• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Kaepernick: Admoration, hatred, why is this a story? Merge Thread

Well obviously you have the freedom to cry about how much of horrible a person he is for not wanting to stand. Hell, some of you guys even want to fine and suspend him. Do what you want. I never said you shouldn't do it or aren't allowed to. From my point of view I think It's a pretty laughable situation.

What are you exactly condemning? His unwillingness to stand during the National Anthem for a football game. Wow, you guys are true patriots for a great cause. A cause to force a man to stand up for the National Anthem, instead of respectively sitting quietly. The outrage is pretty ridiculous as is with most burning the flag & National Anthem topics.

So is the act of sitting down any less respectful then standing up? No i don't think so. He isn't depriving anybody elses right to stand or listen to the Anthem. This isn't North Korea you know. He is respectfully sitting down, silently, that's good enough for me. I think it's a wonderful symbol of freedom. Anybody should have the liberty to express themselves as long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others.

But what do i know? The freedom to try and pressure a guy through outrage to stand for the national anthem seems more reasonable to some of you.

Good day and keep fighting for the free cause.


It was disrespectful to the country that gave him his chances in life and some people don't like it. It is their right to voice their displeasure at his actions and to show that displeasure with their money.

People wanted some person fired because she said colored people by mistake.
 
There you have it folks. If you're rich, you cannot make a stand against racism for it obviously does not exist, for you as a rich person is evidence that racism does not exist.


Maybe if he actually had a point, people wouldn't think he was such a dumbass.

Blacks are the ones killing blacks, not the police. And twice as many whites are killed by police, but I bet most liberals can't make a single white person killed by cops.

And most cases of blacks getting killed by police are justified. It's very very very rare
 
Your first solution is already a reality. Police are held accountable.

No they aren't. Even rightists on here generally agree. Whether the victim is white or black, and no matter how much indisputable proof there is, the cops usually aren't substantially punished and almost never get put behind bars. And this is in the small fraction of cases where some level of proof exists.

Even when the public's interest somehow overcomes or circumvents the blue wall, other institutional barricades (friendly states attorneys, public sentiment, etc) usually keeps the pigs on the street.

Your second would need more parsing, but you're implying that poverty is caused by race without having proof.

I absolute didn't say that. That would be a fucked up thing to say and, frankly, it's pretty unbelievable that that is what you read. But disenfranchisement and historical wealth inequality does correlate with race, certainly.

I suggest simply addressing those below the poverty line apart from race.

Over time (long periods of time) that would, with calculated efforts in industry and hiring, work. However, the catalyst that you are not considering is the residential distribution by race. Because blacks are concentrated in low-income urban pockets that were abandoned by industry and public accommodations, simply addressing it in that manner would be less effective and somewhat spurious.

Are you suggesting that the 50's and today is comparable in terms of racial equality? Otherwise, it's a strange question.

Now I think you're being purposefully daft. No, the racial landscape is better than in 1950, but the exact exchange could have been had then if someone like Sugar Ray was told he didn't face racism because it was better than in 1890. That type of rhetoric reduces itself to the logic that no inequality exists post-slavery because complete and unrelenting oppression is held as the qualifier. Racial progress stalled with Reagan and was lobotomized by Clinton.
 
I find this hard to believe because it took me 3 NFL seasons to even realize he's part black. Just look...

Rich Saudi Arabian Kaep
colin-kaepernick-girlfriend-nessa-diab-pics-photos.jpg


'Looks white to me' Kaep
MTE1ODA0OTcyMDI4MTY3Njkz.jpg


"Black" Kaep
Colin+Kaepernick+GQ+Super+Bowl+Party+2014+FZ_-tipgJi6l.jpg

I'd be surprised if he's "half black." But his physical features were less the cause of repudiation than his black identity. People saw the flat bills, jewelry, hoodies, Beats headphones, and dance moves and thought "wait a second, quarterbacks aren't supposed to behave like something that isn't a wealthy Midwestern white guy..." This was despite him being upstanding. Then, that rape accusation happened and he continually got hate even after it became clear that he did nothing wrong and behaved 100% perfectly.

