• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NFL owners approve team-by-team national anthem policy, will allow players to remain in locker room

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
It doesn't really feel like following the new league guidelines on protesting is really going to feel like protesting anymore. Just seems like they're trying to entice people to just not show up so people aren't offended.

...but like wasn't the point of the whole kneeling controversy in the first place that people wanted to be seen and heard? Not pushed aside or hidden away?
 

manfestival

Member
This is a way to take the controversy out of protesting. Basically, go find another way to protest. NFL wins again.
 
so, is it up to the team rather or not they want their players kneeling during the anthem? like Team A would not be okay with players kneeling while Team B is fine with it?
 
Oh boy, I can predict the reactions. I prefer that companies try to be as open in regards to free speech, but then again, this is essentially wrecking with the company itself and the manner of protest really fails at making a point with it happening around national symbols like the national anthem. Slighting flags and national anthems is a terrible way to protest imo, symbolically you're attacking the concept of the nation and its inhabitants, including yourself.

I can totally see why they're doing this, trying to move past this whole thing, as it's just destructive. It's a tough situation, in the current polarized environment of the US.
 
Where's the clamor for their right to a platform? What about the players' "freedom of speech"?

If you want to kneel at a publicly funded college, go for it. Your place of employment doesn't owe you a platform of any kind, as long as you're saying anything the least bit divisive. That would apply just as much to someone on the sidelines holding an "I support our police!" sign.
 

xandaca

Member
There's no reason for this whatsoever. Kneeling is in no way disrespectful and Kaepernick went out of his way to ensure his protest did not come across as anti-American or anti-military. A lot is justifiably said about the free speech ramifications of no-platforming, shouting down and sometimes violent protesting from left-affiliated groups, but this is every bit as much the right policing speech (albeit in a different way). If you've supported the likes of Peterson defending free speech, I see no reason the right to make these sorts of peaceful, harmless protests shouldn't have your support as well.
 

Moneal

Member
You don't have a platform in the workplace and the workplace doesn't have to give you one. If they want to protest outside of work, they can and should if they believe in the cause. Imagine you are at the grocery store checking out. You are all ready to get rung up and the cashier stops and says I'm taking a knee for police brutality. It would be rediculous and people would complain to the manager, and it would be stopped or the cashier would be fired. Its the same for the NFL, while they are out on the field either for practice or game time and during press time, they are on the clock. This would be an issue for me if they were being fined or cut for protesting in the offseason or any other non practice/game time. Your employer gets to control your speech while you are on the clock, and once off they can fuck off.
 
If you want to kneel at a publicly funded college, go for it. Your place of employment doesn't owe you a platform of any kind, as long as you're saying anything the least bit divisive. That would apply just as much to someone on the sidelines holding an "I support our police!" sign.
I think the other person was comparing to republicans/alt-right members having a platform to players kneeling. I believe that was how the incident in Charlottesville started last year. Because some college wouldn't give Milo to speak at their college.
 
There's no reason for this whatsoever. Kneeling is in no way disrespectful and Kaepernick went out of his way to ensure his protest did not come across as anti-American or anti-military. A lot is justifiably said about the free speech ramifications of no-platforming, shouting down and sometimes violent protesting from left-affiliated groups, but this is every bit as much the right policing speech (albeit in a different way). If you've supported the likes of Peterson defending free speech, I see no reason the right to make these sorts of peaceful, harmless protests shouldn't have your support as well.

