Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Inefficiencies are a concern, I agree, but you don't streamline a government's efficiency in the same way you can with a business. Even if you have a not-for-profit business (which, again, is not what most people mean when they say or think of "business"), you can scale back services just because they're losing money, which is not necessarily a good option for an actual government, which is meant first to serve people, rather than to maintain a balance sheet. That's not to say the balance sheet should be ignored, but the point isn't "we have this much money, let's see what we can do", but rather "we ought to do these things; let's see how we can figure out our money situation to make as much of it work as possible".
I'm not sure whether a "public trust" specifically would though.
Would still be atypical for such a thing to be called a "business" in common parlance though.
----
Meanwhile, in California:
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/10/11/unofficial-ballot-drop-boxes-popping-up-throughout-the-state-worry-elections-officials/
TL;DR Republicans in Orange County, California set up their own ballot drop boxes because Trump has been saying wild things about vote-by-mail. Said unofficial drop boxes (1) might be illegal and (2) are confusing people already. Ironically, they're probably confusing their own supporters more so than others, given that they've been advertising these drop box locations to their fellow Republicans, telling them to use these boxes rather than the official drop boxes.
If you're getting soft-paywalled, enjoy this funny tidbit: trying to refresh then stop the page from loading so as to avoid the soft-paywall overlay can cause its text to be Caesar-shifted by one letter. You can use this tool to decipher it (you'll have to "re-encode" this with a shift of 25 letters to read it).
Though, based on my experience/observations, this particular turn of phrase is used by some conservatives here to raise basically one or both of these contentions:
1. Government wastes a ton of money by spending money inefficiently. (This in turn is used to argue that government doesn't deserve tax revenue, as a justification for demanding lower taxes all the time.)
2. Government should avoid overspending. (This in turn is used to argue that government should cut all functions except those absolutely necessary.)
Profit-seeking, ironically, is not the focus of such a statement, even though it is generally a core part of doing business. Nor is business growth/expansion, for that matter. These are most likely because the people who make such a statement tend to be the ones who ideologically prefer smaller government as a principle, as well as the ones for whom this is an incidental goal, such as (actual) businesses wanting to avoid regulation and/or competition.
I'm waiting for the part I'm meant to disagree with.
Well, yeah?
I take issue with "deserve", because it's random and vague. Tax revenue should be realistic and not a burden (progressive taxes frequently turn into burdens that create tax avoidance incentives). Plus, tax revenue is basically money running out of the business that can't be used for other things (from dividends to possible investments to bumping salaries up).
And government should try cutting out the chaff, via occasional reviews of what's working and isn't. I'd certainly err on the side of brutal cuts, with a decent amount of leeway.
I mean legally, they have separate status (hence the other sort of accounting) but as long as they wish to remain going concerns then I'd say so. You have revenue, expenses, and you try not to run yourself into the ground.
Unless "business" is just specifically SMEs and legally recognized separate entities/corporations. Even in that case, I'd say government should operate more like those institutions (but not totally, obviously, given the different aims).
Anyways, I don't want this to go on much longer. It's on the verge of becoming a major distraction so let's try and wrap up.
Important Note!: Follow 14w's tips to owning the libs in your own little way!
The other day I was going to buy a 6-pack of face tissues in a pharmacy. They only had one the one brand.
I left without face tissues but with my honor intact!!! because the pack was priced at exactly 16.19.
I think government should be a certain way, but I also feel like my goodness that will never in the heckity ever actually happen. Efficient governments? By George, what is this, a communist propaganda movie?
Bureaucracy breeds bureaucracy, no matter how hard you try to stop it. It's like the secret part of human nature we only unlocked once we fully organized. That'll never create efficiency.
I think private institutions can do much better, but only if they're small or lean enough in processes. Big multinationals are also major screw-ups at a lot of things, and internationalist banks prove themselves over and over to be either idiots or the bumbling villains of modern life.
So, I just want to say; when I present my opinions on how government should run, these are basically my pie-in-the-sky ideas. Of course, there are things I want, but for goodness sakes believing they can be instituted is a whole other thing. I mean, at most, the only thing I'd be willing to go to bat for is lower taxes and the government mostly leaving people alone to go about their business.
Frankly, I have a life, and I'm trying to fix my own stuff first basically constantly, and as long as there are no socialists or communists banging down my door/bank accounts I'm probably going to be fine with whatever dumb things the government does.
