OaktownBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

GMP said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearDown2o15 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

okaydo said:

---

StarsDoMatter said:

---

NFL players are silent. Truly disgusting.

Imagine the outrage if a white player said this about blacks or whoever.

NFL players only care when a white guy says something racist. Says a lot about them and the league.

Drew Brees was crucified for saying players should stand !!!!

Disgusting double standard. But why am I not surprised. The liberal media is barely covering it.

---

1. Drew Brees was told repeatedly over 4 years that the kneeling during the National Anthem wasn't protesting veterans. Repeatedly. Then he equated kneeling to disrespecting his WWII grandparents. He wanted to be willfully ignorant.

That's totally unlike DeSean's case.

Also, Brees is one of the highest-profile players in the NFL, the lynchpin of his team. One of the biggest stars. So having somebody in his position say that was disappointing.

In contrast, DeSean was injured most of last year and has barely been a factor in recent years.

2. The "liberal media" has not been ignoring this story.

3. My guess is that DeSean is totally ignorant of Judaism and anti-Semitism. And I bet a lot of players in the NFL are, too. (Even though DeSean is more likely to have encountered Jews having grown up in the Los Angeles basin.) I think that's why there isn't (unfortunately) the visceral reaction.

I think Mitchell Schwartz's brother Geoff is on to something:

https://nypost.com/2020/07/07/ex-giant-not-surprised-by-nfl-players-silence-over-desean-jackson/





4. DeSean now has apologized twice, has vowed to meet with rabbis, has apologized to the owner, his bosses.

The reason this is big news is that there hasn't been (as far as I know) any indication that DeSean has expressed these kind of viewpoints before. I stopped following him on social media a while back. But generally when high-profile people are ousted for racist behavior, it isn't because of an isolated incident (see Roseanne and Megyn Kelly). If he's fired, fine, he'll learn the lesson about hatred the hard way. If he's not, and he genuinely shows remorse (and it's not part of a pattern of behavior), then he could turn this into something positive.

I also asked my father a few years ago (since passed) and he fought in the Battle of the Bulge, award Bronze Star and Purple Heart and he was very clear in his beliefs and those of the men whom he stayed in contact with, that kneeling during our National Anthem was very disrespectful to those that served for our country.

---

Kaepernick has tweeted his opinion of the country and the military. The idea that he kneeled to be respectful because some random vet why was SF said it was still respectful is garbage.

Maybe some or most of them respect the military, but Colin Kaepernick does not. If we are going to credit him with the movement, credit him, all inclusive. Admit all evidence.

Regardless, Jackson wont see much blowback from this. You can say anything you want about Jews and IF confronted give a half assed apology and get away with it. It's been that way for like 5000 years. Pretending that it's a big deal is humorous. People will do backflips to excuse antisemitism.

---

I asked my father if kneeling in front of a flag was disrespectful.

He said "No"

But he is just some random vet who was awarded a Purple Heart, so he obviously knows nothing.

By the way, what is your military record look like?

---

---

I also asked my father a few years ago before he passed his thoughts on kneeling. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, awarded Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He and the men who served with him and whom he stayed in contact with, all felt strongly that kneeling during our National Anthem was very disrespectful to all those who served in the military.

---

Your father, and his friends, cannot be offended on behalf of all veterans. They can only be offended on their own behalf. I think they are looking at the situation incorrectly if they are offended. And if I could I would explain why I feel that way, while also listening to their perspective. But I won't listen to someone tell
me that something is "very disrespectful to all who served" when there are MANY who served who do not find it disrespectful. In fact, many who served believe they served to (try to) keep our country a place where Kaepernick could express himself freely.

---

Agreed.

My only argument is that the idea that you cant feel disrespected and support something. It's not one or the other. They typically go hand in hand, so I understand the confusion.

People can support the right to burn flags and hate what it represents, as the quote alludes to.

---

I think we're getting somewhere here. It never bothered me that much when Carlos and Smith raised their fists at the Olympics. I felt I knew what they were trying to communicate and agreed. But it did not do so (although many thought so at the time) in a fashion that was irreverent to the flag. Being an old, old-timer I have a strong sense of what the flag means to those who served both alive and gone. I never liked Kaps taking a knee because you stand rather reverently. So yes, I can totally empathize with Kapernick's protest, and still not like the fact he chose not to stand. He could have raised a fist in protest. You can say he made his point, but he sure didn't need to p*ss off so many who look at the flags traditions differently. Both could have been accomplished

---

I have a real problem with this argument: in what world is kneeling before something disrespectful or irreverent? When he began by sitting on the bench, there was an uproar. A veteran told him he supported his right to draw attention to his cause, but asked that he do so by kneeling. Kaep agreed. Now, just as I said in my previous post, because it was not disrespectful to kneel to this veteran doesn't mean that it wasn't disrespectful to others. But in making that change Kaep made it clear that his point was not to disrespect the flag or the troops, but only to draw attention to his cause.