Very rarely do I comment on, or frankly see, racism in American sports, which is one of the reasons why I think it's such a great escape and why unexpectedly sports has become a vanguard for social progress. But I definitely took notice with Kaep.
 
No they aren't. Even rightists on here generally agree. Whether the victim is white or black, and no matter how much indisputable proof there is, the cops usually aren't substantially punished and almost never get put behind bars. And this is in the small fraction of cases where some level of proof exists.

Even when the public's interest somehow overcomes or circumvents the blue wall, other institutional barricades (friendly states attorneys, public sentiment, etc) usually keeps the pigs on the street.

I disagree. When there is clear proof of wrongdoing, they are punished accordingly. The problem is that people cite cases where there is no clear evidence of wrong doing.

I absolute didn't say that. That would be a fucked up thing to say and, frankly, it's pretty unbelievable that that is what you read. But disenfranchisement and historical wealth inequality does correlate with race, certainly.

Given the posters on here, it's not a stretch to imagine such a sentiment. It is quite common, in fact.

Over time (long periods of time) that would, with calculated efforts in industry and hiring, work. However, the catalyst that you are not considering is the residential distribution by race. Because blacks are concentrated in low-income urban pockets that were abandoned by industry and public accommodations, simply addressing it in that manner would be less effective and somewhat spurious.

If you want to address this, I suggest examining welfare.

Now I think you're being purposefully daft. No, the racial landscape is better than in 1950, but the exact exchange could have been had then if someone like Sugar Ray was told he didn't face racism because it was better than in 1890. That type of rhetoric reduces itself to the logic that no inequality exists post-slavery because complete and unrelenting oppression is held as the qualifier. Racial progress stalled with Reagan and was lobotomized by Clinton.

If you admit that the 50's was worse, the analogy falls apart, which was my point.
 
Of all the complaints people have. I never understood why poor people take offence to rich people talking about whats going on society or make any social/political statement. Its always you are super rich, you have no right to feel this way or think this way. Its the same thing when a celebrity talks about politics and poor people complain about it.
 
It was disrespectful to the country that gave him his chances in life and some people don't like it. It is their right to voice their displeasure at his actions and to show that displeasure with their money.

People wanted some person fired because she said colored people by mistake.

I don't think Amy Robach should be fired for saying colored people, even if it's an odd word to use in this day and age. I think it was a rather poor choice of words with no malicious intent. But what does it have to do with this whole situation? People get outraged about stupid shit all the time, including in this instance.

Is sitting down really disrespectful. Under what exactly? Under the culture norms to do so in the last 80 years? It would seem so.He choose to sit silently during the National Anthem. Does sitting down show any less of a respect for this country. What about Flag burning? Many people see it as a sign of disrespect. Should we also pressure people who burn flags because the majority feel like it's in the name of freedom and respect for country? I am sure some of you believe it's the right thing to do.

But as I said before; you guys have the right to voice displeasure, I just think it's an absurd story to be outraged about.

So oldshadow, what do you think about this situation? Personally I don't care what those "other people" feel. I want to know your opinion. Do you think it's disrespectful to sit down in silence during the national anthem? If so, why?
 
Last edited:
I disagree. When there is clear proof of wrongdoing, they are punished accordingly. The problem is that people cite cases where there is no clear evidence of wrong doing.

Kelly Thomas - VIDEO: 10 minutes of video showing two cops beating an unarmed homeless white man to death after one of them showed Kelly his hands and said "You see these hands? They're going to fuck you up." During the video, Kelly screamed "Help!" over 30 times, "Dad!" over 20 times, and "they're killing me" twice. No prison time.

