Romo Vs. Kaepernick

It's my opinion, so nitpicking seems reasonable. I'm not even debating what he's sitting for. If it's something that he feels strongly enough about to protest, then 9 times out of 10, I'll support the protest. There are few instances when I say "wow that's truly dumb thing to protest for and I can't support it (vaccinations)".

The issue I had/do have with it was the manner in which he protested which you called me out and said I was standing in the way of social progression which I don't think is fair at all.

I think the issue he's supporting is a serious one. I don't think he ever meant it to get this big, but here it is and (I've said this before) to his credit he's taking leadership of the situation. That doesn't mean I have to like his manner of protest. I find it a little unprofessional, but if his team isn't going to do anything about it (they can't now) then oh well. I'm still entitled to not like it, but it really doesn't matter anymore. I just didn't like the insinuation that I'm holding back progress just because I didn't like the way he chose to do this.

 

What has worked better at changing discourse for the better than sit-ins and non violent protests?

BTW, this "I can't do X, so Y shouldn't be able to either" can easily be flipped: perhaps Y should be able to do it, and so you should also be able to do X.

No one ever has to like anything, and you can call for his firing and/or whatever you want, but any time you want to silence someone, you should ask yourself what is so dangerous about what he's saying that you want him silenced.

 

When did I say I wanted him silenced? I never said anything of the sort. You two are making more out of my stance than actually exists.

And sure the flip could be said, but I also find the flip inappropriate. I go back to my meeting: if I stand up instead of sitting down which causes a distraction in the meeting, I'll be asked to leave and that's what should happen. It's not the appropriate time to stand up when I'm getting paid to sit down (or vice versa in this case). That's just my opinion and it has nothing to do with his stance on social change. I support his stance, just not the way he went about it. I've said that from the beginning. I don't mind his social view and his stance on this at all, but choose your time and place. I find this time and place inappropriate. If you disagree, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you want social change and I don't.

 

I don't know where you think I was calling you out, but I've been just sharing my thoughts about the topic. Like when I quoted MLK, that was not a shot at you, but my opinion on the over all subject. Likewise, I think you're thinking I'm thinking something I'm not thinking lol

 

The MLK quote was posted right after my take and does seem to sweep me up in it, but I honestly think we're not that far away from the point here. I just think the time and place wasn't great for his moment, but you guys disagree. That's okay, no worries. I have no issue with him making a stand on a subject that he feels strongly about. If he truly feels the need to make his stand, I'm all for it because this is a real subject. I just don't agree with the way he did it that's all.

I really think he's turned a corner here where he's truly invested in this and I applaud that for sure. And now that the team has not taken a stand on the terms of his stance, I'm all for him continuing to take a knee.

 

That was a coincidence apparently. I saw that quote on FB and thought it was awesome, so I came to share it here, but I actually hadn't read your take on it till after I posted.

 

Fair enough. I didn't think it applied to me directly so I was sort of taken aback by it.

No harm done though.

 

I think your three points in your original post make it clear that you think he shouldn't be talking about the issue in the way he is. You're also saying it's not your call whether he should be fired. He shouldn't - and he should be able to speak up and make people uncomfortable.

On the final point: my view is that you're misunderstanding how social change happens. Opposing the timing is opposing his success in this case.

 

But I didn't say, and never would say, that he shouldn't talk about the issue thus I do NOT want him silenced. That's absolutely false and not an accurate representation of my feelings toward Kaepernick's stance. Not even close. I've said repeatedly that I support his right to fight for whatever social issue he finds important. I've also said repeatedly that this is a social issue worthy of attention. All I said was that I do not agree with the way he went about making his statement.

I also don't recall ever saying he should be fired, just that he should not do this on company time I believe Barns brought being fired first. Being asked to stop doing something at work doesn't automatically mean being fired. I don't want him fired for his social views and his play since this all came to light has probably saved his job.

My view is that I know how social change works. I'm not a simpleton. I am a big supporter of peaceful protest (I have close friends who held BLM rallies and I supported them), but they didn't leave work to do it or do it at work. They held a protest in downtown Long Beach that garnered a few hundred people with them. It was a good rally. I don't like that he did this on company time and now there's the beginnings of another narrative that I don't like: his teammates should follow him. On ESPN710 Marcellus Wiley and Kelvin Washington both said it was "disturbing" that Kaepernick's teammates didn't kneel with him. That's completely unfair to those players and frankly I find that talk disgusting. His teammates shouldn't be beholden to Kaepernick's causes. Maybe they don't agree with him, maybe they think he's wrong. They're as entitled to that opinion as Kaepernick is to his.

Opposing the timing is opposing the timing. That's it.

 

Real, I'll respond to this one - because it's the crux of our disagreement. I'll start by saying I don't think I've met a simpleton (outside my home town), but I do think some people are far better informed than others about how social change happens. They tend to be front line activists and scholars.

Yes, and sometimes you work in an unjust work place, and so you're being asked to just deal with the injustice while you're at work. (I actually think that all of us are being asked to live with injustice right now because of, among many things, police violence. I don't think we need to simply take it. There are many ways we can - and should - express our disapproval and call attention to the problem.

