Kaepernick: Quarterback is the face of new Nike campaign

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Obviously, but once again, all other factors aside, what this has done has highlighted the very real problem there is with relations between the fuzz and folks of colour in lots of places in the US - something that needs to be highlighted. Not entirely sure how wearing a pair of provocative socks compares to a rather higher rate of incident, incarceration, brutality and sometimes killing? (Though I know you didn't say that outright.)

Why have you asked that question if you know he didn't say it?

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why have you asked that question if you know he didn't say it?

Because there seems to be a concerted effort both subtle and blatant to make this about Nike looking for a quick $$$ (which is true, yes) and so either accidentally or deliberately underplay what Kaepernick is standing for.

 

In a way, that's understandable - people don't like uncomfortable social issues that don't affect them directly.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Because there seems to be a concerted effort both subtle and blatant to make this about Nike looking for a quick $$$ (which is true, yes) and so either accidentally or deliberately underplay what Kaepernick is standing for.

 

In a way, that's understandable - people don't like uncomfortable social issues that don't affect them directly.

I don't really get this line of argument, If something is true then it shouldn't be a problem to say it.

 

If Kaepernick is prepared to claim he's "sacrificed everything" I think people are entitled to point out some of the provocation he has also showed.

Edited 11 September 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't really get this line of argument, If something is true then it shouldn't be a problem to say it.

 

If Kaepernick is prepared to claim he's "sacrificed everything" I think people are entitled to point out some of the provocation he has also showed.

Exactly my point. Police attitudes towards folks of colour in some parts of the US is true, is a problem, and yet there seems to be a problem among large swathes of people about saying that, much less addressing it - that's how this whole situation came about in the first place.

 

I just ask that the thing be framed in all aspects - that Nike are attaching themselves to the social justice bandwagon for some money, that's not a bad thing if such issues get highlighted, and that Kaps attitude towards the fuzz himself isn't 100% wholesome but then it might be argued that he has a right to be aggrieved.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Because there seems to be a concerted effort both subtle and blatant to make this about Nike looking for a quick $$$ (which is true, yes) and so either accidentally or deliberately underplay what Kaepernick is standing for.

 

In a way, that's understandable - people don't like uncomfortable social issues that don't affect them directly.

So you agree it's about the money, yet insinuate it's wrong to criticize Kaepernick for this move? It's a morally corrupt move, as other morally corrupt moves.

 

Well, what DOES Kaepernick stand for other than creating a media ruckus that Dems have used for their own agenda? What IS his sacrifice?

He is/was neither particularly talented as a pro footballer nor has he been through the rough and tough life of many black Americans - he's well off and privileged in many ways.
What has he DONE directly in order to make a change happen with regards to police brutality? Why all words, no action?

 

I agree, police violence in the US exists, and the police force needs to be held accountable for it.

At the same time, the black community seems to have a tough time sorting out things on their end also - where are the black people calling for an end to violence themselves, where is the voice of reason? The economy is booming, so why not applying for a job? Crime or meddling with crime isn't the answer. You can only play the victim card that often.

When do people, regardless of their colour, start taking their life into their own hands for the better instead of automatically calling for help from the state or overly relying on outside help?

Again, I do think there needs to be some kind of social safety net for the unfortunate, the sick and the homeless - sadly, there's a lot of smoochers and entitlement on that end, social security is also about securing jobs for people working in that industry, so it becomes political and that means mostly a Dem-based issue.

Edited 11 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

So you agree it's about the money, yet insinuate it's wrong to criticize Kaepernick for this move? It's a morally corrupt move, as other morally corrupt moves.

 

Well, what DOES Kaepernick stand for other than creating a media ruckus that Dems have used for their own agenda? What IS his sacrifice?

He is/was neither particularly talented as a pro footballer nor has he been through the rough and tough life of many black Americans - he's well off and privileged in many ways.
What has he DONE directly in order to make a change happen with regards to police brutality? Why all words, no action?

 

I agree, police violence in the US exists, and the police force needs to be held accountable for it.

At the same time, the black community seems to have a tough time sorting out things on their end also - where are the black people calling for an end to violence themselves, where is the voice of reason? The economy is booming, so why not applying for a job? Crime or meddling with crime isn't the answer. You can only play the victim card that often.

When do people, regardless of their colour, start taking their life into their own hands for the better instead of automatically calling for help from the state or overly relying on outside help?