He went out of his way to change the form of his protest to a pose that is universally recognized as deferential and respectful while still making his point, but that wasn't enough for many, which revealed their lie: nothing he could have ever done would have been respectful enough those for people because the truth is they didn't agree with his message and didn't want to hear it. It sounds like you suggested he should have instead raised a fist. I don't see how those who opposed kneeling would have found a raised fist any more palatable.

---

I agree with some and disagree with some of what you say. When he kneeled and was noticed, Kap said:

Quote:

---

"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. This is not something that I am going to run by anybody," he said. "I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed. If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right."

---

The 49ers issued the following statement:

Quote:

---

The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pregame ceremony," the statement said. "It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.

---

I am basically on board with the 49ers statement. I have expressed before that I think his protest was a strategic mistake and I still believe that his importance in raising the issue is revising history. I think he derailed the issue. I also expressed at the time, that I valued a simple demonstration of unity that I think the playing of the anthem represented. That no matter what our political beliefs we are one country. I wished that people would not use that moment as a platform to protest because once someone does everyone will. I think that was pretty accurate. But, I support his right to do what I wished he wouldn't. Just as I support the right of people to burn the flag even though I strongly disagree. (Don't like burning anyone's flag, to be honest). I have basically also said at this point, the eggs are broken. Let's make an omelet. I would be willing to kneel for the anthem in 2020 in a way I would not have been willing to then.

I agree with you that for many, it was the message they didn't like and there was nothing he could have done to make them happy. I don't think any thing he changed would have made an appreciable difference. I supported the players who protested in their own way after Trump made a big hairy deal out of it. I think almost all of them did it with full respect and most of their statements made that clear.

But I'm sorry, we can't say that for Kap. You say in what world is kneeling disrespectful. It can be a lot of things. It can worshipful. It can be submissive. It can be respect. And it can be sitting out. In what world is it disrespectful? In the world where the kneeler says he intends it to be.

You look at his explanation. I know some will think this is semantics, but words matter. Take away the first sentence and I am 1000% on board with him. However, after he utters the first sentence you cannot think that he does not intend disrespect. He fully intends it. That was the point. You may think the disrespect is reasonable. I think it might be. But let's be honest about the statement. We are not doing any good to the argument by pretending he is supplicating or trying to show respect while delivering another message. He didn't say that he knelt to draw attention to the issue of police violence. He said he is "not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color". He is mad at the country the flag represents and his act is to refuse to acknowledge its flag. I don't know how much more plain the intent could be. I will also add that the statement is intentionally worded to reference "a country" like he is disassociated from the United States of America. Plain and simple, if this were a SCOTUS opinion, I would have written a concurrence. My concurrence would have been "I will stand for the flag of my country, the United States of America, and I will stand with Kap that we need to make a change because my country is far from a perfect union and what he is bringing attention to is a grave injustice and as an American I take responsibility for my part. My 330 millionth of my country." We cannot pretend that my message is the same as Kap's. His message is clearly "Your country is oppressing my people and I (literally) won't stand for it". It is not "my government is oppressing my people" He intends to disassociate himself and he intends the disrespect. This is not a one time thing. He has made similar statements with similar construction, one very recently.

Doesn't make him wrong. But if he is right in that, let's make that argument to Odonto - yeah, he is ticked off. He is refusing to honor the flag. He has every reason to be ticked off. His people are dying. Not that he means no disrespect but is making a statement. That is just clearly not the case.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

I have a real problem with this argument: in what world is kneeling before something disrespectful or irreverent? When he began by sitting on the bench, there was an uproar. A veteran told him he supported his right to draw attention to his cause, but asked that he do so by kneeling. Kaep agreed. Now, just as I said in my previous post, because it was not disrespectful to kneel to this veteran doesn't mean that it wasn't disrespectful to others. But in making that change Kaep made it clear that his point was not to disrespect the flag or the troops, but only to draw attention to his cause.

He went out of his way to change the form of his protest to a pose that is universally recognized as deferential and respectful while still making his point, but that wasn't enough for many, which revealed their lie: nothing he could have ever done would have been respectful enough those for people because the truth is they didn't agree with his message and didn't want to hear it. It sounds like you suggested he should have instead raised a fist. I don't see how those who opposed kneeling would have found a raised fist any more palatable.

---

Obviously, the meaning of the act is subject to interpretation. But if people are standing to honor the flag/country, and a person chooses to kneel (the opposite of standing), then its not surprising that some people view that as the opposite of respecting/honoring the flag/country.

Kneeling is not "universally recognized" as deferential and respectful. Context matters. For example, if your in a Jewish synagogue and expected to stand for prayer, then kneeling is not respectful. I assume standing when you're supposed to be kneeling in a Catholic church would be the same. Context matters.