There's a big difference here and one of them being that one of them is on his job in a private business. Do your work allow you to say or do whatever you want? No, it doesn't, it might let you say a lot or choose to do various things, but it always has to consider if it has negative effects on the company. You can't just act however you want in your workplace. There's still numerous of ways for the players to protest, numerous ways for they to convey the message. Personally the choice of staying in the wardrobe seems more fitting as a protest. Kneeling is a bad symbolic gesture, as it generally is a sign of submission as well. It would be better if they just held a sign, while still standing for the national anthem. That's better than just sitting, which fuels the image of spoiled, out-of-touch apathetic athletes.
Kneeling to the national anthem will be perceived anti-American, that thing is the symbol of over 320 million individuals (the concept of protest is an objection, what does objecting to the national anthem object to?). It's not insightful commentary, it's just attention grabbing. You need to commit to a pretty hard message to use the national anthem as something you protest against, which would either be patriotism itself or just not believing in the concept of America as a nation or viewing it as rotten. Those are legitimate positions to take and the US allows you to take this position, but people can allow you the right to something and still think you're shitty for the way you exercise it. Especially as the concept of the nation isn't necessarily connected to the state and especially not specific actors of the state.
Kaepernick tries to pretend he's not attacking the concept of America, but he is doing this broad statement of "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.". Which would be fine if he committed to it, which would be in fact an attack on the concept of America as a nation, using the national anthem. This makes sense, unlike his rejection of "anti-American" sentiments in it. Flags and anthems are more complicated than states, meaning that not standing for the flag sends a message about the nation and not the state apparatus necessarily.

All of it has basically been a shitshow and since it became one, the company decided that taking attention. Newspapers can still report "team x stayed in the wardrobe during the anthem in protest of y", so it's one of these weird situations where people are just interested in the subject as a cultural war. The current political polarization just turns every minor thing into a big deal and just gives more and more attention to it, which would be akin to the Streisand effect I imagine. Just look at Milo Yiannopoulos, who gained fame for people's inability to deal with him speaking, or this case, which just rose up from outrage.
To get to the point, the protest was fine until it become disruptive to the business, understandably. That's why they've decided to move the attention away from the anthem, allowing other forms of protest. A better the debate would being forced to do an action, like standing for the anthem or doing something that goes against what you believe in, would be ethically right in your line of work based on terms of contract. I also am surprised that a type of protest separated from the anthem wasn't made room for, that'd be a good compromise, allowing attention from camera or even a mic. That'd be the better way to solve this.
 
If you want to kneel at a publicly funded college, go for it. Your place of employment doesn't owe you a platform of any kind, as long as you're saying anything the least bit divisive. That would apply just as much to someone on the sidelines holding an "I support our police!" sign.

I thought ppl who supported the firing of firing of James Damore were rare around these parts.

I...stand...corrected.
 

bigedole

Member
I thought ppl who supported the firing of firing of James Damore were rare around these parts.

I...stand...corrected.

What a silly comparison. I know you're just trying to be cheeky, but Damore was posting in an environment where all employees were encouraged to do so. That said, I actually do support Google's right to fire him, I just think the company is ridiculous and I hope Damore et al wins buckets of money in their class action suit.
 
I thought ppl who supported the firing of firing of James Damore were rare around these parts.

I...stand...corrected.

The difference is nothing about James Damore went public until it was leaked. The equivalent would be an NFL player saying something like "fuck America if this is how they treat black people" in the locker room, and someone recorded it and leaked it, and then the NFL fired them. Even then it's not quite a good analogy, because they wouldn't be criticizing the NFL.

But if Damore publicly criticized google as being too liberal before the memo leaked, he should have been fired. Don't shit where you eat, and don't harm your brand. The REAL problem for google is whoever leaked the memo. Was that part ever fully explained?
 
Last edited:

TheMikado

Banned
so, is it up to the team rather or not they want their players kneeling during the anthem? like Team A would not be okay with players kneeling while Team B is fine with it?

That's absolutely correct.

So for instance the Ravens may say its cool, but the Cowboys may not.

Players also wouldn't be individually penalized but a team has a reason not to keep the player since the team gets fine, likewise a player may choose not to play for Dallas if they want.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Sounds fair. Most workplaces are not going to allow protesting at the workplace. The rule is already in the books and they agree to it when entering the league. Players can protest in their own time.
 

Ke0

Member
If you want to kneel at a publicly funded college, go for it. Your place of employment doesn't owe you a platform of any kind, as long as you're saying anything the least bit divisive. That would apply just as much to someone on the sidelines holding an "I support our police!" sign.

But in the US your place of employment (and schools) can't force you to stand for the pledge, why is the NFL an exception to that?
 
D

Deleted member 713885

Unconfirmed Member
But in the US your place of employment (and schools) can't force you to stand for the pledge, why is the NFL an exception to that?

The NFL is first and foremost an entertainment industry. Which means it relies on advertisers/TV money.