Again, I do think there needs to be some kind of social safety net for the unfortunate, the sick and the homeless - sadly, there's a lot of smoochers and entitlement on that end, social security is also about securing jobs for people working in that industry, so it becomes political and that means mostly a Dem-based issue.

Firstly, thanks for making your reply so comprehensive.

 

As I alluded to above, It is about the money for Nike and Kap is obviously getting his cut and if you want to go after him for "selling out" then that's perfectly reasonable - however, it is also getting people talking about an awkward topic that some people don't want discussed because it might disrupt their own comfortable lives, so I think both angles should be examined in any debate on the topic.

 

I'm no NFL watcher so I'm unsure of Kap's talent and I'll take your word on his upbringing - and what he has done is use his platform as a sporting star (as mediocre as he may be) to highlight a continuing injustice in the US that, again, many folks would much rather say doesn't exist - look at the way the current US President has reacted, for instance. He's making change happen by getting other people talking about it, and perhaps thinking, "yeah, maybe something should be done about disproportionate police brutality against people of colour...let's give the politicians and PD's some food for thought." Getting such matters out into the open when they are uncomfortable for a lot of folks and would rather him sit down and shut up is no little thing. Words have power.

 

WRT your last few paragraphs, I think that we have very very different ideas about how far personal responsibility can get you in the US when other people don't really want you to get anywhere, as well as the social situation in a lot of places there - and a fair few times the feeling of victimisation is absolutely justified. The idea of the "American Dream" is not only dead, it never existed at all in reality, not for anyone except the lucky as well as hardworking - probably one of the best pieces of con artistry ever sold to any populace anywhere.

 

Also, even being a criminal means you get a trial if you want it - not a kicking by the police or even getting offed while "resisting arrest".

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

So you agree it's about the money, yet insinuate it's wrong to criticize Kaepernick for this move? It's a morally corrupt move, as other morally corrupt moves.

 

Well, what DOES Kaepernick stand for other than creating a media ruckus that Dems have used for their own agenda? What IS his sacrifice?

He is/was neither particularly talented as a pro footballer nor has he been through the rough and tough life of many black Americans - he's well off and privileged in many ways.
What has he DONE directly in order to make a change happen with regards to police brutality? Why all words, no action?

 

I agree, police violence in the US exists, and the police force needs to be held accountable for it.

At the same time, the black community seems to have a tough time sorting out things on their end also - where are the black people calling for an end to violence themselves, where is the voice of reason? The economy is booming, so why not applying for a job? Crime or meddling with crime isn't the answer. You can only play the victim card that often.

When do people, regardless of their colour, start taking their life into their own hands for the better instead of automatically calling for help from the state or overly relying on outside help?

Again, I do think there needs to be some kind of social safety net for the unfortunate, the sick and the homeless - sadly, there's a lot of smoochers and entitlement on that end, social security is also about securing jobs for people working in that industry, so it becomes political and that means mostly a Dem-based issue.

I don't think many people are disagreeing with the idea that it's about money/publicity for Nike and for Kap. I'm not sure why that makes it morally corrupt by Kap.

 

what has he done - quite a lot -  his simple gesture as enraged some and motivated others. it has further promoted a problem that has been expanding and already started to explode.

 

As for your claims about his skill level - he became an NFL QB that is something that millions try to do and very few manage. Just because he's not Joe Montana doesn't make him untalented. Pretty sure he's more talented at US Football than you are at any sport (or job). 

 

The strangest comment you make is about action not words. It is the very fact that he has used words and non-violent action rather than action that is so important here. The street riots haven't changed anything but his taking a knee has got white America in a tizz. Action is so easily talked down as it usually needs to be a little over the top to even get noticed.

 

As for the last few paragraphs I'm not sure you understand what it is really like to be black in many areas of the U.S. But maybe you do and if so I apologise for questioning it.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

I don't think many people are disagreeing with the idea that it's about money/publicity for Nike and for Kap. I'm not sure why that makes it morally corrupt by Kap.

 

what has he done - quite a lot -  his simple gesture as enraged some and motivated others. it has further promoted a problem that has been expanding and already started to explode.

 

As for your claims about his skill level - he became an NFL QB that is something that millions try to do and very few manage. Just because he's not Joe Montana doesn't make him untalented. Pretty sure he's more talented at US Football than you are at any sport (or job). 

 

The strangest comment you make is about action not words. It is the very fact that he has used words and non-violent action rather than action that is so important here. The street riots haven't changed anything but his taking a knee has got white America in a tizz. Action is so easily talked down as it usually needs to be a little over the top to even get noticed.

