Bennet shares hugs and words with Vets and Seahawk fans

[StoneCold]

This choked me up. We need more of this and less posturing.

http://www.king5.com/sports/nfl/seahawk ... /479063513

 

[ivotuk]

Great first post! :2thumbs:

 

[SixSeahawk]

Great post!

 

[StoneCold]

I think this article frames the issue well and asks an important question, how does this resolve?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/its-trump ... le/2009805

Michael himself, at least as reported by the woman in the article, doesn't know what exactly is to be done next. I'm not as pessimistic as the last few lines of the article and think that this can end well. It certainly won't be the elimination of all abuse, but if some progress can be seen then we can all get back to standing proudly and watching the Hawk's kick some butt, I'm hopeful on both counts.

 

[hawk45]

I think this article frames the issue well and asks an important question, how does this resolve?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/its-trump ... le/2009805

Michael himself, at least as reported by the woman in the article, doesn't know what exactly is to be done next. I'm not as pessimistic as the last few lines of the article and think that this can end well. It certainly won't be the elimination of all abuse, but if some progress can be seen then we can all get back to standing proudly and watching the Hawk's kick some butt, I'm hopeful on both counts.

Bennett seems to be acting in good faith. His emotional outreach is helpful, I think.

The protests themselves are a mixed bag. For one, "raising awareness" has always seemed to be a meager goal, and it's too easy to be dismissed as virtue signaling since all you do is repeat that there is a problem which is already known and leave it for others to solve. The drawback to directing protests at the flag is that it's bound to be misinterpreted (willfully or otherwise) in unhelpful ways. Thus, it's a calculated risk to target the flag. You're betting that the discomfort, resentment, and muddled message will be outweighed by the number of people talking about it. The signal-to-noise ration is high in my book because you have to spend the first half of any convo explaining you don't hate veterans or whatever.

The president of course realized this, seized on it, and is using it for a bit of signaling of his own.

As to actually addressing root causes, I give BLM credit for having developed some specific policy proposals:

https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/

The guiding principle of these proposals is that the existing civil structures must be torn down and rebuilt, more or less. The authors must realize this, making me think they are deliberately designed to be unattainable. For example, requiring college tuition, room, board, etc. costs to be fully paid for all black people as reparations. Requiring a UBI for all black people as reparations. Replacing law enforcement oversight structures with civil oversight boards with members literally chosen out of a hat to avoid the democratic process. So the cat-lady decides police hiring, termination, discipline, etc. and high-crime areas like Chicago turn into wastelands while they fumble around reinventing democracy.

These are all non-starters politically IMO, which is why I worry they really are a setup for perpetual conflict.

There may be ways to start to address the specific issue of police use of force but when the only specific policy proposals are coming from a place of rebuilding civic structures from the ground up, no actual progress can be made. I'm not making a moral judgment - perhaps there is a case that it should all be rebuilt - but there is not a solid enough majority (to put it mildly) of voters to enact such drastic measures.

The NFL protest thing will wane, it was waning before the president waded in with his big fat mouth, but it won't be because of any real progress. It'll be because of exhaustion with the topic with no end in sight, saturation, and sheer boredom all around.

Unless someone rises as a face of the movement with a grasp of the achievable who can also capture the imagination of everyone. That type of transcendent MLK person comes once a lifetime if that.

 

[Osprey]

The drawback to directing protests at the flag is that it's bound to be misinterpreted (willfully or otherwise) in unhelpful ways. Thus, it's a calculated risk to target the flag.

How has it been misinterpreted?

I think we can all agree that Kaepernick started this movement, here's his 'mission statement':

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/colin-kaepernick-49ers-national-anthem-sit-explains

To parse it out:
1) I don't respect my country or flag
2) I value my cause above football
3) Cops are killers

Those are exactly the complaints that I've heard from anti-kneelers with the only addition being the conflating of Veterans with country/flag respect. Arguing about the validity of the 'cause' is secondary to acknowledging that the intent of the National Anthem is to promote patriotism and unity. It should be above politics and causes of any kind.