When it comes to entertainment you keep the advertisers happy first and foremost. Smile and wave at the camera. Or be fined/fired.
You have to not alienate ANYONE.

Your using bought and paid for time for your own social commentary.
Maybe if the contracts said "players will do XYZ" but that dont. Advertisers pay to see proud American boys play football. That's it.
 

Ke0

Member
The NFL is first and foremost an entertainment industry. Which means it relies on advertisers/TV money.

When it comes to entertainment you keep the advertisers happy first and foremost. Smile and wave at the camera. Or be fined/fired.
You have to not alienate ANYONE.

Your using bought and paid for time for your own social commentary.
Maybe if the contracts said "players will do XYZ" but that dont. Advertisers pay to see proud American boys play football. That's it.

So the NFL is an acceptable exception to rules of employers? Kinda dilutes the whole "it's your job" argument a little.
 
But in the US your place of employment (and schools) can't force you to stand for the pledge, why is the NFL an exception to that?

You pretty much have to go to school, and it's a state and federally supported public institution. I wouldn't think it would be good to make people stand for the pledge there. If the words "under God" are said, there's also the issue of church and state.

And I suppose making players stand for the anthem would be a form of compelled speech, so allowing players to remain in the locker room makes sense as a way of avoiding the issue. I would imagine that they can't force you to stand, but they can force you to not kneel.

It's still a joke that snowflakes found this type of protesting offensive.

I don't really care about people insulting the flag / national anthem, I care about companies protecting their brand from controversy, and the idea that people shouldn't protest at work.
 

JDB

Banned
I don't really care about people insulting the flag / national anthem, I care about companies protecting their brand from controversy, and the idea that people shouldn't protest at work.
Sure I can see that. The fact that it even became an issue is something else, though.
 

Future

Member
The nfl had a drop in ratings so they gotta blame something.... why not these protests. In all honesty the solution isn’t that bad. So much so that I wonder if it will actually quell any controversy. If players don’t participate on the field at all then that news story will get picked up, Donald trump will still cry about it, and the nfl will still make the news over it
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
I wonder what they're going to blame next once their ratings continue to stay at this level or tank even more?
 

Composer

Member
"You guys should protest in the protest-only zones. Make sure you wear your protest-only badges and to fill out the protest forms."
 
People act like the NFL has a lot of power here, but it really doesn't. It's easy to sack a grocery bagger for protesting during office hours. If players still continued to kneel in mass, they're fucked. They're hoping that this will quell the dissent, but I'm hoping a lot of players will escalate things. I'm kind of thinking this will be the end of it though.
 
The nfl had a drop in ratings so they gotta blame something.... why not these protests. In all honesty the solution isn’t that bad. So much so that I wonder if it will actually quell any controversy. If players don’t participate on the field at all then that news story will get picked up, Donald trump will still cry about it, and the nfl will still make the news over it

Eh, there's really nothing to boo once players stay in the locker rooms. But I guess we'll see.
 

O.v.e.rlord

Banned
protests don’t belong in the work place. I can’t be at a meeting my entire department stand up take off my pants and scream “I protest pants” I’d get fired. One for exposing myself at my place of employment. And second using company time, which I’m being paid for to push my political views of not wearing pants. When players put on that uniform and step on to the field and are paid to, they are no longer a person. They are a brand. They don’t have the right to do whatever they want on the feild. I see this as a good compromise.
 

ickythingz

Banned
I'm still not going back to watching, Roger. I used to spend a lot of money on merchandise too.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Banned
I think the kneeling during the anthem doesn't accomplish much besides baiting people into some race/culture/politics war. Statements like "America oppresses blacks" - what specifically did he mean? Police brutality? Systemic racism? America is such a huge place too, and many states are very different. To me kneeling just trivializes the whole issue and does more bad than good.

As for whether they should be allowed, I would have said yes, but now I see that indeed as an employee you must adhere to some code of conduct that the employer lays out. For example, at my work if I make a fool of myself and therby making fun of my company on social media I can risk termination. These football players have plenty of fans and plenty of platforms they can use elsewhere in a respectable and constructive way. So far it's pretty evident their kneeling hasn't accomplished much besides piss off fans.
 

camelCase

Member
Where's the clamor for their right to a platform? What about the players' "freedom of speech"?
They get paid to do a very specific job and are compensated handsomely to do it. No one would flinch if someone got fired for doing this at their place of work.
 