Oh, by the way, Happy (belated) Columbus Day; GMH. May we all be massively overconfident as he was in finding something nobody believes we will.
By "progressive" here do you mean "tax policies promoted by people with views considered 'progressive'" or do you mean "tax policies that tax higher chunks of one's income more heavily"?
This statement presumes that money in a business's hands is necessarily better than money in a government's hands.
But, the flipside can be stated: tax revenue not collected is money that can't be used for other things (from maintaining roads to educating youth to keeping the peace).
It should certainly try "cutting the chaff", but I have a feeling we'd disagree on what constitutes "chaff" vs. something worth keeping.
This reminds me of little me who became interested in Peugeot brand vehicles because their logo has a lion and I was a big fan of Lion Voltron.
By the flipside of the same overly simplistic understanding of human nature that this argument uses, cutthroatness breeds cutthroatness, and private enterprise will never produce socially beneficial outcomes. ("Good businesses? By George, what is this, a capitalist propaganda movie?")
I'd certainly agree to a more local-focused ideal for society. One problem is that businesses have a variety of incentives to grow and expand, so things often can't be kept small, except by having something external impose other rules/(dis)incentives/etc..
Heh, same to you. I almost forgot it was Columbus Day. Not being in school makes the holiday kinda moot.
Latter? I didn't think this would be all that confusing...
Exactly!
If i make the money, I'm not inclined to believe somebody will do better with it than I could (because I did the things that made it flow in my direction in the first place).
So me not wanting to pay heavy taxes means the most basic things taxes go to won't be covered?
I think that's a fine way for things to be.
Oh yes, let's just destroy society so that our capitalist industries crumble to the ground and we can't make a dime off anything anymore. Solid plan.
This isn't human nature. Government itself is a concept against our self-interest and tribalistic tendencies.
Businesses collapse, and business owners are always aware of that and afraid of it. Governments only collapse when things really hit the fan.
I said effective. Government can be good, but it'll be a long leap before I believe it can be effective or efficient (it is, however, necessary).
The problem with government versus business is that business can be run by an individual via SMEs or by a board/major managerial system and there's a lot in between. Business reflects human nature more than government, which is the system we impose to control said human nature.
Basically, business is the individual, and government is the (lawfully enforced) collective (which, if you've forgotten, has power over business). It's not very comparable.
Sometimes I read one of your statements and I'm nodding along until we come to something like this.
But this is an argument for another time.
I could spend my days creating an optimum set of business plans for every sort of business and then shouting at everybody to adopt them, but that's a waste of time and also possibly a mark of insanity. It's the same with government (but surprisingly enough that'd be on a smaller scale).
Instead, I have my own life that I want to improve and want to be proud of instead.
Though, I was just responding to the more philosophical aspects anyway.
Edit: Sorry if I'm taking this discussion too long.
I'd say this neglects the fact that as an individual there are many things I can't do, that (1) others can, or (2) I and others can as a group.
Also there's the issues that businesses are also expected to prioritize certain objectives. They're not pure expressions of individualism anyway.
No, but your statement was about tax revenue in general.
But I think we can agree that the extremes of both statements aren't very practical.
Except human nature is not purely individualistic either. Human nature also desires companionship, society, and cooperative activity.
And governments are used to do tribalistic things anyway.
The idea that "government as a concept is against our self-interest" either rests on the idea that humans are only individualists, or the idea that the government is an "other" rather than a manifestation of "us".
Meanwhile, the philosophical association of "business" with "the individual" only really works for small businesses primarily run by one individual; anything larger and it is some form of collective activity anyway. I mean, it's not a surprise that the term "company" is used how it is.
The government is there to check the power of said individual interests to some extent. Multinationals possibly have more power than many governments in a lot of respects nowadays, but not as much as something like the East India Company at least... I hope.
Well, maybe Facebook.
I think we can agree that this is quite the rank misuse of the concept of government.
No, it is for all of our self-interest (collective self interest), rather than for the individual's self-interest. If I wasn't clear about that then I've made it so.
I think the association of business with individual interests depends on a fundamental assumption that one can freely choose engagement (and the extent of engagement) with a business. Furthermore, "government" only becomes a contrast to "business" if we take the aforementioned association and then only see a government as an agent of regulating businesses while ignoring its role in enabling businesses, creating various infrastructure (physical, legal, and social) by which things can be "very clearly defined".