When Bennett (and other players) follow in Kaepernick's footsteps, they are tacitly endorsing his message whether they intend to or not.

TLDR: Wrong venue, wrong poster child.

 

[kidhawk]

The drawback to directing protests at the flag is that it's bound to be misinterpreted (willfully or otherwise) in unhelpful ways. Thus, it's a calculated risk to target the flag.

How has it been misinterpreted?

I think we can all agree that Kaepernick started this movement, here's his 'mission statement':

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/colin-kaepernick-49ers-national-anthem-sit-explains

To parse it out:
1) I don't respect my country or flag
2) I value my cause above football
3) Cops are killers

Those are exactly the complaints that I've heard from anti-kneelers with the only addition being the conflating of Veterans with country/flag respect. Arguing about the validity of the 'cause' is secondary to acknowledging that the intent of the National Anthem is to promote patriotism and unity. It should be above politics and causes of any kind.

When Bennett (and other players) follow in Kaepernick's footsteps, they are tacitly endorsing his message whether they intend to or not.

TLDR: Wrong venue, wrong poster child.

This line of thinking totally ignores the possibility that others can co-opt something like this with similar motivations, but a different line of thinking. I personally don't agree with not standing for the flag, and I think that doing so distracts from the desired outcome, but I can definitely see how it can be done without the mindset of disrespect, even though it will and has been interpreted that way.

I think that there are different ways to get the same point across without being so divisive. For instance, last year when the Seahawks stood arms interlocked for the anthem. That made a statement without any real or imagined disrespect. It is my hope that they can move forward with the unity theme and move away from the anthem protest aspect of this.

 

[Osprey]

This line of thinking totally ignores the possibility that others can co-opt something like this with similar motivations, but a different line of thinking.

Sure and I could burn a cross for warmth, but shouldn't be surprised when people assume I was recruited by Robert Byrd.

I personally don't agree with not standing for the flag, and I think that doing so distracts from the desired outcome, but I can definitely see how it can be done without the mindset of disrespect, even though it will and has been interpreted that way.

It's disrespect by definition, in fact the act of disrespect is exactly what they hope will draw attention to their cause.

I think that there are different ways to get the same point across without being so divisive. For instance, last year when the Seahawks stood arms interlocked for the anthem. That made a statement without any real or imagined disrespect. It is my hope that they can move forward with the unity theme and move away from the anthem protest aspect of this.

Initially I thought it was a good compromise too. However, the more I think about it, it still leaves the issue of injecting politics into what should be a statement of patriotism and unity that is above criticism*. Sure they are showing unity, but it's a unity of opposition to a social issue, not unity as a country.

*criticism is legitimate, but it comes after agreeing we have the common ground of citizenship.

 

[StoneCold]

This line of thinking totally ignores the possibility that others can co-opt something like this with similar motivations, but a different line of thinking.

Sure and I could burn a cross for warmth, but shouldn't be surprised when people assume I was recruited by Robert Byrd.

I personally don't agree with not standing for the flag, and I think that doing so distracts from the desired outcome, but I can definitely see how it can be done without the mindset of disrespect, even though it will and has been interpreted that way.

It's disrespect by definition, in fact the act of disrespect is exactly what they hope will draw attention to their cause.

I think that there are different ways to get the same point across without being so divisive. For instance, last year when the Seahawks stood arms interlocked for the anthem. That made a statement without any real or imagined disrespect. It is my hope that they can move forward with the unity theme and move away from the anthem protest aspect of this.

Initially I thought it was a good compromise too. However, the more I think about it, it still leaves the issue of injecting politics into what should be a statement of patriotism and unity that is above criticism*. Sure they are showing unity, but it's a unity of opposition to a social issue, not unity as a country.

*criticism is legitimate, but it comes after agreeing we have the common ground of citizenship.

I understand that you object to the method of protest, do you believe the problem they're pointing out is legitimate?

 

[Mindsink]

I can definitely see how it can be done without the mindset of disrespect, even though it will and has been interpreted that way.

Of course it was interpreted that way. Engaging in an act of disrespect does not negate the disrespect just because one puts a disclaimer on their actions.