This is exactly why I think that GAF is on decline (replied to moderation topic yesterday). How can anyone be OK with this? This policy is dumb as fuck. Who cares what players do? They all get paid to play football not to standard during anthem. Also what happened to freedom of speech that I heard is so respected on GAF?
 
Last edited:
This is exactly why I think that GAF is on decline (replied to moderation topic yesterday). How can anyone be OK with this? This policy is dumb as fuck. Who cares what players do? They all get paid to play football not to standard during anthem. Also what happened to freedom of speech that I heard is so respected on GAF?

Well now they want to use the private company remark that liberals used against Damore, because they don't like kaep's message.

Kaepernick is a case of peace over justice, where the tolerance tank was very quick to run out of gas. People just wanna move on.
 

Moneal

Member
Well now they want to use the private company remark that liberals used against Damore, because they don't like kaep's message.

Kaepernick is a case of peace over justice, where the tolerance tank was very quick to run out of gas. People just wanna move on.


Was Kaepernick asked to provide feedback on police brutality by the NFL? Thats where it differs from the Damore case. Damore was asked to provide feedback on a seminar he attended by the company. He did just that. Kaepernick wasn't asked by the NFL to do anything and used the NFL's, his employer, television reach to spread his personal cause. This would be akin to Damore changing the google home page to push the studies that he cited. An employee using the company platform to push a personal cause isn't going to fly in almost all companies.
 
Was Kaepernick asked to provide feedback on police brutality by the NFL? Thats where it differs from the Damore case. Damore was asked to provide feedback on a seminar he attended by the company. He did just that. Kaepernick wasn't asked by the NFL to do anything and used the NFL's, his employer, television reach to spread his personal cause. This would be akin to Damore changing the google home page to push the studies that he cited. An employee using the company platform to push a personal cause isn't going to fly in almost all companies.

Damore did a lot more than just provide feedback. Feedback is "these diversity programs make me (and people like me) feel excluded". That's feedback, not all of those unecessary extras that he put in.

Kaepernick is an example of free speech being disrupted, but as long as people admit that they are variable and inconsistent, then it's fine. His kneeling was bad for business, we get it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moneal

Member
Damore did a lot more than just provide feedback. Feedback is "these diversity programs make me (and people like me) feel excluded". That's feedback, not all of those unecessary extras that he put in.

Kaepernick is an example of free speech being disrupted, but as long as people admit that they are variable and inconsistent, then it's fine. His kneeling was bad for business, we get it.

Those unnecessary extras were ways to actually produce an outcome that the seminar was pushing for, along with studies backing up the claims. That is actual feedback. He didn't feel excluded by the seminar. That happened after he was attacked and fired.

Who stopped Kaepernick from kneeling? How was his free speech disrupted. He was still on the team an kneeling each game until his contract ran out. You might be able to say that about players in the upcoming season, but not about Kaepernick.

Again, I don't know anyone that doesn't own their own business that can use the companies image to promote their personal cause. That was exactly what Kaepernick was doing and did until his contract expired, and he didn't get hired by another team.
 
Damore did a lot more than just provide feedback. Feedback is "these diversity programs make me (and people like me) feel excluded". That's feedback, not all of those unecessary extras that he put in.

Kaepernick is an example of free speech being disrupted, but as long as people admit that they are variable and inconsistent, then it's fine. His kneeling was bad for business, we get it.

A somewhat more fitting Kaepernick / Damore analogy: Kaepernick believed that the NFL should do more to hire non-white Quarterbacks, he wrote an internal memo critical of the NFL in this respect, the memo was somehow leaked, and the NFL fired Kaepernick for making them look bad.

If Damore went public with his criticism before the leak, or if Google can prove that he leaked the memo, he should have been fired. I also don't think that Kaepernick should be fired for any of this, which is another large difference.

And yes, Damore did a lot more than just say "I think Google's hiring practices are putting male applicants at a disadvantage." He also essentially said "here are some changes Google should consider making as a company that would encourage more women to work for Google, which would be a good thing for the families of google employees everywhere." The monster.

