floppypoppy wrote:you used the word 'defiant' to label Kaps response. then deduce his intentions and motivation from your perception of his actions. you're clearly a smart guy, but this type of thinking is reactionary. Since we're all guilty of it, our forefathers attempted to protect us from ourselves with the freedom of speech. Kap has every right to be defiant while he's singlehandedly taking on one of the worlds largest conglomerates. judging him based off the words he chooses, is irrelevant (as i said) but also plain un-american.
I agree that Kaepernick has the right to be defiant if he chooses. Each individual NFL team has a right to not hire him if they feel he will damage their franchise or provide less value than another player they could choose.
Of course I'm judging him off words he chooses as well as his actions as well as best I can piece them together which may not be a perfect fit as to what he intends (and also filtered by the way the media reports it), but what else am I (or anyone else) supposed to judge him based on?
As far as I can tell, his overall message isn't about lack of social justice and poor treatment of blacks within the NFL. I don't think he set out to take on the NFL or intended to take them on, but after (likely unintentionally) costing them somewhere from 10s to 100s of millions of dollars he chose not to separate his personal work with his business work to relieve his employer either.
don't hate on people using the same logic as you, but arriving at a different conclusion. the fact that we all can express ourselves is part of what makes this country so amazing.
As far as I can tell, I'm not hating on anyone. I've only said Kaepernick's actions are intentional. I haven't judged them as good or bad. I think he has prioritized the outcomes he wants and acted in the interest of his most important outcomes. I've also stated I'm in favor of his overall message of equal justice for all and think highly of him for putting his social agenda above his work in his priority list.
human rights are indivisible, not political. where, when or how you address them, does not change that.. in my opinion. the conversation has become a political one, but don't confuse that with his original action.
No one is arguing against human rights though. Being pro-human rights isn't what is upsetting anyone. You can absolutely take something that doesn't need to be political and make it political. That isn't always a bad thing either. To enact real change you do sometimes need to shock people or have some discomfort. People don't change through comfort.
i wonder how many times you've been treated poorly due to the color of your skin.. i'm guessing not many.
I'm in an interacial marriage and am frequently in a room where I'm the only white person, frequently have people only speaking in a language I don't understand, and am often treated very differently based on those tihngs.
I've also had to work overseas as part of a global company (in multiple countries) where I was the only one that didn't speak the local language and where there was very clear favoritism towards locals.
Not a 1:1 correlation to what I think you're implying but probably a much broader perspective than many.