I agree that at their inception a business is something that exists because some people wanted to start something unilaterally, while government depends on getting a larger group of people together to agree to something. But in my opinion this conceptual flavor overprioritizes intentions over realities, and can needlessly suggest an antagonistic relationship.
also i had like five paragraphs here but i cut it down to 3 and cut out a bunch of text lol
What is the difference between these two forms of self-interest? What is an example of the difference between these two, and how is the line drawn between the two?
Reality; nope
I thought you of all people would be behind this sort of thing.
Everybody thinks their wants and needs are the most important on the planet, but government operates on (or should operate on) the basis that my wants and needs do not supersede on others just because I feel strongly enough.
An individual will try and maximize their own self-interest, even if it hurts others. Government pushes back on that individual so that his power and influence doesn't just raze everybody else to the ground, thereby serving not just that person's self interest, but others in the country as well. This is the basic concept behind stuff like the police, taxes, and even anti-discrimination laws.
I'm not really the philosophizing type.
I genuinely did not mean this but thanks universe!
The NY Post published a story about Hunter Biden's e-mails, to which both Facebook and Twitter went into what essentially appears to be suppression overdrive. Facebook openly admitted to suppressing the story, whilst Twitter won't even let you go to the link if anybody posts it now. It also might be autolocking accounts that post it.
Twitter also locked several accounts which shared the story, including Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnnany's.
In similarly Ministry of Truth-esque tactics. MSNBC journalist Kyle Griffith called Amy Coney-Barrett a bigot for using the term "sexual preference" rather than "sexual orientation", this was then picked up by Sen. Mazie Hirono, and then the Merriam Webster dictionary immediately changed it's usage guidance of the term "preference" to insist that indeed was offensive suddenly (even though nobody cared before Kyle Griffith
broughtmade it up).Plus, Queer Theory is all about "queering" things, which involves changing what it describes as people's "preferences". Sexuality is a spectrum and all that nonsense.
Vaguely related if there is one word in the English language I just cannot handle anymore it's 'harmful'.
There are multiple questions still unanswered which may cast doubt the veracity and significance of these e-mails, such as these, gratuitously excerpted copypasted from the following article because I had enough trouble getting around its paywall:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bidens-alleged-laptop-an-explainer/
This is to the point where not even the guy who says Hunter Biden dropped off the laptops for repair hasn't even confirmed this piece of info:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-computer-repair-store-owner-john-paul-mac-isaac
*does a quick internet search*
First, which Kyle Griffith story are we talking about?
This one: https://www.advocate.com/media/2017/1/28/ky-customer-sorry-i-dont-tip-faggots ?
or
This one: https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-s-Great-Wheel-3766846.php ?
or neither of these, because neither of these stories seems to be about sexual orientation vs. sexual preference?
Anyhow,
*does another quick internet search*
https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/sexual-preference-is-wrong-say-sexual-orientation-instead.html article from 2013
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a25672074/sex-vs-gender-vs-sexual-orientation/ article from 2018
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-sexual-orientation-and-sexual-preference random people talking about this in 2018, 2016, 2015, 2019, 2015, 2015
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-07-23-8602230095-story.html commentary from 1986 (LOL)
https://onevoicewhisperinginthewind.blogspot.com/2011/07/sexual-preference-vs-sexual-orientation.html commentary from 2011
and even on the flipside:
http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/4/13/homosexuality-sexual-orientation-or-sexual-preference commentary from 2014
Of course there are, as there have been about many stories, however, none have ever suffered this much of a backlash from those wielding power over our information.
We don't, but Facebook and Twitter really shouldn't be allowed to be the arbiters of truth to this extent.
And given the subject matter that's quite concerning.
The point is not that this is a 100% legit story (which a lot of nonsense produced lately has not been). However, even in that regard, If Rudy Giuliani says he provided this e-mail to the NY Post, then that's a decent mark of credibility despite how much you'd dislike the guy.
The point is that instead of letting the public decide what they need to know, Facebook and Twitter went to bat to an extreme extent for exactly this one story, ever (though of course this is probably just the start).
The people at Facebook and Twitter appear to 'trust' the anonymous sources behind the WWI 'losers' story more than they trust a person with a name who is willing to make themselves public. That's insane.