 

As for the last few paragraphs I'm not sure you understand what it is really like to be black in many areas of the U.S. But maybe you do and if so I apologise for questioning it.

That's the crux and we're diverting from Kapernick and Nike here - I feel for every black person shot and murdered out of racist motives and for every black person that lives in conditions due to mistakes that are not their own. Yet that's not the whole story. Yes, I've seen in parts what it means being black in the US and the obstacles they have to overcome. Part of the problem is also home-made, as I've also seen black people living off welfare, completely oblivious to the job market, either because they don't care or because they lack the necessary skills.

Black people seeing themselves as constant victims have a massive lobby with the Democrats. Why wouldn't you want to change the misery you're living in yourself? Distance yourself from violence, try to get a job, use the educational system so you actually learn something, mix and mingle with people of other races, learn tolerance instead of group thinking and take responsibility for your own life, don't walk away from your wife or your family, don't meddle with crime, don't end up in prison, acknowledge that there is no such thing as "white privilege" and that white people suffer and struggle just as much as black people do (btw, 60% of all prison inmates in the US are white).

Instead of trying to overcome the situation themselves, they opt for government intervention, living off the dole because they're black and because they can. There IS racism - why would you deny that - and then there is constructed racism in order to play the corresponding card and to gain an advantage because you belong to a certain group and because one individual suffers, everybody within that group suffers the same fate, the latter of which I find a rather deplorable attitude. We're all humans and a bit more humbleness goes a long way. Just because you're black doesn't automatically make everyone discriminating against you a racist or that you're entitled to a special treatment. There are other criteria why people may oppose you or discriminate against you: Lack of experience, lack of education, age, sex (can hit even men if a company thinks it needs to hire more women in order to promote gender equality), etc. etc. 

You could consider Affirmative Action an unfair advantage for black people solely because they are black, when it's not about the talent you possess (or the lack thereof), but the colour of your skin. One could consider that racist towards white people, Hispanic, Asian, you name it.

 

If Nike were all about "action", they'd be a bit more critical of their own corporate policy with regards to their factories and working conditions in Asia or even their working place conditions back "home" in the US, for example:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/nike-exec-departures-reflect-a-larger-cultural-issue-retail-analyst.html

This campaign is a move in order to deflect from all of that.

Kaepernick's decision is to attach himself to a company that has had plenty of issues in recent years and decades, be it internally, on the market and in terms of human rights. If that isn't morally corrupt by Kaepernick, then what is?

 

With action I mean personalities like Kaepernick and the well-off on the American Left to invest in programs that alleviate the issues for the people in need. You can't just throw everything at the state and have them continue to make the empty hand.

 

Nobody claims Kaepernick is not talented, he's just not good enough for the NFL any longer - he's always had issues with his throwing, probably the biggest, most important and most crucial asset and weapon of any quarter-back, and that's where he's failed (others have complimented him on his footwork, btw). He just lacks the necessary skills to make it as a steady quarter-back, that's it. Maybe he would've been better off as a cornerback for example, and the whole thing would've never happened, who knows?

 

The question remains: What is HIS sacrifice? That he lost his sports career due to his own actions? I'm sorry, but where and when has Kaepernick ever taken responsibility for that? The "tizz" created had an effect on all sides of the political and social spectrum, not just "white America". And besides, the buzz surrounding the demonstration has disappeared for a while now, it's hardly trending any longer.

 

I'd rather have him trying to resurrect his sportive career than making himself a poster boy for Nike.

Edited 11 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Firstly, thanks for making your reply so comprehensive.

 

As I alluded to above, It is about the money for Nike and Kap is obviously getting his cut and if you want to go after him for "selling out" then that's perfectly reasonable - however, it is also getting people talking about an awkward topic that some people don't want discussed because it might disrupt their own comfortable lives, so I think both angles should be examined in any debate on the topic.

 

I'm no NFL watcher so I'm unsure of Kap's talent and I'll take your word on his upbringing - and what he has done is use his platform as a sporting star (as mediocre as he may be) to highlight a continuing injustice in the US that, again, many folks would much rather say doesn't exist - look at the way the current US President has reacted, for instance. He's making change happen by getting other people talking about it, and perhaps thinking, "yeah, maybe something should be done about disproportionate police brutality against people of colour...let's give the politicians and PD's some food for thought." Getting such matters out into the open when they are uncomfortable for a lot of folks and would rather him sit down and shut up is no little thing. Words have power.

