is crazy. It's much the same with calling a canadian a canuck. They wouldn't care. So if 251 of natives (in this small 500 person survey), it's ok? What about the other 249 who were disappointed or annoyed as the survey says were also big key words used?
It wasn't a yes or no question. They were asked to select from the following words which best described their feelings to the name: The choices were "proud," “indifferent,” “annoyed,” “content,” “satisfied” and “disappointed”, and the majority chose proud, but the Post didn't post the results of the poll, so we have no way of knowing the actual results.
|
|
desertash
Starter
The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by desertash on Aug 13, 2019 20:58:43 GMT -5
So all 32 owners unanimously agreed not to allow Kaep a job in the NFL? And of course he won the lawsuit, any blood sucking lawyer would jump on this case when it involves a billion dollar company that is the NFL. How did Vick get another chance in the league? He went to prison and was public enemy #1 around the Country. But yet he found employment in the league. Should I go into all the domestic violence that is in the league? Even are very own Plaxico got a second chance in the league. All these guys I mentioned have something Kaep doesn't have. They all can still play... And who is CK1? Is that what Kaep is calling himself now? What a douche. Mike Vick is a different case than CK1 and he’s also a much better player. If there was nothing to hide, owners should’ve taken it to court. Nevertheless, they decided against it because obviously there was something going on. or the smart PR move was to squash it asap and minimize the media shitstorm no matter if there was a fight to be had
|
|
desertash
Starter
The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by desertash on Aug 13, 2019 20:59:36 GMT -5
How about the fact that he was offered a job by John Elway and he declined it? Or how about that the Ravens were interested in talking to him and his girlfriend posted some crap about their front office causing them to rescind the offer?
How about those facts?
When they don't fit the narrative they are called "alternative facts"..........just ask Kellyanne. that quote of hers...set the tone for the whole term
|
|
DJones19
Starter
Posts: 4,480
Member is Online
|
Post by DJones19 on Aug 13, 2019 21:18:55 GMT -5
Lock this thread......can only see it devolving and getting ugly. You mean devolving and get more entertaining? I don't really care that Barkley retweeted Kap. I don't ever see Barkley using the Giants as a vehicle to express his political views like Kap did. Kap got blackballed from the league as he should have. Why would an owner sign a player that would cause half of the fan base to stop buying tickets? Same thing happens in Corporate America when an employee starts making controversial statements in public. They lose their job.
|
|
|
Post by jintsfan666 on Aug 13, 2019 21:24:16 GMT -5
I find all this talk about what a great guy Barkley is to be a little puzzling. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but he is supposedly living with a woman not his wife, and they have a child out of wedlock. If those statements are true, then he has serious moral flaws, and he is not really such a great guy. By who's standard is this a moral flaw? A deplorable?
|
|
|
Post by Nite on Aug 13, 2019 21:27:06 GMT -5
Betsy Ross was a quaker and part the abolitionist movement. Didn't the Quakers help fake the moon landing? I think I read that somewhere. No it was the Amish. The sound stage was built by them. Mennonites also helped out. But they weren't really mennonites
|
|
|
Post by Nite on Aug 13, 2019 21:45:41 GMT -5
Exactly. And I'm not trying to single out you, but this is a point I bring up all the time. Why cant you feel comfortable calling a Native American a Redskin to their face if it's not derogatory? The answer is, because it feels wrong and is wrong. Imagine a team called the Darkskins or something.
Let me see if I got this straight. If I see a rather large man or woman would it be proper for me to call them Giants? Or how bout' calling chicks with larger than average attributes 'bootylishious'? Or BBB (won't tell ya what the first B means)...
So this PC speech restrictions only extends to certain segments of the population. Exemptions to these rules include the following groups; Comics, Rappers, PC thought police, modern-day feminists, neo-marxist university professors, left wing "news" organizations, left leaning 'entertainment' networks..etc..The rest of us have to follow these unwritten rules or suffer the consequences.
|
|