If you had followed what I'd linked to here you would see the tweet that is embedded in the story.
To be fair I did misspell his name twice even though I've looked at this stuff for like, ages.
When I said nobody cared, I meant no human being alive sane going about their life genuinely believed Amy Coney-Barrett was trying to offend or be out of touch. Very recently the TV/film director Kenny Ortega, who is gay himself (apparently???*), recently used the term in an interview about his new TV show.
In addition;
You can't not offend everybody all the time, and even grievance collectors really need to know when to hold their fire. Instead, they shoot out whatever nonsense they can think of and the intelligentsia bend to their will.
Basically, GMH, I bet you did not know "sexual preference" was offensive before
IKyle Griffithn told you, even though you hang out around a lot of people who are gay/bisexual or identify as the opposite sex. That's what I mean when I say 'nobody cared'. The fact that this one tweet was elevated to gospel within 24 hours is ridiculously stupid, but also ridiculously scary.*I genuinely did not know this.
Frankly, far as I know, "sexual orientation" was already considered standard. While I've never specifically run into a style guide saying that "sexual preference" is offensive, me not running into this isn't a surprise at all since I don't keep up with it myself. Meanwhile, the evidence I've posted shows that that opinion has been around for many years anyway, so you shouldn't act like it's a novelty.
And that's not to mention that the term "sexual preference" is, fundamentally, kinda strange. For example, if I'm a heterosexual male and you ask me for my "sexual preference", what do I say? "Straight", or "women"? Whichever I choose, the result still ends up suggesting "I prefer to have sex as a straight man/with a woman, but I could have sex in other arrangements too", which is a rather strange (and unwanted) implication. So if you want to ignore social trends (which you normally lean heavily on to make your arguments, so you'd be cherry-picking here anyway) and boil it down to fundamentals, there's still a problem.
(While looking up info on that, I found a comment that probably puts it aptly: "Orientation is the gender you choose on X Tube. Preference is what you type in the search box.")
In short, people have cared before. Your idea that this one tweet suddenly changed everything is giving it far too much credit.
The public should be deciding based on facts, not the rumor mill, anyway.
Meanwhile, something I've opined before is that there's an inherent problem with public services -- such as public communication channels -- being provided by private entities. Perhaps we could consider replacing Twitter and Facebook with channels provided via government infrastructure that are subject to (1) more scrutiny, (2) more rules regarding what they can or can't do with content, and (3) more transparency, including from open-sourceness to lengthy comment periods before procedures can be changed.
But, somehow, I don't think you'd be interested in this proposal.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Telecoms companies already exist, and we should probably just treat them like that instead, which starts with repealing Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That gives them the special protections as "platforms", which applies a "platform v publisher" litmus test (which this instance fails spectacularly considering the editorial insight required to scrub any specific story so thoroughly).
Anyways yeah repeal 230 and treat them as telecoms.
A lot of conservatives are suggesting what you're saying ie nationalising the heck out of them but by golly the libertarian vestiges I've yet to cleave out of my chest do not like this idea.
My gosh, this though. We need this so much. The black-box algorithms alone have required this for at least 4-6 years.
It happened literally within Oct. 13 (Kyle's tweet), and Oct. 14th (Mazie Hirono's reference to said tweet). I mean, the story does say it hadn't been changed before Sep. 28th, but it's unlikely that it was changed for another reason without there being a major discussion (and even so, Kenny Ortega still proceeded to use it after Sep. 28th).
And I'm not actually giving credit to Kyle's tweet, I'm giving credit to the cultural moment that started with Kyle's tweet and exploded with Mazie Hirono's testimony. The problem isn't people like Kyle saying ridiculous things, it's everybody else jumping on them for political points, and then these things becoming codified as law.
Protip; don't think about sexual orientation as a term too much after you've spent 3 hours learning about the XYZ controls in Blender.
Sexual orientation makes much more sense and sounds better, and in all honesty I prefer it by leaps and bounds (possibly planet sized-ones). It implies immutability, which I think is very important. Frankly, even with people who I don't think have bad intentions, using the term "sexual preference" does rub me the wrong way.
It is possible that Kyle's tweet highlighed something, but Merriam Webster's response was waaaaay too quick and far-reaching. It was more like cover (either for the cultural moment or to prevent backlash towards themselves) rather than a well thought out process. I mean, people could have waited 6 months (or however long it takes to do proper dictionary updates now) for it to be changed. It's not Urban Dictionary, after all.