Eric Garner - VIDEO: Died of cardiac distress after a cop applied an illegal choke hold to him during questioning of a nonviolent crime. Cop wasn't put behind bars, nor even kicked off the force. Currently still employed as a police officer.

Tamir Rice - VIDEO: cops completely broke protocol by mounting a curb and pulling up beside a young kid appearing to have a gun. The kid was holding a toy. The cops didn't warn him, announce their presence: just pulled up and opened fire. Charges dismissed.

Daniel Shaver - VIDEO: young man on business trip was in hotel room. Police surrounded his room with a swat team upon hearing he was holding a gun out his room window. He begged for his life and began to crawl outside the room as instructed. He was shot point blank by a rifled officer as he crawled on the floor, unarmed. No jail time for officer.

You're a fucking idiot if you think that clear proof is sufficient. 99% of killer pigs don't get punished. And, for the record, two of these men were white. It's not purely a racial issue by any means.



If you admit that the 50's was worse, the analogy falls apart, which was my point.

No it doesn't (hence my explanation of Sugar Ray Robinson and his plight compared to, say, Fred Douglas).
 
Kelly Thomas - VIDEO: 10 minutes of video showing two cops beating an unarmed homeless white man to death after one of them showed Kelly his hands and said "You see these hands? They're going to fuck you up." During the video, Kelly screamed "Help!" over 30 times, "Dad!" over 20 times, and "they're killing me" twice. No prison time.

Eric Garner - VIDEO: Died of cardiac distress after a cop applied an illegal choke hold to him during questioning of a nonviolent crime. Cop wasn't put behind bars, nor even kicked off the force. Currently still employed as a police officer.

Tamir Rice - VIDEO: cops completely broke protocol by mounting a curb and pulling up beside a young kid appearing to have a gun. The kid was holding a toy. The cops didn't warn him, announce their presence: just pulled up and opened fire. Charges dismissed.

Daniel Shaver - VIDEO: young man on business trip was in hotel room. Police surrounded his room with a swat team upon hearing he was holding a gun out his room window. He begged for his life and began to crawl outside the room as instructed. He was shot point blank by a rifled officer as he crawled on the floor, unarmed. No jail time for officer.

You're a fucking idiot if you think that clear proof is sufficient. 99% of killer pigs don't get punished. And, for the record, two of these men were white. It's not purely a racial issue by any means.


No it doesn't (hence my explanation of Sugar Ray Robinson and his plight compared to, say, Fred Douglas).




Four cases, of which I have no real interest in investigating, does not point to a problem. Just like a few black people being killed by cops does not point to a problem. Now, if there happens to be a problem of cops committing crimes and not being charged, it wouldn't point to racism.

As for the 50's, if you admit it's a different era, there is no comparison.

Edit: that was the oddest thing I've seen on here. If you caught that, it wasn't what I wrote.
 
I don't think Amy Robach should be fired for saying colored people, even if it's an odd word to use in this day and age. I think it was a poor choice of words with no malicious intent. But what does it have to do with this whole situation? People get outraged about stupid shit all the time, including in this instance.

Is sitting down really disrespectful. Under what exactly? Under the culture norms to do so in the last 80 years? It would seem so.He choose to sit silently during the National Anthem. Does sitting down show any less of a respect for this country. What about Flag burning? Many people see it as a sign of disrespect. Should we also pressure people who burn flags because the majority feel like it's in the name of freedom and respect for country? I am sure some of you believe it's the right thing to do.

But as I said before; you guys have the right to voice displeasure, I just think it's an absurd story to be outraged about.

So oldshadow, what do you think about this situation? Personally I don't care what those "other people" feel. I want to know your opinion. Do you think it's disrespectful to sit down in silence during the national anthem? If so, why?

Yes I think it disrespectful to sit during the national anthem if you can stand.

Him doing it is not going to ruin my day and I support his right to do this or even burn the flag and not get arrested for it.

However I don't want to be around someone that does this and I don't want to support them with my money or time.
 
Yes I think it disrespectful to sit during the national anthem if you can stand.