 

WRT your last few paragraphs, I think that we have very very different ideas about how far personal responsibility can get you in the US when other people don't really want you to get anywhere, as well as the social situation in a lot of places there - and a fair few times the feeling of victimisation is absolutely justified. The idea of the "American Dream" is not only dead, it never existed at all in reality, not for anyone except the lucky as well as hardworking - probably one of the best pieces of con artistry ever sold to any populace anywhere.

 

Also, even being a criminal means you get a trial if you want it - not a kicking by the police or even getting offed while "resisting arrest".

Why is there a need to talk about an "awkward" thing such as racism based on an ad campaign aimed at resurrecting a particular brand and target a core market, when you can pretty much acknowledge that racism exists? Who doesn't want the topic to be discussed apart from a certain political minority?What's so "awkward" about it? I'm sure most Americans are aware of the issue and willing to talk about it. The question, however, is - what type of racism? Factual one that discrimates against people because of their skin colour - or is it more about equality?

 

Words are important, but it's important to point out that not so few words tend to end up as shallow phrases, whilst "actions speak louder than words", so they say.

 

Sometimes I think that there's this massive economy and voter industry the American Left have to keep alive in order to stay afloat and in order to maintain their share of the power. As long as there are "victims", it's guaranteed these "victims" will keep voting for a party and for SJW that promise to stand up for them.

 

Like I said, police brutality does exist in the US, the question is: How big is the problem and why can't we give the policemen that do well and comport themselves in a manner according to law more credit? Why don't good stories, positive stories sell on TV, especially on US TV? The whole one-sidedness of the discussion is a bit sickening, as the issue is sometimes blown out of proportion by a certain political power out of selfish reasons, and a divide maintained for ones own gain.

Edited 11 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Sometimes I think that there's this massive economy and voter industry the American Left have to keep alive in order to stay afloat and in order to maintain their share of the power. As long as there are "victims", it's guaranteed these "victims" will keep voting for a party and for SJW that promise to stand up for them.

This is so spot on.

 

The democrats need identity politics, the need the white guilt and they need the impoverished black community (and others) as it's central now to their policy.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Why is there a need to talk about an "awkward" thing such as racism based on an ad campaign aimed at resurrecting a particular brand and target a core market, when you can pretty much acknowledge that racism exists? Who doesn't want the topic to be discussed apart from a certain political minority?What's so "awkward" about it? I'm sure most Americans are aware of the issue and willing to talk about it. The question, however, is - what type of racism? Factual one that discrimates against people because of their skin colour - or is it more about equality?

 

Words are important, but it's important to point out that not so few words tend to end up as shallow phrases, whilst "actions speak louder than words", so they say.

 

Sometimes I think that there's this massive economy and voter industry the American Left have to keep alive in order to stay afloat and in order to maintain their share of the power. As long as there are "victims", it's guaranteed these "victims" will keep voting for a party and for SJW that promise to stand up for them.

 

Like I said, police brutality does exist in the US, the question is: How big is the problem and why can't we give the policemen that do well and comport themselves in a manner according to law more credit? Why don't good stories, positive stories sell on TV, especially on US TV? The whole one-sidedness of the discussion is a bit sickening, as the issue is sometimes blown out of proportion by a certain political power out of selfish reasons, and a divide maintained for ones own gain.

That's rather the point - there's a lot of people who don't acknowledge that racism exists in the US, or believe it to be so small a problem that it doesn't need to be debated much anymore; "post-racial society" and all that. There's quite a few more important parties that don't want the matter to be discussed than you think IMO. As for what kind of racism...the first type, backed by institutional power - that's the only type that matters, really.

 

I do agree that words have then to be backed by actions, so I guess we'll see what happens next on that score.

 

You use the term "victims" in speech marks as if you don't accept they exist (though you acknowledge there is a problem pretty explicitly)  but quite frankly as long as there is inequality of opportunity (not inequality of outcome), there is always going to be such victims. The left in the US (such as it is as the Overton Window is so far to the right there) is trying to do something about that inequality of opportunity. Who, for instance, holds the vast majority of political and legislative power in the US right now, and why? It's like the folks that have power now can't hack having a smaller portion of their vast share of the pie, or even (as it's not a zero-sum game) make the pie bigger.

 

At the end of the day, it wasn't black folks who made the first identity politics related delineations in the US, nor tried to carry them through for as long as they could (and can).