"Sexual preference" is quite an old term, but it was used a lot by gay/bisexual people in the 70s/80s because it was like, polite somehow or cool or whatever. It occurs to me that this is because the all these terms were created by social groups rather than by linguists, and it took a while go get things to stick right. It's still used a lot, as you can see, by older generations who still think they're hip and with it.
The term is strange and poorly thought out, but it's not offensive. People still like to use it, and so there's no consensus (unlike with Frame Arms Girl or Comic Sans Clint or the N Word).
b) It seems our discussions get more and more civil, I wonder if this is because we've learned some trick I've yet to discern ie discourse or we got all of our major disagreements out of the way, so we know what to expect, which leads to less blowups
At most, the event acted as a catalyst.
It's clearly frowned upon, though, in both our own personal opinions and in public opinion.
I think there's a certain amount of "we know we can just endlessly reply and argue" and we both don't want to do that. And so I think there's some amount of me reminding myself to reply in a broader sense rather than to let myself reply to minutiae. Not sure how good I am at this but I guess it's working?
That said, I'm not sure I've gotten more civil, as much as just tried to reply to less, because I frankly don't have the patience to research the minutiae of fads and social trends that I don't personally care about. Not to mention the infinite instances of "he/she/they said/did this offensive thing!".
I mean, I'm sitting here concerned with policy issues like health/healthcare/public health, the environment, voting rights, education, and (last but certainly not least) the economy, and so I'm frankly looking at social squabbles like people's objections to kneeling during the national anthem with an opinion of "why the fuck do these people care so damned much about this sideshow".
See, I told you I wasn't getting more civil. =P
https://defector.com/some-shit-is-going-down-in-alaska-man/
when somebody says you're getting more civil you go along with it no matter what
don't you know all of society is built on everybody lying to make it all look better than it really is
It's about waaaaay more than kneeling whilst a song is played.
I mean, if people no longer want to stand for the thing that presumably represents national principles on a grand scale then at the very least what's the point of pretending national unity exists or can exist?
I mean, things like this were the precursor to "America is inherently racist", and as much as you want to paper over social issues with bureaucracy and policy, you can't. Policy comes after culture and social issues.
There has to be a time when we think, if we no longer think the national anthems that brought us to the prosperity we have matter enough to fight for, what is wrong with us?
Anyhow, I'm not sure whether you meant your post as an explanation of a perspective, or as an actual argument in favor of said perspective.
If I assume it's the latter: (or, rather, because I already wrote this up:)*
I'm sitting here wondering whether you meant "stand for" literally or figuratively, heh. =P
As for literally, let's not forget that the action of standing is just an action. Heck, the same applies to any patriotic display. There's nothing magically sacred about standing for the national anthem; it's just a common custom.
Our national unity doesn't come from everyone doing the exact same damn thing anyway. Our national unity comes from people of all sorts of different backgrounds coexisting peacefully. Pestering people by attempting to enforce displays of patriotism runs contrary to that. To reference an old meme: just because someone's not wearing a flag on their head doesn't mean they're not American.
Furthermore, the "Star-Spangled Banner" doesn't represent "national principles", aside from the basic idea of the United States of America, and whatever associations that come with that. (You might be a little closer to the mark if this topic were about the Pledge of Allegiance rather than the national anthem, but even the Pledge is rather light on actually stating principles.)
The entire argument here (assuming you're using this an argument and not just a statement of feeling) is predicated on the idea that national pride solves all problems, to the point that an anthem is somehow responsible for prosperity. But national pride doesn't do that. It can't even put food on the table.
(It can, however, get people embroiled in endless flamewars.)
The beef with "America is inherently racist" is but one manifestation of a larger idea that I've seen espoused by some conservatives who opine that "liberals hate America", just because them liberals have various criticisms of the country and are willing to say that we are not necessarily that perfect of a union and to point out where we are not perfect. which is bad because doing so would be disrespecting our nation.
...and meanwhile this sort of thinking has led them conservatives have gotten so nutty so as to reach the point where they're deeply offended on behalf of their own national identity whenever they see people kneeling during the national anthem.