Him doing it is not going to ruin my day and I support his right to do this or even burn the flag and not get arrested for it.

However I don't want to be around someone that does this and I don't want to support them with my money or time.

Fair enough.

So the action of sitting when you can stand is what's disrespectful in your mind? Do you think we should all abide by the norms of society because everyone around you is doing so? What if the overall public believe that sitting down can be as respectful 30 years down the line? If this happens, will you still believe standing is the only true sign of respect 30 years from now?
 
Fair enough.

So the action of sitting when you can stand is what's disrespectful in your mind? Do you think we should all abide by the norms of society because everyone around you is doing so? What if the overall public believe that sitting down can just be as respectful 30 years down the line? If this happens, will you still believe standing is the only true sign of respect 30 years from now?
We are two worlds apartments
 
Obviously he just read some headlines and some twitter quotes and decided to do this, critical thinking skills aren't his strong point-- a 6 year QB who is still a 1 read and then run type.

He compared the US flag with the confederate flag and said there is no difference. He also said any backlash or loss of endorsement money is a sure sign he is right that he is oppressed.


He spends more time on Twitter and in the tattoo shop than he does in the film room. He sucks.
 
He has the right to sit during the anthem

And I have the right to call him a piece of shit for doing so.
 
Four cases, of which I have no real interest in investigating, does not point to a problem. Just like a few black people being killed by cops does not point to a problem. Now, if there happens to be a problem of cops committing crimes and not being charged, it wouldn't point to racism.

As for the 50's, if you admit it's a different era, there is no comparison.

Edit: that was the oddest thing I've seen on here. If you caught that, it wasn't what I wrote.

Four cases off the top of my head not enough? How many do I need to cite? Fuck, man.

No, it's not conscious racism. But it's disproportionate effect on black men, while still not a matter of cops saying "let's kill some :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:s," is because of historical racism and its concentration of blacks in places of limited economic opportunity, with minimal wealth, and into the criminal justice system. Also, the media has done a wonderfully awful job of characterizing this as purely "cops vs. black people" and used latent white racism and limited social perspective (i.e. rural whites who have never had bad experiences with cops) to mobilize support for an objectively flawed and corrupt system of policing.
 
I honestly hardly see any oppression in the US. I see racists' but thats completely different than having the opportunity for success.

I think this country has made great strides against oppression. BLM focuses on the small % of cops that kill blacks, while most of the killing is done in inner cities where the youth minorities just seem to be content being thugs instead of trying in school or learning a trade.
 
Four cases off the top of my head not enough? How many do I need to cite? Fuck, man.

No, it's not conscious racism. But it's disproportionate effect on black men, while still not a matter of cops saying "let's kill some :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:," is because of historical racism and its concentration of blacks in places of limited economic opportunity, with minimal wealth, and into the criminal justice system. Also, the media has done a wonderfully awful job of characterizing this as purely "cops vs. black people" and used latent white racism and limited social perspective (i.e. rural whites who have never had bad experiences with cops) to mobilize support for an objectively flawed and corrupt system of policing.

That's exactly the problem- there are 330 million people living in the US. You can find evidence of anything you want. Four cases does not necessarily point to a problem. In fairness, there may be a problem, but this alone doesn't convince me. My gut says there is likely some favoritism with cops, but I wouldn't suggest that whitey is out to kill black people and the system is covering it up and letting murders go free.

If you reform welfare, you'd solve more problems than reforming the justice system. Ultimately, I think you and I disagree on a much deeper level about things than the superficial points we are arguing.
 
Listen I don't disagree with you about the military but you specifically said marching. You didn't get into all the other aspects of the military.

One alone won't fuck you up. But if you are infantry you will be doing several ruck marches with a full load on your back thrououghg your career. That takes a toll on your body.
 