 

Police brutality is a very large problem in the US, and there are a veritable laundry list of stories about "hero cops" or "good cops" on the TV and in web media if you care to look for them - uniforms tend to be venerated over there. The last thing this discussion is is one-sided.

[MC Prussian]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's rather the point - there's a lot of people who don't acknowledge that racism exists in the US, or believe it to be so small a problem that it doesn't need to be debated much anymore; "post-racial society" and all that. There's quite a few more important parties that don't want the matter to be discussed than you think IMO. As for what kind of racism...the first type, backed by institutional power - that's the only type that matters, really.

The one party (out of two) that surely wants to keep the debate surrounding racism going is the Dems - for obvious reasons, because that's how they get more or at least manage to maintain their voting bases and their core demographics.

Nobody says the issue shouldn't be discussed, it depends from what angle and/or for what reason. Cui bono?

 

Quote

The left in the US (such as it is as the Overton Window is so far to the right there) is trying to do something about that inequality of opportunityWho, for instance, holds the vast majority of political and legislative power in the US right now, and why? It's like the folks that have power now can't hack having a smaller portion of their vast share of the pie, or even (as it's not a zero-sum game) make the pie bigger.

Yep, imagine you telling an American or rather a Democratic party supporter that the Dems aren't on the left of the political spectrum, he'd go bananas. The Dems are left - left of the Republicans. But to a European, they're still on the right-hand side of the half-circle. Imagine also calling for a more moderate party on the left of the Democrats, or a true leftist party - socialist even! Imagine the outrage on the Democratic side, because of the fear of losing a solid foundation of their voters for a true leftist cause. That'd make the American "democracy" so much more interesting. But then I realize that both the Democrats and Republicans would never cease a part of their share to another party. After all, 160 to 190 years of (mutual) power need to be maintained.

 

As to who's holding the vast majority of the political and legislative power in the US right now, and why - as a consequence of the aforementioned power balance in the US, who do you think would (be able to) challenge the Republicans and - most importantly - why? Yep, it's the Democrats. And yes, it's because they want their 50,1% back.

 

As long as there's only two people eating the pie, the same pie will be baked over and over and over and over...

 

 

Edited 11 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The one party (out of two) that surely wants to keep the debate surrounding racism going is the Dems - for obvious reasons, because that's how they get more or at least manage to maintain their voting bases and their core demographics.

Nobody says the issue shouldn't be discussed, it depends from what angle and/or for what reason. Cui bono?

 

Yep, imagine you telling an American or rather a Democratic party supporter that the Dems aren't on the left of the political spectrum, he'd go bananas. The Dems are left - left of the Republicans. But to a European, they're still on the right-hand side of the half-circle. Imagine also calling for a more moderate party on the left of the Democrats, or a true leftist party - socialist even! Imagine the outrage on the Democratic side, because of the fear of losing a solid foundation of their voters for a true leftist cause. That'd make the American "democracy" so much more interesting. But then I realize that both the Democrats and Republicans would never cease a part of their share to another party. After all, 160 to 190 years of (mutual) power need to be maintained.

 

As to who's holding the vast majority of the political and legislative power in the US right now, and why - as a consequence of the aforementioned power balance in the US, who do you think would (be able to) challenge the Republicans and - most importantly - why? Yep, it's the Democrats. And yes, it's because they want their 50,1% back.

 

As long as there's only two people eating the pie, the same pie will be baked over and over and over and over...

 

 

Last time I checked it wasn't the Dems who wanted to "build the wall" (key part of the last campaign) and it wasn't the Dems who were being backed by the alt-right and their charming attitude towards minorities, either. As such I've no idea why it is thought it's only the Dems that want to make things about race, or even that people who vote for them/are part of that party were the ones who made such distinctions in the first place. At the risk of going round and round, there absolutely are people who say that it shouldn't be discussed - not in so many words, but "oh, racism isn't a problem around here any more" is pretty much the same thing.

 

I'd agree that some people do use the debate for base purposes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed - not by the typical "get a job, don't be a criminal" litany, but by an approach rather less simplistic that takes into account the power disparities that exist in the US; and yes, white folks suffer on that too, especially if they're poor.

 

Agree entirely on the two-party system and the way it has the US in a stranglehold not being a good thing, perhaps one day that will change - but I was referring more to the fact that in the US, at the federal level, more than 80% of Congress is white, and more than 90% identify as Christian. That is power for one group - even if most of them want different things.