This one is offensive to Kap and to anyone fighting for justice. It amounts to saying that the only reason he's relevant is because he's protesting, and he's protesting because he's "black," etc. Sounds a lot like saying, "The only reason she's relevant is because she's complaining as a woman." They should both be offensive to hear. We should all be able to separate two things: his uneven play on the field (that I've complained about for years) and his political statement. Don't sell your fellow humanity short; they can make this distinction.

Couldn't disagree more. Is it unnecessary pressure? Yes, but everything associated with a game is. Even winning. Uncalled for? Nope; it's calling attention to injustice, and there's no better reason to bring pressure onto others. If you want (or if NFL players want) a stress free zone where you're insulated from fights for justice, move to a place that cracks down more severely on free expression, I guess, or create your own VR program and live there. The real world isn't so neat.

Can't disagree more. If a colleague of mine wears a Black Lives Matter shirt into the classroom, should she be criticized for doing so? "You can do what you want in your academic writing, but in the classroom, you'd better fall in line." "I want you silenced unless it's convenient for me," should really make us examine how clearly we can make the distinguishing line between "That's your view but shut up" and "Let's enact law/use force to stop X." There are many things we can do to make the first one bleed into the second, like saying, "I don't know if he should be fired..." I suggest that's bleeding into the second. There's no legitimate reason to want to stop him from not standing for the patriotic bit (which shouldn't even be in football in the first place).

"Why now?" you ask. Does any answer at all make the message less legitimate?

 

I just think we disagree on something, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it. That's the only reason I bristled at the comment. Two sound people with sound judgement can watch the same movie and come to two different conclusions without one questioning the other's ability to understand the movie.

I don't believe Kaepernick's workplace is unjust. I understand his position and I understand the position against police brutality, I just simply disagree with the way he went about his protest that's all. I'm not asking him to live with it, I'm asking him to protest in a different way. I don't think it's entirely professional and I thought it was unfair to his teammates. I would absolutely support his endeavors as an individual.

It's not about his race, it's about his job performance. As an individual for the last two years he's been an awful football player. Basically ever since his Superbowl appearance, he's been one of the worst quarterbacks out there. He was so bad he lost his job to Blaine freaking Gabbert. My point was that he used this protest (and I still very much suspect that he did this on purpose) to maintain some level of relevance. I'm not alone in this assessment there were a lot of former athletes in the media that thought the same thing. However, now that it's taken on a life of its own he's so far truly embraced this and his play has improved because of it. I think he started this not understanding how large it would get and a lot of his early actions (the pig socks) reflect that, but as it's grown I think his confidence has also grown and his performance has turned around. He was close to losing his job in the NFL and being let go until this happened. Not only did it make him relevant again in the general population, but it has made him a better player too. Good for him.

I also think you're taking a leap to draw the conclusion that you did. I never said, "oh he should keep his mouth shut like a backup qb is supposed to" like Trent Dilfer said. I have never questioned a woman's opinion on sports like my misguided father does. Everyone is free to have an opinion. I didn't belittle his opinion, I just suggested there was an ulterior motive to this and I stand by that. It might be offensive to Kaepernick, but I still think it's true that he was not entirely sure where he was going with this. Now that he's here, he's done a good job so far.

Yeah I think that's wrong. It's not okay to force your opinions on others any more than it is okay to force your religion on others. What if it was a political stance he made? What if he said "I'm kneeling until Donald Trump is elected President?" should his teammates have to sit with him? What if it was a social stance you don't agree with? What if he strongly believed in pro-life and was taking a knee until all Planned Parenthood sites were shut down? I don't think it's right to push your agenda on someone else and to call it "disturbing" that his teammates won't take a knee is in itself disturbing. They should be free to address every issue in their own way without feeling pressured because someone on their team was saying or doing something. And I know the easy argument here is "well those things aren't real, this issue IS real!" but to a lot of people those issues are just as important and just as strong.

I think you're taking a huge leap to go from me saying "there's a time and place and way" to "he should be fired". That's not what I'm saying at all and I really don't want to waste any more time trying to convince someone else my view on something if they are going to assume that lowly of me. That's an enormous leap and that comes entirely from your opinions on the matter. Just because I disagree with you, suddenly I"m a retardant to social justice. I disagree vehemently with your argument but to be honest, I'm not talking about it anymore. I respect you and I don't want to continue this discussion in an unhealthy way.

 

You wrote:

Actually, I take a different stance - you can kneel all you want, sit all you want, for whatever ridiculous thing you think is worthwhile. It's your right. If someone has a problem with it and they fire you, even if they have the right to do it, it doesn't mean they've done the right thing in firing you. Let a person voice their views, without advocating violence, without advocating hate, and that's an easy line to draw here.

He's not forcing his opinions on others. He can kneel wherever he wants. Whoever owns that property can force him off it, but if we're being honest, stadiums are public spaces, paid for by taxes and continually bilked by the league (that's why his workplace is unjust, by the way; it's a state-subsidized event; they are, by their nature, unjust).

