Idiocracy

[Kin]

He's a 20-year-old from Arizona, I'm certain he has been raised to have that attitude.

The fact though that he recognizes people's right to protest, regardless of his own feelings, is important.

I'm not inclined to look to a 20 year old kid on this one and really drag him over his opinion but this is an insanely low bar. "Sure, I think he's wrong on substance but you have to give him credit for acknowledging one of the basic precepts of a free society"?

Granted yesterday revealed that there are a lot of people, including the President of the United States, who wouldn't clear that bar but still.

 

[Frank E]

https://twitter.com/So_Truculent/status/912332056385990658

I don't disagree with this either. Reporters are focusing on the wrong issue in regards to this topic.

Oh good, we're back to blaming the media. 

 

[Kin]

From Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

and

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

From Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

and

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

What is your point?

You think the average "undecided" voter now has the same societal outlook as one in the 1960's?

I don't get the urge to vilify, if the path to enlightenment is 100 steps, why berate the person on step 50 instead of helping to guide them along the path?

Of course, if people are unwilling to listen, that deserves ridicule.

 

[Bill_Berg]

From Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

and

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

What is your point?

You think the average "undecided" voter now has the same societal outlook as one in the 1960's?

I don't get the urge to vilify, if the path to enlightenment is 100 steps, why berate the person on step 50 instead of helping to guide them along the path?

Of course, if people are unwilling to listen, that deserves ridicule.

I think the point is that some people on step 50 think they've gone far enough.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

From Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

and

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

What is your point?

You think the average "undecided" voter now has the same societal outlook as one in the 1960's?

I don't get the urge to vilify, if the path to enlightenment is 100 steps, why berate the person on step 50 instead of helping to guide them along the path?

Of course, if people are unwilling to listen, that deserves ridicule.

I think the point is that some people on step 50 think they've gone far enough.

Of course and I addressed that, but if they've come this far, try to help them come the whole way instead of labeling them monsters and turning them the other way.

Of course, there will be those that don't listen and deserve contempt, but all too often people are quick to dismiss others who don't, at the moment, agree with them wholeheartedly.

 

[Kin]

What is your point?

Well, I think King's point there was two-fold. One, that the purpose of non-violent protest is not to be gentle or to assuage the sensibilities of moderate people. Rather that direct action that is specifically designed to afflict the comfortable is meant to take a form that can't be easily ignored.

Secondly, I think what King was saying was the people who, when confronted with protests that make them uncomfortable, take primary issue with the method of protest as opposed to the injustice being faced tend to be people who, when not disrupted by said protest, tend to also not be actively seeking to upend injustice. They're people who may give lip service to positive change, don't actually fight for it. To borrow your metaphor I think what King was saying was that there are a lot of people who get up to step 50 and choose to enjoy the view rather than keep on climbing and he found those people more challenging than the extreme few who didn't try at all.

And, you know, I'd like to agree with you when you sort of incredulously ask me if I think we haven't made just tons of tons of progress since King but this last year has raised doubts for me. America responded to its first black President by electing the first overtly racist President since...I don't even know. Even Nixon was racist in private.

 

[Kin]

I think the point is that some people on step 50 think they've gone far enough.

Yeah, that's part of it. But I also think the first part there is about misconceptions about the best way to, to abandon the metaphor, spur people to action. I think there's an unfortunate sanitizing of people like King by people who think that he was about friendly pats on the back and handholding and gentle encouragement to win people over with ideas and that eventually his eloquence and optimism won out whereas I think if you really read him rather than sanctify him you see he felt people needed to be pushed.

I'm no expert in King or the Civil Rights movement in general but I think it's important to read things like Letter from a Birmingham Jail and see just how frustrated someone like King was with the idea that you should be super-patient with people who have the privilege of being a "moderate" on issues that so drastically affect people's lives.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

What is your point?

Well, I think King's point there was two-fold. One, that the purpose of non-violent protest is not to be gentle or to assuage the sensibilities of moderate people. Rather that direct action that is specifically designed to afflict the comfortable is meant to take a form that can't be easily ignored.

Secondly, I think what King was saying was the people who, when confronted with protests that make them uncomfortable, take primary issue with the method of protest as opposed to the injustice being faced tend to be people who, when not disrupted by said protest, tend to also not be actively seeking to upend injustice. They're people who may give lip service to positive change, don't actually fight for it. To borrow your metaphor I think what King was saying was that there are a lot of people who get up to step 50 and choose to enjoy the view rather than keep on climbing and he found those people more challenging than the extreme few who didn't try at all.

And, you know, I'd like to agree with you when you sort of incredulously ask me if I think we haven't made just tons of tons of progress since King but this last year has raised doubts for me. America responded to its first black President by electing the first overtly racist President since...I don't even know. Even Nixon was racist in private.

Thank you for expanding and I don't disagree with any of that.

