Originally Posted by rezburna (Post 898467)

I’m sure you’d find me co-signing your comments about his decline. Again, anybody being objective could see it coming. When you hit the age wall it’s drastic.

As far as him making the same statement a few years ago, it’s 2020. Things change from year to year...even day to day. I’m not surprised he didn’t sense the shift because I see the same thing when he’s in the pocket. That’s like me commenting on this predominantly Conservative forum and expecting back up when I start talking about the issues that matter to me. On the contrary. We’ve had many battles over every painstaking detail of said issues. I know what I’m getting myself into as soon as I leave a comment.

It’s not about him owing them. It’s about being a leader of men. He thought he could say whatever and his troops would rally behind him and he thought wrong. The troops said **** you. That’s on him and nobody else. Just because you’re asked a question doesn’t mean you have to answer it. No comment is simple. You can even tell reporters not to ask you about certain things. Again, no other QB had this issue. If you wanna lead some **** you better learn how to play politics.

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 898470)

You make a couple of fatal errors. One, that you believe it's cool for grown men to drastically shift in their ability to tolerate the same comment from just 3 years or so ago, to now. You make it sound like he said something in 1989, and now, 31 years later, he says it again. I mean, that's just absurd.

Second, sports aren't supposed to even be about politics. You're sitting there telling him he should learn to play politics, but these guys played the worst "game" of politics imaginable when they started protesting during the anthem. No one prompted them. Drew was asked a question. And he gave a VERY politically correct answer. He went out of his way to not disrespect their cause. He just wanted the method to move away from it's current form. And if they didn't have a problem with him saying that before, why now? When did being a "leader of men" start to involve mind reading capabilities? His job was to lead a football team. How much time do you think they spend talking about each other's feelings?

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 898466)

You don't seem to understand what I even mean by "straw man". It's not about a "form of speech". I don't care if you write like Shakespeare, or big bubba down the street. Your straw man was arguing that Neither Thomas nor Jenkins has advocated for violence, when that is not the argument anyone was making. My OJ comment was very clearly an analogy (which I specifically stated) to explain how one doesn't have to "be there" in order to draw certain conclusions. I thought of the most likely real life situation that I thought you'd be familiar with to make an analogy. I don't think that's rocket science, friend. And I think you knew exactly what I was doing. So, with all due respect, I'd appreciate it if you'd spare me the drivel about this being a public forum, and not peer reviewed, and holding people to a different standard than myself. None of that had anything to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by rezburna (Post 898472)

I don’t know how it’s a fatal error when it is what it is evidenced by the reaction he got. Three years later these men are more emboldened in their stances and are unafraid to be heard. Attitudes changed. There’s no other way to put it out. Information is shared much faster in from 2017 to 2020 than from 1986 to 1989.

Also, if sports aren’t about politics then they never should have started showing the anthem and making a big spectacle out of it for every single game. That was a political decision.

He said what he said. He got the reaction he got. If he hadn’t of said what he said it wouldn’t be an issue. His response was very politically correct, but this is the age of sound bites and headlines. This **** isn’t anything new. I’m sure he’s had PR and media training.

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 898476)

It is what it is? He's wrong for not "reading" them, based solely on the fact that their reaction was different this time? Do you not see the obvious flaw in that logic? You are asking him to look into the future to know that they would react differently, so as to say something else that would not have prompted the reaction he got.

Information being shared faster has nothing to do with attitudes changing. There is no new information. It's the same tired BS, about racial injustice, while these guys are making millions to play a game, and black neighborhoods are shooting each other up. No one can predict how irrational people can suddenly become.

Your quip about the anthem being political is perhaps the most egregiously pathetic thing I have read on this site. The anthem is about AMERICA. It's not about whites, or blacks, or Hispanics, or Democrats, Republicans, males, females, rich people or poor people. It's the National Anthem. What people choose to fabricate about the song is their problem. Every country has a national anthem, and they all play it before they play a game in their native land. It's standard.

You appeared to agree with me at the end of your post, saying "his response was very politically correct", but confusingly tried to explain away how he was still wrong, because it's the age of sound bites. If his answer was politically correct (it was), then why should he have been concerned about the sound bites and headlines? Of course he knows about those things. Why do you think his answer WAS so politically correct? You're going in circles, man.

Originally Posted by gosaints1 (Post 898475)

One standard, apply it to both sides of that commentary. Did free speech, on either side encourage violence? The answer is no, from everything I’ve read. Therefore, it’s my belief neither Thomas or Jenkins didn’t need to address that behind doors, I wouldn’t have. That is not a “straw man”..., in any way, shape or form. The entire discussion revolves around the commentary from Jenkins and Thomas, it’s 100% proper to ask the very simple question:

“Did either side encourage violence through their social media platforms?”

Spare me the drivel about “straw- man” arguments, lol. Everything you’ve ever stated is some form of formal/informal fallacious arguments..., same for me. It’s just opinions, they’re neither right..., nor wrong.

Originally Posted by rezburna (Post 898478)

He didn’t have to look into the future. He could look at the right now. Who couldn’t see that tensions were high and the players were all more vocal? Players had been explaining how it isn’t about the flag for 3 years and he led his statement off focusing on said flag and tried to clean it up afterwards. Politically correct? Sure. Out of touch with his teammates? Definitely.

As far as the politics behind the spectacle:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...rnd/index.html

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 898479)

You're just repeating yourself. I'm not making any fallacious arguments. I never said they advocated for violence, and neither did anyone else. I've said that at least three times now. You seem to be confused in thinking that the argument is about making those two players stop the death threats. That's not the point. The point is that if they hadn't overreacted and made it such a public display, no one would have cared. It's the mob mentality. I'm sure you've heard of it. One prominent person decides to take issue with something, and a bunch of people follow. For some, they resort to violence, or threats of violence. I agree that neither of those players can be held DIRECTLY responsible for any specific threats. But by showing a united front, publicly, while handling your disagreements behind closed doors, goes a long way toward diffusing the mob. Again, that's how that mob mentality works. They tend to follow the lead of those they look up to. Sometimes taking it to the extremes.

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 898481)

Them saying that it "wasn't about the flag" was a lie, on two counts. The first being that, as I stated before, no one is arguing that the flag, itself, as in the piece of cloth, is what they were protesting. We all, including Drew, understood that the argument coming from the players is that they supposedly saw the flag has some hypocritical symbol of freedom, based on their perception of racial injustice. Which brings me to the second part. Yes, in that regard, it WAS about the flag. This was coming straight from the players mouths. And it was further evidenced by the fact that at NO OTHER point did they protest. Only during the Anthem.

And so what Drew, and many people across the country, including myself have said, is that if you have some kind of grievance, take it elsewhere to the people who you think can solve your perceived problem. The flag is about America. If you believe there is racial inequality, and you REALLY want unity, then you don't accomplish that goal by dividing people during a time when we are celebrating our collective freedom. That is divisive.

Players were vocal about many things, but Drew wasn't addressing any of those issues. He was only stating his opinion on the method. Saying "it's not about the flag" is a non sequitur. It's that you protest during the anthem and in front of the flag. So either they are lying when they say it's not about the flag (they are), or if it's not about the flag, then you don't protest at that exact time, and no other time. Because no one believes you when you do that.

And if they can't respect another's opinion enough to at least address him man to man, before blowing up on twitter, then their opinions don't deserve respect. Period.

And you've got to be kidding with the CNN link. The anthem is about patriotism. Not politics. If you aren't patriotic, fine. Go sit on the bench. People won't respect you for it, but it's a free country, after all. However, protesting during that time, is another thing altogether.