And your "nothing he could do would be good enough argument" is just silly. Kap intentionally picked a time/place that would draw maximum attention - precisely because he knew it would be offensive to many. He had lots of other options to express his message - he's not exactly shy in interviews or on twitter.

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

I have a real problem with this argument: in what world is kneeling before something disrespectful or irreverent? When he began by sitting on the bench, there was an uproar. A veteran told him he supported his right to draw attention to his cause, but asked that he do so by kneeling. Kaep agreed. Now, just as I said in my previous post, because it was not disrespectful to kneel to this veteran doesn't mean that it wasn't disrespectful to others. But in making that change Kaep made it clear that his point was not to disrespect the flag or the troops, but only to draw attention to his cause.

He went out of his way to change the form of his protest to a pose that is universally recognized as deferential and respectful while still making his point, but that wasn't enough for many, which revealed their lie: nothing he could have ever done would have been respectful enough those for people because the truth is they didn't agree with his message and didn't want to hear it. It sounds like you suggested he should have instead raised a fist. I don't see how those who opposed kneeling would have found a raised fist any more palatable.

---

Obviously, the meaning of the act is subject to interpretation. But if people are standing to honor the flag/country, and a person chooses to kneel (the opposite of standing), then its not surprising that some people view that as the opposite of respecting/honoring the flag/country.

Kneeling is not "universally recognized" as deferential and respectful. Context matters. For example, if your in a Jewish synagogue and expected to stand for prayer, then kneeling is not respectful. I assume standing when you're supposed to be kneeling in a Catholic church would be the same. Context matters.

And your "nothing he could do would be good enough argument" is just silly. Kap intentionally picked a time/place that would draw maximum attention - precisely because he knew it would be offensive to many. He had lots of other options to express his message - he's not exactly shy in interviews or on twitter.

---

I think your arguments re kneeling are silly. However, it doesn't matter. As you'll see in my reply to Oaktown, I actually agree with your last paragraph, which is the more interesting discussion.

I think (and it sounds like you think) he did what he did (at first, sitting during the anthem) because he knew it'd spark a conversation because many would be outraged. However, I don't think that means the act itself was "disrespectful." I just think it means it was a well thought out protest (here we are, what 4 years later, debating it).

---

GMP said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

GMP said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearDown2o15 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

okaydo said:

---

StarsDoMatter said:

---

NFL players are silent. Truly disgusting.

Imagine the outrage if a white player said this about blacks or whoever.

NFL players only care when a white guy says something racist. Says a lot about them and the league.

Drew Brees was crucified for saying players should stand !!!!

Disgusting double standard. But why am I not surprised. The liberal media is barely covering it.

---

1. Drew Brees was told repeatedly over 4 years that the kneeling during the National Anthem wasn't protesting veterans. Repeatedly. Then he equated kneeling to disrespecting his WWII grandparents. He wanted to be willfully ignorant.

That's totally unlike DeSean's case.

Also, Brees is one of the highest-profile players in the NFL, the lynchpin of his team. One of the biggest stars. So having somebody in his position say that was disappointing.

In contrast, DeSean was injured most of last year and has barely been a factor in recent years.

2. The "liberal media" has not been ignoring this story.

3. My guess is that DeSean is totally ignorant of Judaism and anti-Semitism. And I bet a lot of players in the NFL are, too. (Even though DeSean is more likely to have encountered Jews having grown up in the Los Angeles basin.) I think that's why there isn't (unfortunately) the visceral reaction.

I think Mitchell Schwartz's brother Geoff is on to something:

https://nypost.com/2020/07/07/ex-giant-not-surprised-by-nfl-players-silence-over-desean-jackson/





4. DeSean now has apologized twice, has vowed to meet with rabbis, has apologized to the owner, his bosses.

The reason this is big news is that there hasn't been (as far as I know) any indication that DeSean has expressed these kind of viewpoints before. I stopped following him on social media a while back. But generally when high-profile people are ousted for racist behavior, it isn't because of an isolated incident (see Roseanne and Megyn Kelly). If he's fired, fine, he'll learn the lesson about hatred the hard way. If he's not, and he genuinely shows remorse (and it's not part of a pattern of behavior), then he could turn this into something positive.

I also asked my father a few years ago (since passed) and he fought in the Battle of the Bulge, award Bronze Star and Purple Heart and he was very clear in his beliefs and those of the men whom he stayed in contact with, that kneeling during our National Anthem was very disrespectful to those that served for our country.

---

Kaepernick has tweeted his opinion of the country and the military. The idea that he kneeled to be respectful because some random vet why was SF said it was still respectful is garbage.

Maybe some or most of them respect the military, but Colin Kaepernick does not. If we are going to credit him with the movement, credit him, all inclusive. Admit all evidence.

Regardless, Jackson wont see much blowback from this. You can say anything you want about Jews and IF confronted give a half assed apology and get away with it. It's been that way for like 5000 years. Pretending that it's a big deal is humorous. People will do backflips to excuse antisemitism.