[Jordan]

On 11/09/2018 at 03:20, MC Prussian said:

Well, what DOES Kaepernick stand for other than creating a media ruckus that Dems have used for their own agenda? What IS his sacrifice?

He is/was neither particularly talented as a pro footballer nor has he been through the rough and tough life of many black Americans - he's well off and privileged in many ways.
What has he DONE directly in order to make a change happen with regards to police brutality? Why all words, no action?

1) https://knowyourrightscamp.com/

2) https://kaepernick7.com/blogs/million-dollar-pledge

3) The Players Coalition, a social advocacy nonprofit governed by 12 NFL players, directly linked the genesis of their organization to Kaepernick (even though Kaepernick himself is not a part of the organization, partly due to his own advocacy commitments, partly due to him not being a contracted NFL player, and partly due to his ongoing legal battle against the NFL).

4) Even discounting the above, I think it's unfair to say Kaepernick has brought only "words" to the table, as it cannot be denied that his protest and subsequent activities brought more attention and action towards social inequality and police brutality.

[Finnegan]

Even if all you bring to the table is words, what the **** have any of us done for equality? 

 

Words are massive. Kaepernick has succeeded in getting half the Western world talking about his beliefs. Just the fact that people are discussing it is huge. Sorry, yuge. 

 

Seriously, how much do you have to gatekeep social justice to say only people who have known extreme hardship can be a voice for it? 

 

Stupid argument

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

Even if all you bring to the table is words, what the **** have any of us done for equality? 

 

Words are massive. Kaepernick has succeeded in getting half the Western world talking about his beliefs. Just the fact that people are discussing it is huge. Sorry, yuge. 

 

Seriously, how much do you have to gatekeep social justice to say only people who have known extreme hardship can be a voice for it? 

 

Stupid argument

Kaepernick hasn't, Nike has. For commercial reasons. It's huge because its aim is to promote a brand, not a cause.

Why bring anybody else into the discussion when it's clearly about Kaepernick and his morally wrong move?

 

Please also clarify the term "equality" for me, because there's a huge difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Please also clarify the term "equality" for me, because there's a huge difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Jordan said:

1) https://knowyourrightscamp.com/

2) https://kaepernick7.com/blogs/million-dollar-pledge

3) The Players Coalition, a social advocacy nonprofit governed by 12 NFL players, directly linked the genesis of their organization to Kaepernick (even though Kaepernick himself is not a part of the organization, partly due to his own advocacy commitments, partly due to him not being a contracted NFL player, and partly due to his ongoing legal battle against the NFL).

4) Even discounting the above, I think it's unfair to say Kaepernick has brought only "words" to the table, as it cannot be denied that his protest and subsequent activities brought more attention and action towards social inequality and police brutality.

I questioned Kaepernick's financial support of groups that promote awareness for victims of police brutality, I have been aware of his million dollar pledge before.

 

Let's not forget he earned at least $39m from his 49ers contract (not including sponsorship or marketing deals), so donating a 40th of his monies isn't going to give him an itch. That's like me giving away 500 bucks - once.

From what I understand, each charity that he supported received somewhere beween 10'000 and 50'000 dollars - tell me how that amount of money per charity is going to make a difference?

How much of that money actually goes to the charity itself as money for the needy, and how much is spent on the organisation in terms of salaries, etc.?

In the end, donating $1m certainly has a nice ring to it - it's a great, catchy number.

 

The KYR camp is a bit of a simplistic idea, and part of the problem - it is promoting rights only (which isn't bad per se, of course), yet forgetting about duties - feel free to offer proof that it doesn't. It sends a passive message that the individual can only demand (rights), but is by no means (to some extent) obliged to deliver or add something worthwhile to society for the benefit of everybody, it adds fuel to an entitlement culture.

 

Point three is pretty much naught - the Players' Coalition is also not too happy about Kaepernick now: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/6/josh-norman-says-colin-kaerpenick-was-ducking-w/

 

In essence, it's all about publicity for Nike and publicity for Kaepernick - which should earn both parties massive $$$.

How much the social aspect of the campaign has its (alleged) desired effect remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Edited 12 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[Finnegan]

9 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Kaepernick hasn't, Nike has. For commercial reasons. It's huge because its aim is to promote a brand, not a cause.

Why bring anybody else into the discussion when it's clearly about Kaepernick and his morally wrong move?

 

Please also clarify the term "equality" for me, because there's a huge difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

 

Sorry but there's an overwhelming amount of bollocks there. 