 

[hawk45]

The drawback to directing protests at the flag is that it's bound to be misinterpreted (willfully or otherwise) in unhelpful ways. Thus, it's a calculated risk to target the flag.

How has it been misinterpreted?

I think we can all agree that Kaepernick started this movement, here's his 'mission statement':

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/colin-kaepernick-49ers-national-anthem-sit-explains

To parse it out:
1) I don't respect my country or flag
2) I value my cause above football
3) Cops are killers

Those are exactly the complaints that I've heard from anti-kneelers with the only addition being the conflating of Veterans with country/flag respect. Arguing about the validity of the 'cause' is secondary to acknowledging that the intent of the National Anthem is to promote patriotism and unity. It should be above politics and causes of any kind.

When Bennett (and other players) follow in Kaepernick's footsteps, they are tacitly endorsing his message whether they intend to or not.

TLDR: Wrong venue, wrong poster child.

Oh I agree Kaepernick absolutely meant disrespect and he was fairly plain about it. The rest of the players were basically a reflex-tantrum against Trump with some vague notions about "equality" or whatever, in other words, very little specific message at all. Those players followed Kaepernick, and yes it's tacit endorsement of his position, but their public comments are starkly different from his.

Which is why it was really a boneheaded reaction that the president basically baited them into. When you have a vague message, and when you can't even get to your vague message without 50 disclaimers about what you didn't mean, your method of protest is deeply flawed. The owners and players are bending to this reality already after a single weekend of fans (reasonably) interpreting their actions and disrespecting the country, flag, or cops. Protests are all about optics and symbols. You don't turn your back on the flag and then complain when people aren't reading your mind.

Which is why Kaepernick is far braver and more committed than Bennett. Kaepernick thinks cops are systemically racist and that because of this the flag isn't worthy of his respect. He has a specific complaint and he's willing to take heat from it. I disagree with his opinion and abhor his method of protesting it, but his message is more than just social justice word salad. There is actually an opening there for a fact-based discussion that might lead to something like more DOJ oversight or more body cams or whatever. Or there is room to examine his claim for accuracy.

The "raise awareness" and "open a dialogue" and "unity" stuff is lazy activism. The whole world is aware there is a problem. Hammering away at it without presenting specific grievances is a recipe for failure. Which is why it is and will die down. Most of the players aren't really committed, and don't even have a detailed problem description. They were just baited by the president.

 

[hawk45]

I personally don't agree with not standing for the flag, and I think that doing so distracts from the desired outcome, but I can definitely see how it can be done without the mindset of disrespect, even though it will and has been interpreted that way.

It's disrespect by definition, in fact the act of disrespect is exactly what they hope will draw attention to their cause.

To me this is undeniable. Kaepernick chose this action specifically because he knew the act of disrespecting the flag and what it stands for would generate maximum controversy. It was a deliberate calculation.

Protests are ALL about optics and symbols. You don't get to deliberately disrespect the flag to get eyeballs on you and then cry because people don't believe their own eyes.

The players demonstrating last weekend in response to the president are a different story. They weren't as calculated or as committed as Kaepernick, they just wanted to defy Trump. The backing up we are seeing now is evidence in fact that they are realizing they can't expect fans to read their minds and ignore the disrespect and have some conversation about racial issues.

 

[Osprey]

I understand that you object to the method of protest, do you believe the problem they're pointing out is legitimate?

Irrelevant to my argument, however, I do believe it's a legitimate topic of debate.

 

[kidhawk]

Just a reminder to all, we made this forum to discuss Seahawks related non-football topics. Posts need to relate back to the OP at all times. In other words, as this is a Bennett thread, we need to discuss this as related to Bennett and not make this thread about Kaepernick or any other players. Obviously there are relations between what Bennett is doing and the rest of the NFL, but we need to keep this related to Bennett. Thanks

 

[Osprey]

The players demonstrating last weekend in response to the president are a different story. They weren't as calculated or as committed as Kaepernick, they just wanted to defy Trump. The backing up we are seeing now is evidence in fact that they are realizing they can't expect fans to read their minds and ignore the disrespect and have some conversation about racial issues.