---

I asked my father if kneeling in front of a flag was disrespectful.

He said "No"

But he is just some random vet who was awarded a Purple Heart, so he obviously knows nothing.

By the way, what is your military record look like?

---

---

I also asked my father a few years ago before he passed his thoughts on kneeling. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, awarded Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He and the men who served with him and whom he stayed in contact with, all felt strongly that kneeling during our National Anthem was very disrespectful to all those who served in the military.

---

Your father, and his friends, cannot be offended on behalf of all veterans. They can only be offended on their own behalf. I think they are looking at the situation incorrectly if they are offended. And if I could I would explain why I feel that way, while also listening to their perspective. But I won't listen to someone tell
me that something is "very disrespectful to all who served" when there are MANY who served who do not find it disrespectful. In fact, many who served believe they served to (try to) keep our country a place where Kaepernick could express himself freely.

---

Agreed.

My only argument is that the idea that you cant feel disrespected and support something. It's not one or the other. They typically go hand in hand, so I understand the confusion.

People can support the right to burn flags and hate what it represents, as the quote alludes to.

---

I think we're getting somewhere here. It never bothered me that much when Carlos and Smith raised their fists at the Olympics. I felt I knew what they were trying to communicate and agreed. But it did not do so (although many thought so at the time) in a fashion that was irreverent to the flag. Being an old, old-timer I have a strong sense of what the flag means to those who served both alive and gone. I never liked Kaps taking a knee because you stand rather reverently. So yes, I can totally empathize with Kapernick's protest, and still not like the fact he chose not to stand. He could have raised a fist in protest. You can say he made his point, but he sure didn't need to p*ss off so many who look at the flags traditions differently. Both could have been accomplished

---

I have a real problem with this argument: in what world is kneeling before something disrespectful or irreverent? When he began by sitting on the bench, there was an uproar. A veteran told him he supported his right to draw attention to his cause, but asked that he do so by kneeling. Kaep agreed. Now, just as I said in my previous post, because it was not disrespectful to kneel to this veteran doesn't mean that it wasn't disrespectful to others. But in making that change Kaep made it clear that his point was not to disrespect the flag or the troops, but only to draw attention to his cause.

He went out of his way to change the form of his protest to a pose that is universally recognized as deferential and respectful while still making his point, but that wasn't enough for many, which revealed their lie: nothing he could have ever done would have been respectful enough those for people because the truth is they didn't agree with his message and didn't want to hear it. It sounds like you suggested he should have instead raised a fist. I don't see how those who opposed kneeling would have found a raised fist any more palatable.

---

I agree with some and disagree with some of what you say. When he kneeled and was noticed, Kap said:

Quote:

---

"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. This is not something that I am going to run by anybody," he said. "I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed. If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right."

---

The 49ers issued the following statement:

Quote:

---

The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pregame ceremony," the statement said. "It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.

---

I am basically on board with the 49ers statement. I have expressed before that I think his protest was a strategic mistake and I still believe that his importance in raising the issue is revising history. I think he derailed the issue. I also expressed at the time, that I valued a simple demonstration of unity that I think the playing of the anthem represented. That no matter what our political beliefs we are one country. I wished that people would not use that moment as a platform to protest because once someone does everyone will. I think that was pretty accurate. But, I support his right to do what I wished he wouldn't. Just as I support the right of people to burn the flag even though I strongly disagree. (Don't like burning anyone's flag, to be honest). I have basically also said at this point, the eggs are broken. Let's make an omelet. I would be willing to kneel for the anthem in 2020 in a way I would not have been willing to then.

I agree with you that for many, it was the message they didn't like and there was nothing he could have done to make them happy. I don't think any thing he changed would have made an appreciable difference. I supported the players who protested in their own way after Trump made a big hairy deal out of it. I think almost all of them did it with full respect and most of their statements made that clear.

But I'm sorry, we can't say that for Kap. You say in what world is kneeling disrespectful. It can be a lot of things. It can worshipful. It can be submissive. It can be respect. And it can be sitting out. In what world is it disrespectful? In the world where the kneeler says he intends it to be.

You look at his explanation. I know some will think this is semantics, but words matter. Take away the first sentence and I am 1000% on board with him. However, after he utters the first sentence you cannot think that he does not intend disrespect. He fully intends it. That was the point. You may think the disrespect is reasonable. I think it might be. But let's be honest about the statement. We are not doing any good to the argument by pretending he is supplicating or trying to show respect while delivering another message. He didn't say that he knelt to draw attention to the issue of police violence. He said he is "not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color". He is mad at the country the flag represents and his act is to refuse to acknowledge its flag. I don't know how much more plain the intent could be. I will also add that the statement is intentionally worded to reference "a country" like he is disassociated from the United States of America. Plain and simple, if this were a SCOTUS opinion, I would have written a concurrence. My concurrence would have been "I will stand for the flag of my country, the United States of America, and I will stand with Kap that we need to make a change because my country is far from a perfect union and what he is bringing attention to is a grave injustice and as an American I take responsibility for my part. My 330 millionth of my country." We cannot pretend that my message is the same as Kap's. His message is clearly "Your country is oppressing my people and I (literally) won't stand for it". It is not "my government is oppressing my people" He intends to disassociate himself and he intends the disrespect. This is not a one time thing. He has made similar statements with similar construction, one very recently.