 

NFL players kneeling vs Donald Trump was global front page news long before Nike got involved. 

 

Secondly, if Kaepernick is morally wrong then I assume Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo, Bolt, Mcilroy, Root, Hamilton, the Williams sisters, Federer, Johnny Wilkinson, Sonny Bill, Brian O'Driscoll, LeBron James, Michael Jordan and anyone else whose ever endorsed sportswear is also morally reprehensible to you? 

 

And equality is equality, Karl Marx is cited globally by almost every revolutionary fighting for the impoverished masses but he was a middle class posh kid from a rabbi's family. Gandhi was a middle class London educated lawyer, Che Guevara was a middle class doctor, Mao Zedong was a middle class intellectual. 

 

Tell me why exactly Kaepernick'a views aren't valid because he was lucky enough to be raised by a white middle class family? 

 

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Sorry but there's an overwhelming amount of bollocks there. 

 

NFL players kneeling vs Donald Trump was global front page news long before Nike got involved. 

 

Secondly, if Kaepernick is morally wrong then I assume Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo, Bolt, Mcilroy, Root, Hamilton, the Williams sisters, Federer, Johnny Wilkinson, Sonny Bill, Brian O'Driscoll, LeBron James, Michael Jordan and anyone else whose ever endorsed sportswear is also morally reprehensible to you? 

 

And equality is equality, Karl Marx is cited globally by almost every revolutionary fighting for the impoverished masses but he was a middle class posh kid from a rabbi's family. Gandhi was a middle class London educated lawyer, Che Guevara was a middle class doctor, Mao Zedong was a middle class intellectual. 

 

Tell me why exactly Kaepernick'a views aren't valid because he was lucky enough to be raised by a white middle class family? 

 

The kneeling move had its moment, and the effect evaporated rather quickly. Like with most of today's social justice campaigns.

It was a headline for a day, then gone.

 

If Kaepernick is morally wrong, then yes - all the other sportspeople you mentioned are morally wrong, too. If they endorse sportswear that is produced under unhealthy and inhumane conditions, they are.

 

Equality isn't equality. Are you promoting equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?

When going back in history, don't you see the irony in privileged people telling the "masses" what to do and think?

Also, bringing Marx into it - well, when you look at what happened in Russia in the early 20th century, not a really good calling card for the cause.

Same with Che Guevara and Mao Zedong, not really an endorsement for socialism - only if you conveniently brush their respective terror regimes aside.

Out of this odd compilation, Gandhi was great and is an icon, but he also had his flaws.

 

Nike's campaign circles around the key word "sacrifice" - what exactly has Kaepernick had to sacrifice?

 

Edited 12 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[Finnegan]

"The kneeling movement" had gone quiet because its the football off season. Without this Nike campaign there are still players that would have protested the anthem when the season started and we'd have gone again. 

 

You're getting caught up in Nike's slogan Kaepernick never made a martyr of himself and said how much he's sacrificed, it was Nike's choice of wording to sell their products. 

 

I'm absolutely with you on your cynicism regards Nike but your cynicism regards Kaepernick comes across as just desperately trying to tear down a man who has proactively attempted to raise awareness for anti-racism in the United States. Why on earth would that ever upset you? 

 

Does it provoke your own prejudice? Is it envy? Do you resent that some privileged sports star is having the audacity to dictate morality to you? I mean what exactly do you find so offensive that you've got to ad hominem the shit out of his message for? 

 

I mean, I'm by no means head of the Colin Kaepernick fan club, I don't have any amazing adoration for the guy, I'm not offended by your persistence but I definitely do find your passion for tearing him down seems to be only equaled by the actual alt right which I never had you down as one of. 

Edited 12 September 2018 by Finnegan

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

And equality is equality, Karl Marx is cited globally by almost every revolutionary fighting for the impoverished masses but he was a middle class posh kid from a rabbi's family. Gandhi was a middle class London educated lawyer, Che Guevara was a middle class doctor, Mao Zedong was a middle class intellectual. 

Bloody hell Finners I think you have given a few better examples of people and equality than that.

 

Ask the Sikhs what they think of Ghandi and equal rights, the gays about Guevara and well...suppose Mao killed most of his opponents. 

 

MC point on what is trying to be achieve is salient though, if people aim for equality of outcome they are chasing a pipe dream and it can be very bad for society, even the scandics now seem to be moving away from this. Equality of opportunity though is extremely desirable and is what we should be aiming for.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Even if all you bring to the table is words, what the **** have any of us done for equality? 