I don't agree with, for example, portraying slavery as an "original sin" of the United States. But (1) I understand this is an argument over a portrayal anyway, which is ultimately not substantive as it doesn't change any facts, and (2) I would not characterize such criticism as seditious.
No. No, it does not.
Or rather, it should not. This prioritization of "culture and social issues" is what got us to this nonsense in the first place.
This sort of thinking is what got us to the point where, for example, we have idiots on one side thinking that environmental stewardship is some sort of high-falutin' lifestyle choice (that they hate), and idiots on the other side actually making it a high-falutin' lifestyle choice (that they love). And then politicians campaign based on that baloney, perpetuating a misconception that it's merely about cultural flavor, rather than actually talking about substantive policy and trying to solve real problems. This is the kind of nonsense that happens when people prioritize cultural/social flavor over actual policy.
* See, I told you I was bad at lying!
No?
The argument is that if you stand, you are willing to work together to keep up the vision of the future that was promised.
Do you genuinely think I would ever argue that "If you need good healthcare all you need is to whisper 'America Rocks' into a mirror three times?", because this is the level of your rebuttal.
This is exactly what I mean when I say there might be something wrong with us. Acknowledging something as a custom doesn't mean that we now stop doing it just because it's pointless to do a thing that technically achieves nothing. It's symbolic of something more.
Just because we can acknowledge that culture exists, doesn't mean we are now beyond culture.
I'm not prescribing a wholesale way of life. I'm just describing the national anthem at football games. If you can't do anything the same way (especially something a simple as this), then you're certainly not united at all. Unity cannot come from constant difference.
No I was referring to the times when liberal thought leaders actually say or tweet "America is inherently racist" or when Joe Biden actually agrees with Chris Wallace when he asks if America currently has systemically racist systems.
You said;
Then;
Which means you understand this is not a conservative idea, yet you pretend that somehow liberals aren't saying it and that conservatives are putting words in their mouths?
Ideas that include the country being inherently racist, systemically racist, or built on racism.
Criticism is not zealous anti-American radicalism, which is what I've seen more than anything. It's neutered and polite on-paper, which is why people can point to it and make it seem like you're crazy ("Critical Race Theory is just Racial Sensitivity Training!"), but the results of these things being espoused that we saw this Summer made it clearer than ever that I was right.
Conservatives are "nutty", liberals make "arguments" that just happen to not be "substantive".
If you think it is insane to think that kneeling is disrespecting the flag and the values it stands for, then I don't think we can come to an agreement on this. In fact, I certainly would never even want to.
We are lucky, GMH, to be living in these times in the places we live (well, uh, not @Stormtroper).
You more than practically all of us, yet you take it for granted, and aren't even willing to care when the path that led to all of that luck is trampled on, disrespected, and insulted.
(I'm taking the points espoused as your argument since you haven't stated otherwise, but have instead basically affirmed that you espouse them yourself.)
That is vague as hell.
I wrote my rebuttal based on how you wrote your post, but no, I didn't genuinely believe that you actually thought it would have a direct effect. However, my point is that that argument overstates the significance of national pride in order to demand adherence to a practice of upholding it.
You're essentially arguing for enforcing a display of patriotism in a certain way, just because you don't like seeing a certain issue associated with kneeling getting mentioned.
The people doing it certainly have a right to do so. I'm not sure I'd do it, personally, but I see no problem with someone else doing it. In contrast, you're arguing that it is some sort of severe compromise of the national cultural fabric that is downright unacceptable...except for the fact that our culture doesn't actually depend on professional sports players standing while the national anthem plays; it's just that it smells like a certain slippery slope assumption on your part.
also, "doesn't mean that we stop doing it now just because it's pointless to do a thing that technically achieves nothing" goes for both sides of this argument.
Except these people do a whole bunch of other things in common, thanks to living in this same country. What makes "the national anthem at football games" so darned special that this one thing is somehow the linchpin of American unity?
You've missed my point.
Yes, there are some liberals who hold the view that "America is inherently racist".
What I'm talking about is those conservatives who confuse such a criticism with a betrayal of our nation, and react as if it were the latter.
Oh noes, I might have been too nice to my side and/or too harsh on your side in the exact choices of words this time, as opposed to all the other times when I've been complaining about conservative wingnuts making "arguments" that are aren't "substantive" because they're not actually addressing policy questions while also complaining about liberals being...okay, I used "idiots", rather than "nutty", though I'm pretty sure I've already called anything from Bernie-or-bust types to anti-vaxxer types "nutcases" or something along those lines before, and I'd readily do the same again.