Agreed, it's an increasingly common argument of how dare you question my right to free speech by practicing free speech.

 

[RockHawk]

Just a reminder to all, we made this forum to discuss Seahawks related non-football topics. Posts need to relate back to the OP at all times. In other words, as this is a Bennett thread, we need to discuss this as related to Bennett and not make this thread about Kaepernick or any other players. Obviously there are relations between what Bennett is doing and the rest of the NFL, but we need to keep this related to Bennett. Thanks

I see the Kaep discussion & equations being made here as directly relevant though. It's not veering off into a Keap-only discussion, but more making the point about what his original statements of intention was compared to what players now (Bennett) are claiming are the intention. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[kidhawk]

Just a reminder to all, we made this forum to discuss Seahawks related non-football topics. Posts need to relate back to the OP at all times. In other words, as this is a Bennett thread, we need to discuss this as related to Bennett and not make this thread about Kaepernick or any other players. Obviously there are relations between what Bennett is doing and the rest of the NFL, but we need to keep this related to Bennett. Thanks

I see the Kaep discussion & equations being made here as directly relevant though. It's not veering off into a Keap-only discussion, but more making the point about what his original statements of intention was compared to what players now (Bennett) are claiming are the intention. Seems reasonable to me.

Just to be clear (I guess I wasn't). I'm not saying we can't talk about Kaep and/or the other protests, which is why the posts are still here, only to make sure that they continue to keep it relating to the OP and not let it stray into becoming about him/them and no longer about Bennett (if that makes sense). Just was a friendly head's up as this place is new.

 

[hawk45]

So I have a question. Has anyone found anywhere that Bennett says something more specific than "unity" or "inequality" that might serve as a basis for meaningful discussion?

In the article from the OP the word "unity" was thrown around and "conversation," as well as shared admission that nobody knows where to go from here.

Where is here? This is my frustration with "raising awareness". I almost get the sense that Bennett is a pretty sweet guy who wants to seem open and not offend anyone, which is laudable. This leads him to avoid specific complaints that might offend people. Other than the discussion around his Vegas incident, he doesn't seem to be focused on a message of systemic racist application of force by law enforcement. The unity and conversation word salad is inoffensive to no one but doesn't advance anything.

If all Bennett is doing is emotional outreach without presenting a specific problem to be solved, I have a hard time understanding why his efforts are a net positive. The emotional outreach is offset by the inflammatory method of protest. If there's no underlying, actionable, specific grievance behind it, all that is happening is we are reminded that there is a lot of work to do and how far apart we are. In other words, it's divisive for no gain.

 

[StoneCold]

I understand that you object to the method of protest, do you believe the problem they're pointing out is legitimate?

Irrelevant to my argument, however, I do believe it's a legitimate topic of debate.

Understood, but since I know we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the particulars of your argument, I was curious about your thoughts on the bigger issue. Thanks.

 

[RockHawk]

So I have a question. Has anyone found anywhere that Bennett says something more specific than "unity" or "inequality" that might serve as a basis for meaningful discussion?

In the article from the OP the word "unity" was thrown around and "conversation," as well as shared admission that nobody knows where to go from here.

Where is here? This is my frustration with "raising awareness". I almost get the sense that Bennett is a pretty sweet guy who wants to seem open and not offend anyone, which is laudable. This leads him to avoid specific complaints that might offend people. Other than the discussion around his Vegas incident, he doesn't seem to be focused on a message of systemic racist application of force by law enforcement. The unity and conversation word salad is inoffensive to no one but doesn't advance anything.

If all Bennett is doing is emotional outreach without presenting a specific problem to be solved, I have a hard time understanding why his efforts are a net positive. The emotional outreach is offset by the inflammatory method of protest. If there's no underlying, actionable, specific grievance behind it, all that is happening is we are reminded that there is a lot of work to do and how far apart we are. In other words, it's divisive for no gain.

I feel he and Baldwin have been very clear in their intent, and what they're trying to bring light to. Watch this week's CNN interviews and the town hall featuring both and they will answer your question without being vague at all.