Doesn't make him wrong. But if he is right in that, let's make that argument to Odonto - yeah, he is ticked off. He is refusing to honor the flag. He has every reason to be ticked off. His people are dying. Not that he means no disrespect but is making a statement. That is just clearly not the case.

---

You make a fair point, and I will correct where I previously said he was not trying to disrespect the flag or the troops. He was not trying to disrespect the troops, as evidenced by his agreement to kneel instead of sit when a veteran asked him to.

As to whether he was trying to disrespect the flag or not, I'm not sure. However, it could be semantics but as you said, words matter: what he said was he wouldn't stand up and take pride in the flag or the country. That is not the same as, for example, spitting on the flag, which I would say was an intentionally disrespectful act.

As to your conclusion, I don't agree that this sentence alone means he intended to disrespect the flag. I don't know and I'm very interested to hear what he says in the upcoming documentary. Because it's a reasonable interpretation to read that sentence and instead conclude that he's angry with what's going on in this county, wants to speak out about it, and decided to do so by doing something he knew would get people's attention (and indeed that he knew many would find disrespectful and be angry about). But that is not necessarily intentionally disrespectful.

My overall point, though, is that it doesn't matter if he had been disrespectful or not, whether intentionally or not. There's no way he could have presented that message and not upset a large portion of the population, and so I just do not agree with those arguing his message was presented "disrespectfully."

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Kaepernick has tweeted his opinion of the country and the military. The idea that he kneeled to be respectful because some random vet why was SF said it was still respectful is garbage.

Maybe some or most of them respect the military, but Colin Kaepernick does not. If we are going to credit him with the movement, credit him, all inclusive. Admit all evidence.

Regardless, Jackson wont see much blowback from this. You can say anything you want about Jews and IF confronted give a half assed apology and get away with it. It's been that way for like 5000 years. Pretending that it's a big deal is humorous. People will do backflips to excuse antisemitism.

---

I tend to agree with your opinion regarding the hypocrisy of it all, but what else would you want in an apology?

---

Nothing. I dont think he should have to apologize. He should post what he wants and play football. He said it publicly, so people can recognize his beliefs, file it away along with the rest of what we know (good and bad) about him, and move on. MAYBE someone in his circle can attempt to educate him. His social media actions are a private matter between his employer and agent, MAYBE. Similar to Roseanne Barr.

My point is that if Jew's oppression and historical trauma was treated the same as black oppression and historical trauma is right now, Jackson would be fired, and a pariah for a couple weeks.

Drew Breeze is not analogous. That is a strawman by both sides. I am not sure how Kap is even related to to this discussion, and I have spent plenty of time trying to lay out my opinion on that small part of society.

Analogous is a white person posting racist **** and getting their college admission yanked or fired from their job.

---

How is Kap not related? He expressed something that was not even racist but at the time offended the sensibilities of a large group of fans, mostly White fans, and he got blackballed. You are splitting hairs if you are claiming that isn't analogous. What White NFL player has been fired for posting something racist? Further, we have a number of recent cases of White players getting drafted recently after expressing offensive views, so I don't see it stopping anyone from getting a job in the NFL.

People get fired for expressing views that are offensive to others on all sides. People don't get fired for expressing views that are offensive to others on all sides. It largely depends on the timing, the publicity, how it impacts your employer and how important you are to your employer. If a kid gets into Harvard and it turns out that he publicly posted a bunch of racist crap, well, sorry, but Harvard has 20 kids just as talented who want the spot for every kid that gets one. They don't need that crap. Onto the next. NFL teams don't have 20 guys who can fill every slot. That is reality.

Jackson is getting soundly criticized, as he should.

As for whether he should "have to apologize", fine. Don't apologize. But I can criticize a public stance. Terrell Owens used to complain that people criticized him for just being T.O. Well, he can be T.O. all he wants. But in a lot of cases being T.O. was being an ass. f he wants to be an ass, people can judge him for it.

I don't get this argument. He shouldn't be fired, but he would be fired if he were White even though no one like him who has done this has been fired, but we should want him to be fired because we supposedly want others fired, but we shouldn't want him to be fired and meanwhile no one is fired.

Here is the lesson. You want to be able to do and say whatever you want without getting fired? Run a 4.3 forty. If Desean Jackson were an undrafted free agent looking for a camp invite, he wouldn't get one.

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Analogous is a white person posting racist **** and getting their college admission yanked or fired from their job.