TL;DR you're reading too hard into things.
I don't think it's "insane"; I simply think that the reasoning behind it is porting a variety of other beef into the situation. The traditional meaning of kneeling in front of something is an expression of submission. You mean to argue that this meaning is somehow turned on its head, and the only logical path that allows this argument is to attach the action of kneeling to a broader cultural flamewar that (first) involves criticisms of systemic racism and excessive use of force by police and (second) designates those criticisms as unacceptably disrespectful to the American flag/American culture/etc..
By the way, let me remind you that we have a right to outright desecrate a flag (such as by burning it) as part of freedom of speech (per court cases deciding this). I personally wouldn't burn a flag, but I would support someone else's right to do so (in a reasonable manner, i.e. not making me choke on the fumes for example) in order to make their political statement, even if I disagree with that statement. This pertains to literally the first (and probably the most famous) amendment of our constitution.
Ironic, given the side you've shacked up with, that you'd argue a criticism of me based on what you see as my privilege.
Anyhow, if you think I take the civic infrastructure of this country for granted, then you're dead wrong, because I've actually make it a point to understand the economic factors, cultural heritage, political leanings, environmental conditions, legal/civic idiosyncrasies, etc. of various places here in the United States, particularly those places where I live and have lived. I even bother to tune into candidate forums for horrendously-downballot elections like city council members...and then even follow up by e-mailing the candidates on specific policy proposals.
"The path that led to all of that luck" is the hard work of people who bothered to learn about the policy issues and related details about country and/or its various localities, including bothering to understand what works and what doesn't, and who then try to fix those things that don't work well, using and gradually improving our systems of government. For every historical figure as high profile as an American president, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of unsung heroes who've done all this (rarely ever glorious) work at all levels of government here.
"Respecting the flag" does not make these things magically work. It's is merely a common side effect -- a symptom, if you will -- of coming to appreciate these pieces of civic infrastructure and how they work together, warts and all, and how to use them to form a more perfect union. To put "respecting the flag" front and center as if that's the core thing that matters, would arguably be disrespectful to all those actual nuts and bolts that make it all work.
Well, there's also another thing that "respecting the flag" comes from, and it's from people who are basically fankids of the United States of America. Like other fankids, they have...strong and often strident opinions on what this country ought to be like, and they frequently have beef with people who criticize the country.
This a stark misunderstanding.
This isn't even about Colin Kaepernick or whatever. This is about us. What happened to make us all believe it was okay to disrespect or even just simply disregard our national anthems, most especially the American one?
Why were these ideas about national symbols being irrelevant allowed to flourish this much? Why don't we understand the significance of these symbols and their ties to the history that brought us here?
It's not something that started with us, but probably several generations ago, which is why we particularly have it so bad. It's a mark of a serious lack or appreciation of history and civics.
Most of all, it's a lack of appreciation for the people who came before us who had to genuinely fight for these things and genuinely think about these things. History doesn't start with us, we owe them quite literally everything.
Ah, I guess I'm the confused one. When the Paper of Record in the country gives such a person editorial license to write her racial fantasies in excruciating detail so it can disseminate them them to not just the wider public, but public schools as well, that's just 'some' and certainly not because the wider intelligentsia think it is true.
When every person who says 'All Lives Matter' is quickly ostracized from society, it's just 'some' and certainly not the majority doing that.
Well, I'm speaking of actual advantages here. You are certainly afforded things by basically every law in your country that most of us aren't. We can literally open real books and see these things, rather than having them be vaguely interpreted to us by a Social Justice soothsayer.
You don't have advantages because of something immutable at birth, you have them because your country gave them to you.
Social Justice doesn't own the concept of term privileges anyways. There was once a TV show (starring Lucy Hale) and book series called Privileged where we were meant to aspire to the protagonists, not hate them.
And you'll notice I did not tell you you're unfair or participating in some evil/unjust discriminatory scheme rooted in historic evils that are embedded in society to keep the rest of us from achieving "fairness" (ie being exactly like you) because that stuff's whackjob land. I just said you should appreciate what you have (I do).
I am okay with this.
Scroll down a bit, it's the "Featured Work".