That's exactly the problem- there are 330 million people living in the US. You can find evidence of anything you want. Four cases does not necessarily point to a problem. In fairness, there may be a problem, but this alone doesn't convince me. My gut says there is likely some favoritism with cops, but I wouldn't suggest that whitey is out to kill black people and the system is covering it up and letting murders go free.

Did you take nothing out of my anecdotes?

Whitey isn't out to kill black people. Bluey is out to kill poor people. More specifically, guys who are not all that bright but really want power are getting jobs in law enforcement and behaving terribly without repercussion and doing so within a system that incentivizes them to terrorize poor communities. This affects blacks because poor blacks are concentrated together in urban areas, while poor whites are generally spread out in rural American trailer parks.

It's not a purposefully racist enterprise: it's incidentally racist. But that's racist nonetheless, as it's a matter of a system of power sustaining itself on exploitation, however incidental, or a racial minority.

What is said again and again is that the very simple way to curb police misconduct is to take all civil suits out of police pension, but it will never happen.

If you reform welfare, you'd solve more problems than reforming the justice system. Ultimately, I think you and I disagree on a much deeper level about things than the superficial points we are arguing.

Sure, Clinton's welfare policy was objectively terrible and affected blacks worse than anyone by far. He jailed millions of blacks for nonviolent crimes, and then denied them welfare or public housing eligibility when they got out: so they either turned to more crime or went homeless.

However, the criminal justice system needs reformed as well. No more private prisons where capital rewards the arbitrary jailing of citizens, where prison oligarchs sway public officials, and wherein accommodations are scarce and rehabilitation is minimal (thus leading to recidivism when the offenders have on money, no skills, still have mental issues and health issues, and can't get government assistance). No more for-profit policing: if quotas are necessary to get officers to do their jobs, create them using crime data and don't punish marginal shortcomings, but no more making Johnny Triggerhappy have to find people to arrest or ticket to make his paycheck. No more clogging up municipal courts by spamming poor urban neighborhoods with regulatory ordinances like parking violations, occupancy defects, etc.
 
Did you take nothing out of my anecdotes?

Whitey isn't out to kill black people. Bluey is out to kill poor people. More specifically, guys who are not all that bright but really want power are getting jobs in law enforcement and behaving terribly without repercussion and doing so within a system that incentivizes them to terrorize poor communities. This affects blacks because poor blacks are concentrated together in urban areas, while poor whites are generally spread out in rural American trailer parks.

It's not a purposefully racist enterprise: it's incidentally racist. But that's racist nonetheless, as it's a matter of a system of power sustaining itself on exploitation, however incidental, or a racial minority.

What is said again and again is that the very simple way to curb police misconduct is to take all civil suits out of police pension, but it will never happen.



Sure, Clinton's welfare policy was objectively terrible and affected blacks worse than anyone by far. He jailed millions of blacks for nonviolent crimes, and then denied them welfare or public housing eligibility when they got out: so they either turned to more crime or went homeless.

However, the criminal justice system needs reformed as well. No more private prisons where capital rewards the arbitrary jailing of citizens, where prison oligarchs sway public officials, and wherein accommodations are scarce and rehabilitation is minimal (thus leading to recidivism when the offenders have on money, no skills, still have mental issues and health issues, and can't get government assistance). No more for-profit policing: if quotas are necessary to get officers to do their jobs, create them using crime data and don't punish marginal shortcomings, but no more making Johnny Triggerhappy have to find people to arrest or ticket to make his paycheck. No more clogging up municipal courts by spamming poor urban neighborhoods with regulatory ordinances like parking violations, occupancy defects, etc.

Alright, I think we found some common ground. I don't like the phrasing "kill poor people", but I can accept the sentiment to a lesser degree, namely quotas, and your subsequent theory.

I should have been more specific about the justice system but I agree with the perils of private prisons.

What happens in the WR is that I'm forced to take a more radical position when arguing against other radical positions, such as the blind allegiance to anything BLM. You've been reasonable here, and I agree with most of this.
 
Back
Top