---

Except we also have examples of white NFL players using racial slurs and being able to keep their jobs. The thing that protects DeSean here is that it's very hard to find people who can play at the NFL level and teams want to keep those guys around. College students and people who hold office jobs are another matter; they are usually replaceable.

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Analogous is a white person posting racist **** and getting their college admission yanked or fired from their job.

---

Except we also have examples of white NFL players using racial slurs and being able to keep their jobs. The thing that protects DeSean here is that it's very hard to find people who can play at the NFL level and teams want to keep those guys around. College students and people who hold office jobs are another matter; they are usually replaceable.

---

yes, that's why its analogues.

Drew isnt.

---

BancroftBear93 said:

---

Just for the record. Kaepernick sucks. He couldn't maker it as an NFL quarterback

---

BancroftBear93 said:

---

Just for the record. Kaepernick sucks. He couldn't maker it as an NFL quarterback (rare air indeed, but he couldn't) and now he is the 75% most militant black guy in the world. And got a Nike deal. Coincidence, that.

---

BancroftBear93 said:

---

Just for the record. Kaepernick sucks. He couldn't maker it as an NFL quarterback (rare air indeed, but he couldn't) and now he is the 75% most militant black guy in the world. And got a Nike deal. Coincidence, that.

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

I have a real problem with this argument: in what world is kneeling before something disrespectful or irreverent? When he began by sitting on the bench, there was an uproar. A veteran told him he supported his right to draw attention to his cause, but asked that he do so by kneeling. Kaep agreed. Now, just as I said in my previous post, because it was not disrespectful to kneel to this veteran doesn't mean that it wasn't disrespectful to others. But in making that change Kaep made it clear that his point was not to disrespect the flag or the troops, but only to draw attention to his cause.

He went out of his way to change the form of his protest to a pose that is universally recognized as deferential and respectful while still making his point, but that wasn't enough for many, which revealed their lie: nothing he could have ever done would have been respectful enough those for people because the truth is they didn't agree with his message and didn't want to hear it. It sounds like you suggested he should have instead raised a fist. I don't see how those who opposed kneeling would have found a raised fist any more palatable.

---

Obviously, the meaning of the act is subject to interpretation. But if people are standing to honor the flag/country, and a person chooses to kneel (the opposite of standing), then its not surprising that some people view that as the opposite of respecting/honoring the flag/country.

Kneeling is not "universally recognized" as deferential and respectful. Context matters. For example, if your in a Jewish synagogue and expected to stand for prayer, then kneeling is not respectful. I assume standing when you're supposed to be kneeling in a Catholic church would be the same. Context matters.

And your "nothing he could do would be good enough argument" is just silly. Kap intentionally picked a time/place that would draw maximum attention - precisely because he knew it would be offensive to many. He had lots of other options to express his message - he's not exactly shy in interviews or on twitter.

---

I think your arguments re kneeling are silly. However, it doesn't matter. As you'll see in my reply to Oaktown, I actually agree with your last paragraph, which is the more interesting discussion.

I think (and it sounds like you think) he did what he did (at first, sitting during the anthem) because he knew it'd spark a conversation because many would be outraged. However, I don't think that means the act itself was "disrespectful." I just think it means it was a well thought out protest (here we are, what 4 years later, debating it).

---

southseasbear said:

---

I don't know what bothers me more, that a fellow Cal alumnus DeSean Jackson is such a hateful antisemite or that he is a complete moron who has no idea how Hitler (whom he thought he was quoting) viewed people of African descent as subhuman.

Don't give me this blissful "ignorance" argument. Jackson grew up in LA and attended high school in Long Beach. This wasn't a rural community in the deep South where people still think Jews have tails and horns. He attended the greatest university in the history of the universe (okay, showing some bias here, but Cal is a cosmopolitan community full of brilliant people). Did he ever bother to attend class? Did he ever have a Jewish professor or classmate?

This wasn't some racist utterance that mindlessly escaped his lips and happened to be caught on camera; this was a thought out post which he took the time to type out before hitting a button to post it.

Jackson should spend some time with racist skinheads who like to quote Hitler and see how well he fits in with them.

I'm ashamed that he is a Golden Bear.

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

I don't know what bothers me more, that a fellow Cal alumnus DeSean Jackson is such a hateful antisemite or that he is a complete moron who has no idea how Hitler (whom he thought he was quoting) viewed people of African descent as subhuman.

Don't give me this blissful "ignorance" argument. Jackson grew up in LA and attended high school in Long Beach. This wasn't a rural community in the deep South where people still think Jews have tails and horns. He attended the greatest university in the history of the universe (okay, showing some bias here, but Cal is a cosmopolitan community full of brilliant people). Did he ever bother to attend class? Did he ever have a Jewish professor or classmate?

This wasn't some racist utterance that mindlessly escaped his lips and happened to be caught on camera; this was a thought out post which he took the time to type out before hitting a button to post it.