By the way, of course two reasonable people can watch a movie and disagree. Then they'd have a conversation in which they laid out their views and pointed to the relevant evidence. I think you're being intellectually dishonest by bowing out of this argument on the note you're suggesting you will - and I think you're absolutely trying to find that I said something I didn't about you. I do believe you hold a mistaken belief about social justice. I do believe that that believe is a barrier to social justice. I don't think you're stupid or evil for holding the view. We have got to be able to draw distinctions between actions and people. I can do it pretty easily, and I bet you can, too.

 

I disagree with you utterly and completely and frankly I'm insulted that you find me intellectually dishonest just because I disagree with you. I've lost a bit of respect for you because you're intent on assuming badness in me and my opinion. You're not in any position to tell me what I think and you're not in any position to claim superiority over my opinions in a way that makes you intellectually honest and a bastion of social justice and me a liar and something that amounts to nothing more than a racist or a bigot trying to keep a body of people down. It's insulting that you'd assume that of me.

And I find that silly. There's countless causes not worth kneeling or taking a stand for that stupid people will kneel and take stands for. I don't consider this a stupid cause and it's one worth talking about, but the idea that we all social crusades are equal is silliness. People should be allowed to take their stance and when they take their stance I should be allowed to have an opinion of it. Or perhaps it's only okay to take a stance and then everyone should just accept and love it for what it is. You want to talk down to me like I don't understand the world and yet here I am in the real world where disagreements are regular. Turns out I'm only allowed to disagree with certain things, but everyone can take a stance in your opinion.

Of course he can kneel where he wants and he can deal with the consequences of those actions. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and freedom from consequences. If we're being honest with ourselves, a public space is not a grounds to do whatever you like. I can't walk down the streets naked even if I'm not harming anybody. And if we're being honest with ourselves, the office building I work in isn't owned by my employer but that doesn't mean my employer can't mandate how I act in it. It is my opinion that once on the field, you act professionally. You can disagree all you want and call me intellectually dishonest and throw whatever other insult you'd like at me, but that's my opinion.

He is using public pressure to call negative attention to his teammates who do not reciprocate his actions. If there is a mob standing outside your house threatening you with violence, that will sway your opinion and have an effect on you as a person. If there is a line of people yelling insults at you on your way into work, you're free to continue into work and go about your day but those people will still affect you. What Kaepernick did, in the way he did it, brought unnecessary and uncalled for attention to his teammates and trying to deny that is in itself intellectually dishonest. If you want to say it's not a big deal and they should have to deal with it, okay. I disagree, but that's fine. Trying to pretend like his actions hold no effect on his team though is just wrong.

And again intellectually dishonest? You think I'm running from this discussion? No. I tried to recuse myself from the situation to keep my cool and to keep from arguing with a person who I respect and I know won't change their mind. You won't change mine and I won't change yours. Why not drop it to maintain some modicum of respect? The answer from you seems to be that you do not respect me enough to see that conclusion. Fine, but I really am done with this. You go ahead and respond and feel whatever way you'd like. I'm done.

 

Intellectual honesty demands that we probe issues even if they make us uncomfortable. To suggest that you and I cannot explore this issue to try to find an answer sure seems like intellectual dishonesty to me. Why can't we do that? I think we can. You can read whatever you want about how I view my "opinions" versus yours - but be aware that it's something you're bringing to the table. I cannot control how much people respect me; I can only control whether I'm worthy of respect.

We agree on both those points. The rest is just a distraction from the point, so I'll ignore it. Having an opinion on a thing doesn't mean that you cannot be wrong - I could be wrong. I've been wrong countless times. I've changed my mind on key issues many times. It's part of being a fallible human. To think that we should just voice our "opinions" (I put it in quotes because I'm not giving opinions; in fact, I don't know what an opinion is.) and then agree to disagree is the height of folly. We can discuss these things and at least understand better where the other is coming from. We might do A LOT more than that - like we might reach consensus.

I think you should be able to walk down a street naked, for what it's worth. "Professionally" starts to sound like coded language for "like a good employee" which sounds a lot like, "Don't question me." You can simultaneously agree that Kap is doing something praiseworthy (I do), that his employers have a right to fire him (I do), that they shouldn't (I do), and that it would be wrong to do so (I do). Do you disagree with any of that?

Think about which approach speaks to a mob mentality: a single person kneeling and inviting others to do so or a massively powerful government-subsidized organization (The NFL) run by white people working in association with police (a massively powerful government-subsidized organization), to put pressure on a few players to fall in line.

I don't deny that his actions had an effect on his team. I deny that justice is comfortable.

You don't know me if you think I won't change my mind. There are some debates that aren't important, but this isn't one of them. I'd rather probe this argument than keep a closeted respect from someone. It turns out, though, that I think we can both come out of this better people, we can show ourselves to be worthy of respect, and we can advance toward an understanding. Think we can do it?

 

BTW, I'd rather have a fragile Romo than a healthy Kaepernick as my QB

 

On the original topic:

It's not just Romo that is far and away better than Kap. Dak >>>>>>> Kap