What I have a problem with though is just retreating back into our "teams" and refusing to talk to those who don't agree with us, society has never progressed that way.

As you said this past year has been a disaster, it's also been encouraging to see so many people step up and speak out about what they believe is right.

I honestly don't know many people who were "on step 50" that have looked at what has happened this past year and have passively just shrugged it off.

The majority of right-minded people are appalled at what is happening.

Lastly, the Electoral College elected Trump, more people voted against him than voted for him, it might be splitting hairs, but in these times where it's easy to be cynical, cling to that.

My hope is that young people and most reasonable people will have been mobilized by the absurdity of 45 and they'll show their power in the coming midterms.

Although, with citizens united still on the books, I'm not sure how realistic it is.

 

[Kin]

What I have a problem with though is just retreating back into our "teams" and refusing to talk to those who don't agree with us, society has never progressed that way.

Right, ok. I mainly agree with that. Where I guess we might disagree is whether the tone of that ongoing conversation needs to be more about the subtle art of persuasion as opposed to the forceful emphasis of how badly change is needed.

To be clear, I don't think that's an easy answer because I agree the first is more politic but I sometimes think that a lot of what we see wrong now is the result of trying to be politic as opposed to conveying the immediacy of a need for positive change. While I sympathize with the argument for political considerations I also don't think you want to then come down on the side of tone-policing the people who are on the front lines of the struggle.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

What I have a problem with though is just retreating back into our "teams" and refusing to talk to those who don't agree with us, society has never progressed that way.

Right, ok. I mainly agree with that. Where I guess we might disagree is whether the tone of that ongoing conversation needs to be more about the subtle art of persuasion as opposed to the forceful emphasis of how badly change is needed.

To be clear, I don't think that's an easy answer because I agree the first is more politic but I sometimes think that a lot of what we see wrong now is the result of trying to be politic as opposed to conveying the immediacy of a need for positive change. While I sympathize with the argument for political considerations I also don't think you want to then come down on the side of tone-policing the people who are on the front lines of the struggle.

I mainly agree, we do have to be careful and have many strings to our bow.

If all you have is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

None of this is easy and a different approach will be needed to reach different people.

We need to stop dealing in absolutes on every issue and start finding common ground, it needs to be less about winning and more about doing what's right.

As for protesting police brutality, it's obvious that we need to address that as a matter of urgency.

What isn't productive is looking at a young man who supports your right to protest, even though it's in a manner he has been raised to find inappropriate and vilifying him, which has absolutely happened on social media this morning.

In that situation, you have a conversation with him about the real reasons for the protest, which most of the media have avoided, and help him to understand.

If at that point he is unreceptive, then we have a problem.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/mitchrosset/status/912344957460942849
https://twitter.com/mitchrosset/status/912345227096027136
https://twitter.com/mitchrosset/status/912345828487872513
https://twitter.com/mitchrosset/status/912350031579037697

Now I like the Jets. Trump really has gone too far.

 

[Kin]

What isn't productive is looking at a young man who supports your right to protest, even though it's in a manner he has been raised to find inappropriate and vilifying him, which has absolutely happened on social media this morning.

You know, as a religious minority myself something I thought was a little unfortunate was that Nazem Kadri was expected to be sort of the flag-bearer for Muslims in the NHL and answer questions about travel bans and the like regardless of whether or not he wanted that attention

Conversely, I also know as that religious minority that while I had a problem with everyone who supported Trump in the immediate aftermath of Charlottesville I had a very specific reaction to any Jewish members of his administration who would support him after that.

So without wanting to speak to the specifics of social media happenings I'm not party to, all I'd say is that because of Matthews' own particular ethnic heritage some people out there might expect more of him and while I can see how that can be a lot to put on someone I'm also not inclined to dismiss it out of hand either.

 

[Kin]

And just to say one more thing on the topic. Because I like to think of myself as someone who does try to at least understand all sides of an issue even if I very much disagree with a side I did wonder, this weekend, how I would feel if Carey Price or another player of Native descent decided to kneel for the Canadian anthem because of the treatment of our First Nations people. Or, alternately, if an opposing player refused to stand for the Israeli national anthem to protest the ongoing conflict there.

And what I keep coming back to is this is why it is a bad idea to conflate sports and nationalism. This is why it's a bad idea to play the anthem, and demand everyone respond in the same way to the anthem. No matter how benign or benevolent you think your country is I think even a basic level of empathy would recognize that not all people feel the same way about nationalistic identity and the symbols of it. Demanding they do is creepy.

Because let's be real. It's performative. I'm pretty confident that nobody here, watching Hockey Night at home, stands up and removes their hat for the Anthem. We probably keep sitting and eating or talking or whatever.