Jackson should spend some time with racist skinheads who like to quote Hitler and see how well he fits in with them.

I'm ashamed that he is a Golden Bear.

---

He pretty much blew it. I'm sure he knows it at this point.

I'm not going to degrade his intelligence, as I don't know the guy. I'm also not trying to make any excuses for him or his behavior for the same reasons.

It wouldn't be crazy to think that somebody like DJ could harbor some anger or resentment for the obvious struggles he may have endured as a Black man in America - we have in so much seen a wider expression of this type of frustration from people far less famous that DJ. I suspect that in dealing with everything that is going in the world he has probably looked for answers and insights into understanding our current reality. Part of his personal journey may have exposed him to some divisive thought leaders and some less than credible information sources. We all live in an internet world that seems at least to me, to be increasingly lacking in reliable truth. I know I have posted things online in the past that in hindsight were not what I intended to communicate, nor what represents me as a person. Sometimes when I am struggling to understand the world, express my own feelings regarding my inner conflicts I have had a bit of tunnel vision on what I read and what I say. I'm human. DJ wouldn't be the first young Black American to check out what Farrakhan has had to say. I'd like to think that in his zeal to post that he just didn't really take the time to think about it. He could have easily posted more in reaction to the whomever shared the content with him, or reacted to a single word rather than the full message, or just really doesn't possess the education or understanding to interpret the content and meaning of the message. We make him a bad guy if we choose not to forgive him. That doesn't mean he is a bad guy or a bad Bear. I think a lot of the backlash related to his situation is that given the nature of race issues many feel like he should have done better. That is probably true. But I also think that it is these times where emotion sometimes takes over critical thought that we often make our biggest blunders.

Moving foward his actions will speak for him and I hope people like Edelman and Schwartz hold him to task to be the person he himself says wasn't represented by the post. This can't be left to be just a crisis communications clean up exercise. It is on him to accept the responsibility for what he did and do it right going forward. We each have a roll in this situation too to move him in a positive direction and forgive, but not forget.

---

southseasbear said:

---

He had a 1280 SAT and then attended one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, which he left after his junior year to sign a multimillion dollar contract. I recall him working on anti-bullying campaigns, saying he had been bullied as a youth. I don't think it was bunch of Jewish kids who came to his part of town (Crenshaw district in LA, where I taught several years) to bully him.

And then he tried to brush it off saying that his posts were meant to be a unifying message. Certainly he can't be that deluded or stupid. Or can he?

---

Big C said:

---

I can't defend him in any way for this, but is there a chance he just posted something to his social media that was sent to him without really thinking about it? Because it is my experience that people of his generation and younger will do something like this rather often. Maybe it was late at night or maybe he had been drinking or smoking or whatever.

What I an getting at is, if you sat Desean down one day a couple of weeks ago when he was alert and asked him what he thought about this subject, maybe he wouldn't even have many thoughts whatsoever about it.

Maybe his mistake was largely one of foolish carelessness. We don't know what was in his head (apparently not much). At any rate, he's now responsible for it. So be it.

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

He pretty much blew it. I'm sure he knows it at this point.

I'm not going to degrade his intelligence, as I don't know the guy. I'm also not trying to make any excuses for him or his behavior for the same reasons.

It wouldn't be crazy to think that somebody like DJ could harbor some anger or resentment for the obvious struggles he may have endured as a Black man in America - we have in so much seen a wider expression of this type of frustration from people far less famous that DJ. I suspect that in dealing with everything that is going in the world he has probably looked for answers and insights into understanding our current reality. Part of his personal journey may have exposed him to some divisive thought leaders and some less than credible information sources. We all live in an internet world that seems at least to me, to be increasingly lacking in reliable truth. I know I have posted things online in the past that in hindsight were not what I intended to communicate, nor what represents me as a person. Sometimes when I am struggling to understand the world, express my own feelings regarding my inner conflicts I have had a bit of tunnel vision on what I read and what I say. I'm human. DJ wouldn't be the first young Black American to check out what Farrakhan has had to say. I'd like to think that in his zeal to post that he just didn't really take the time to think about it. He could have easily posted more in reaction to the whomever shared the content with him, or reacted to a single word rather than the full message, or just really doesn't possess the education or understanding to interpret the content and meaning of the message. We make him a bad guy if we choose not to forgive him. That doesn't mean he is a bad guy or a bad Bear. I think a lot of the backlash related to his situation is that given the nature of race issues many feel like he should have done better. That is probably true. But I also think that it is these times where emotion sometimes takes over critical thought that we often make our biggest blunders.

Moving foward his actions will speak for him and I hope people like Edelman and Schwartz hold him to task to be the person he himself says wasn't represented by the post. This can't be left to be just a crisis communications clean up exercise. It is on him to accept the responsibility for what he did and do it right going forward. We each have a roll in this situation too to move him in a positive direction and forgive, but not forget.