 

I washed the pots the other day, I didn’t do a great job though. I don’t want the job fulltime.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Finnegan said:

"The kneeling movement" had gone quiet because its the football off season. Without this Nike campaign there are still players that would have protested the anthem when the season started and we'd have gone again. 

 

You're getting caught up in Nike's slogan Kaepernick never made a martyr of himself and said how much he's sacrificed, it was Nike's choice of wording to sell their products. 

 

I'm absolutely with you on your cynicism regards Nike but your cynicism regards Kaepernick comes across as just desperately trying to tear down a man who has proactively attempted to raise awareness for anti-racism in the United States. Why on earth would that ever upset you? 

 

Does it provoke your own prejudice? Is it envy? Do you resent that some privileged sports star is having the audacity to dictate morality to you? I mean what exactly do you find so offensive that you've got to ad hominem the shit out of his message for? 

 

I mean, I'm by no means head of the Colin Kaepernick fan club, I don't have any amazing adoration for the guy, I'm not offended by your persistence but I definitely do find your passion for tearing him down seems to be only equaled by the actual alt right which I never had you down as one of. 

5

Earlier we were talking about folks who don't want to discuss racial issues in the US because the status quo of power suits them - this is one method used to shut down discussion.

 

(Not counting MC among these btw.)

[Jordan]

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I questioned Kaepernick's financial support of groups that promote awareness for victims of police brutality, I have been aware of his million dollar pledge before.

 

Let's not forget he earned at least $39m from his 49ers contract (not including sponsorship or marketing deals), so donating a 40th of his monies isn't going to give him an itch. That's like me giving away 500 bucks - once.

From what I understand, each charity that he supported received somewhere beween 10'000 and 50'000 dollars - tell me how that amount of money per charity is going to make a difference?

How much of that money actually goes to the charity itself as money for the needy, and how much is spent on the organisation in terms of salaries, etc.?

In the end, donating $1m certainly has a nice ring to it - it's a great, catchy number.

 

The KYR camp is a bit of a simplistic idea, and part of the problem - it is promoting rights only (which isn't bad per se, of course), yet forgetting about duties - feel free to offer proof that it doesn't. It sends a passive message that the individual can only demand (rights), but is by no means (to some extent) obliged to deliver or add something worthwhile to society for the benefit of everybody, it adds fuel to an entitlement culture.

 

Point three is pretty much naught - the Players' Coalition is also not too happy about Kaepernick now: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/6/josh-norman-says-colin-kaerpenick-was-ducking-w/

 

In essence, it's all about publicity for Nike and publicity for Kaepernick - which should earn both parties massive $$$.

How much the social aspect of the campaign has its (alleged) desired effect remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Kaep probably doesn’t need you or I to be his financial advisor, but IMO, he’s done well so far with his donations. I don’t know what more he plans to do with his money—he sent out the $1m in a year that’s still early in his activist life. Maybe there are other things he thinks he can do that mean more than money. SI had a good piece about how Kaep chose which organizations to donate to and how the money is used: https://www.si.com/sportsperson/2017/12/06/colin-kaepernick-charity-giving-donations

 

As far as “rights,” that’s what this whole thing is about, and I don’t see how that’s less of a platitude than talking about an obligation of duties. I also don’t think Kaepernick’s camp instructs kids to make extravagant demands in exchange for no effort to improve their lives and the well-being of their communities: https://www.thenation.com/article/colin-kaepernicks-message-to-chicago-youth-know-your-rights/ 

 

I have also seen comments here about “equality of outcome,” but American activism is not at that point. Most of the American left—from moderate Democrats through progressives up to the beginnings of the modern “Democratic Socialist” movement—has a different goal: equity of access. Metaphorically speaking, not everybody’s going to get (or even want) the same sized slice of cake, but we all should have a seat at the table. Even Kaepernick’s camp, which is influenced by a historic militant black liberation group that promoted extreme “self-reliance,” follows much more along the ongoing civil rights movement’s path than it does a list of demands by a Black Panther Party almost at war with the state.

 

Edit to add the “kneeling” movement never left the public consciousness over here. This offseason, we had a lot of discussions in the public in private and in the press about a ham-handed and ultimately unsuccessful attempt by the NFL to implement punishments for kneeling during the anthem, comments by President Trump ripping this movement right up through this week, and comments by players publicly rebuking the NFL and the President.

Edited 13 September 2018 by Jordan