Playing the anthem is inherently political and we don't demand it of every public gathering. We don't do it at concerts or at movies or the theatre. You can't demand a political statement like "everyone now perform their rote, required daily patriotism" and then be offended ; when people want to have their own political moment.

tl;dr We shouldn't play national anthems before sporting events. Patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

What isn't productive is looking at a young man who supports your right to protest, even though it's in a manner he has been raised to find inappropriate and vilifying him, which has absolutely happened on social media this morning.

You know, as a religious minority myself something I thought was a little unfortunate was that Nazem Kadri was expected to be sort of the flag-bearer for Muslims in the NHL and answer questions about travel bans and the like regardless of whether or not he wanted that attention

Conversely, I also know as that religious minority that while I had a problem with everyone who supported Trump in the immediate aftermath of Charlottesville I had a very specific reaction to any Jewish members of his administration who would support him after that.

So without wanting to speak to the specifics of social media happenings I'm not party to, all I'd say is that because of Matthews' own particular ethnic heritage some people out there might expect more of him and while I can see how that can be a lot to put on someone I'm also not inclined to dismiss it out of hand either.

That's fair, I just object to those that are twisting what he said without giving him the opportunity to fully expand/understand on the issue.

For example, both TSN and The Score ran stories/tweets with the headline "Matthews says it's disrespectful to kneel during anthem" that's not accurately representing what he really said and it twists his words to get people's attention.

Lastly, in case anyone has misunderstood any of what I'm saying, as someone in a mixed race marriage in the American south, with a young son who is inevitably going to be the victim of prejudice, I try extremely hard to stay informed and on the right side of most of these issues and i'm sorry if I haven't adequately expressed that.

 

[Zee]

And just to say one more thing on the topic. Because I like to think of myself as someone who does try to at least understand all sides of an issue even if I very much disagree with a side I did wonder, this weekend, how I would feel if Carey Price or another player of Native descent decided to kneel for the Canadian anthem because of the treatment of our First Nations people. Or, alternately, if an opposing player refused to stand for the Israeli national anthem to protest the ongoing conflict there.

And what I keep coming back to is this is why it is a bad idea to conflate sports and nationalism. This is why it's a bad idea to play the anthem, and demand everyone respond in the same way to the anthem. No matter how benign or benevolent you think your country is I think even a basic level of empathy would recognize that not all people feel the same way about nationalistic identity and the symbols of it. Demanding they do is creepy.

Because let's be real. It's performative. I'm pretty confident that nobody here, watching Hockey Night at home, stands up and removes their hat for the Anthem. We probably keep sitting and eating or talking or whatever.

Playing the anthem is inherently political and we don't demand it of every public gathering. We don't do it at concerts or at movies or the theatre. You can't demand a political statement like "everyone now perform their rote, required daily patriotism" and then be offended ; when people want to have their own political moment.

tl;dr We shouldn't play national anthems before sporting events. Patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.

This is Nik's greatest ever post.

 

[hockeyfan1]

So, we should ban anthem-playing at the Olympics and other international events (even though it is often played after a recipient receives Gold on the podium, and in team sports -- ice hockey for instance -- after a win).

What about during the NHL playoffs?  No anthem, zilch?
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I do enjoy the anthem played during the above-mentioned, at least.

 

[louisstamos]

So, we should ban anthem-playing at the Olympics and other international events (even though it is often played after a recipient receives Gold on the podium, and in team sports -- ice hockey for instance -- after a win).

What about during the NHL playoffs?  No anthem, zilch?
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I do enjoy the anthem played during the above-mentioned, at least.

I'm okay with the anthem in international tournaments such as the Olympics, World Cup, etc, because it is about countries and nationalism in those cases.

Playoffs, though?  Meh.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm okay with the anthem in international tournaments such as the Olympics, World Cup, etc, because it is about countries and nationalism in those cases.

Playoffs, though?  Meh.

Agreed. When national teams are playing, then you play the anthem of the winning team after to game to acknowledge their victory. No national teams? No anthems.

 

[herman]

Alejandro Villanueva, Army veteran and Steelers offensive linesman, became an overnight hero for conservative Americans by being the sole Pittsburgh Steeler to stand for the anthem after the powder keg some buffoon's Twittering set off over the weekend. His jersey is currently the number one bestseller.

Turns out he came out for the anthem by accident, after the team decided to stay in the tunnel in a predetermined display of unity.

https://sports.yahoo.com/alejandro-villanueva-takes-blame-standing-anthem-223017948.html

?I made my teammates look bad, and that is my fault only,? Villanueva said, according to KDKA. ?We as a team tried to figure it out, but obviously butchered it.

?For anybody who thinks Coach Tomlin is not as patriotic as you can get in America, I?m offended by that,? Villanueva said. ?I made Coach Tomlin look bad, and that is my fault, and my fault only.?

Villanueva said his teammates are extremely supportive and patriotic. And he said he has no problem with anyone who kneels during the anthem.

?I will support all my teammates, and all my teammates and all my coaches have always supported me,? Villanueva said.