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

He had a 1280 SAT and then attended one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, which he left after his junior year to sign a multimillion dollar contract. I recall him working on anti-bullying campaigns, saying he had been bullied as a youth. I don't think it was bunch of Jewish kids who came to his part of town (Crenshaw district in LA, where I taught several years) to bully him.

And then he tried to brush it off saying that his posts were meant to be a unifying message. Certainly he can't be that deluded or stupid. Or can he?

---

Deluded, yes. Stupid, no. Most of us probably can claim a 1280 SAT and also attended the same planetary prestigious university. He signed a multi-million dollar contract not because of his educational pedigree, but because he is an otherworldly athlete. The bullying history is an interesting insight and I didn't know about his anti-bullying work. A lot of racism and anti-Semitic beliefs are based on the person not having much, if any, direct experience with another race or with Jewish people, as the case may be. Bigotry is most often learned from somebody, from a parent or influential adult, whose perspective is rarely challenged or questioned. I think he is, and maybe has always been, a bit juvenile and naive. Speaks to him just not being informed rather than stupid.

---

Big C said:

---

I can't defend him in any way for this, but is there a chance he just posted something to his social media that was sent to him without really thinking about it? Because it is my experience that people of his generation and younger will do something like this rather often. Maybe it was late at night or maybe he had been drinking or smoking or whatever.

What I an getting at is, if you sat Desean down one day a couple of weeks ago when he was alert and asked him what he thought about this subject, maybe he wouldn't even have many thoughts whatsoever about it.

Maybe his mistake was largely one of foolish carelessness. We don't know what was in his head (apparently not much). At any rate, he's now responsible for it. So be it.

---

okaydo said:

---

edg64 said:

---

Desean; Just shut the *****up!!

The bias and Prejudice experienced by Blacks is minuscule compared to that experienced by the Jews the past
5000 years. In fact, just the last 85 years.

---

Sure, it's much tougher to go through life as a white Jewish person than as a black person.

---

Jews, and other groups, raise their children in an environment that stresses certain values, such as;
• strong family values
• try to succeed in the social-economic system in which they live
• respect for law and order
• bring honor to their family name
• strive to achieve recognition in careers(other than sports and entertainment) despite bias/envy
• take ownership of negative experiences and failures recognizing they are mostly self inflicted

edg64 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

edg64 said:

---

Desean; Just shut the *****up!!

The bias and Prejudice experienced by Blacks is minuscule compared to that experienced by the Jews the past
5000 years. In fact, just the last 85 years.

---

Sure, it's much tougher to go through life as a white Jewish person than as a black person.

---

No, it is easier. There is a reason

Jews, and other groups, raise their children in an environment that stresses certain values, such as;

• strong family values
• try to succeed in the social-economic system in which they live
• respect for law and order
• bring honor to their family name
• strive to achieve recognition in careers(other than sports and entertainment) despite bias/envy
• take ownership of negative experiences and failures recognizing they are mostly self inflicted

I'm about as 'WASP' as a person can be, but, I found that when I became anti-social,negative results and negative recognition occurred; all self inflicted.

---

Big C said:

---

edg64 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

edg64 said:

---

Desean; Just shut the *****up!!

The bias and Prejudice experienced by Blacks is minuscule compared to that experienced by the Jews the past
5000 years. In fact, just the last 85 years.

---

Sure, it's much tougher to go through life as a white Jewish person than as a black person.

---

No, it is easier. There is a reason

Jews, and other groups, raise their children in an environment that stresses certain values, such as;
• strong family values
• try to succeed in the social-economic system in which they live
• respect for law and order
• bring honor to their family name
• strive to achieve recognition in careers(other than sports and entertainment) despite bias/envy
• take ownership of negative experiences and failures recognizing they are mostly self inflicted

I'm about as 'WASP' as a person can be, but, I found that when I became anti-social,negative results and negative recognition occurred; all self inflicted.

---

Wait, you're a WASP?!? Most of us were probably assuming you were either Black, Latino or Native American...

---

southseasbear said:

---

I don't know what bothers me more, that a fellow Cal alumnus DeSean Jackson is such a hateful antisemite or that he is a complete moron who has no idea how Hitler (whom he thought he was quoting) viewed people of African descent as subhuman.

Don't give me this blissful "ignorance" argument. Jackson grew up in LA and attended high school in Long Beach. This wasn't a rural community in the deep South where people still think Jews have tails and horns. He attended the greatest university in the history of the universe (okay, showing some bias here, but Cal is a cosmopolitan community full of brilliant people). Did he ever bother to attend class? Did he ever have a Jewish professor or classmate?

This wasn't some racist utterance that mindlessly escaped his lips and happened to be caught on camera; this was a thought out post which he took the time to type out before hitting a button to post it.

Jackson should spend some time with racist skinheads who like to quote Hitler and see how well he fits in with them.

I'm ashamed that he is a Golden Bear.

---