If a female Google employee created a memo about this article / study:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women-better-leaders-men-study-a7658781.html

and she suggested that Women would make better leaders at Google, do you think she should be fired for making her workplace a hostile environment for men?
 
Those unnecessary extras were ways to actually produce an outcome that the seminar was pushing for, along with studies backing up the claims. That is actual feedback. He didn't feel excluded by the seminar. That happened after he was attacked and fired.

His gender and political stereotyping crossed the line, created division, and gave google a reason to fire him. His group generalizations lead to individuals getting judged.

Who stopped Kaepernick from kneeling? How was his free speech disrupted. He was still on the team an kneeling each game until his contract ran out. You might be able to say that about players in the upcoming season, but not about Kaepernick.

Kaep was blacklisted so long as he was going to kneel. He could have come back only if he agreed not to kneel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
If a female Google employee created a memo about this article / study:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women-better-leaders-men-study-a7658781.html

and she suggested that Women would make better leaders at Google, do you think she should be fired for making her workplace a hostile environment for men?

The devil is in the details, but I can't really answer that question now can I?

Am I missing something, or should I understand why you're saying that you can't answer that question? You had no issue sharing your opinion about Damore being fired, so I don't follow why you can't answer a hypothetical question, and give your opinion about the same situation but with reversed genders.

I even provided a link to an article about an actual scientific study that says women are statistically better than men at certain things.
 
Am I missing something, or should I understand why you're saying that you can't answer that question? You had no issue sharing your opinion about Damore being fired, so I don't follow why you can't answer a hypothetical question, and give your opinion about the same situation but with reversed genders.

I even provided a link to an article about an actual scientific study that says women are statistically better than men at certain things.

It depends on how it's approached. If approached in exactly the way the article phrased it, then it's a problem. But it can be said in other ways.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
This is exactly why I think that GAF is on decline (replied to moderation topic yesterday). How can anyone be OK with this? This policy is dumb as fuck. Who cares what players do? They all get paid to play football not to standard during anthem. Also what happened to freedom of speech that I heard is so respected on GAF?

I see people for both viewpoints in this thread. Do you have a counter arguement besides complaining about what others are posting?

No one is taking away their freedom of speech. When I go to work there are certain things I can’t say or do. I respect that because I have agreed to that in exchange for a paycheck. The NFL has a direct rule that says players should stand for the anthem. Now the players are given an option to wait in the locker room. Since they have agreed to their employers rules they should respect them and choose one of those options. If it’s that big of a deal for them they can seek employment elsewhere.

Their employer cares what the players do while they are at work. If the players want to protest outside of work I have not seen anyone having any issues with that.
 

Smoke6

Member
Oh boy, I can predict the reactions. I prefer that companies try to be as open in regards to free speech, but then again, this is essentially wrecking with the company itself and the manner of protest really fails at making a point with it happening around national symbols like the national anthem. Slighting flags and national anthems is a terrible way to protest imo, symbolically you're attacking the concept of the nation and its inhabitants, including yourself.

I can totally see why they're doing this, trying to move past this whole thing, as it's just destructive. It's a tough situation, in the current polarized environment of the US.

This is a fucked up way of thought given that this started with the permission and advice from someone who actually served!

People disrespect the flag and anthem everyday and it’s just a matter of time that shot becomes irrelevant like the pledge of allegiance has!
 
This is a fucked up way of thought given that this started with the permission and advice from someone who actually served!

People disrespect the flag and anthem everyday and it’s just a matter of time that shot becomes irrelevant like the pledge of allegiance has!

"Actually served" is irrelevant to the concept of a nation. If soldiers are the basis of the nation of the US, then that's far more disturbing. This is something the right does a lot, appealing to servicemen and it's something one should be skeptical of.
There's a difference in context between disrespecting the flag ordinarily, which mostly tends to be shallow signs of rebellion (or just dumb) or just general apathy, and doing it as a figure of a team in an idolized sport with the nation watching. Once you attack the concept of a nation, then you better commit to the message and then face the backlash. None of it symbolically works either, as the act of kneeling is an act of submission. Kaepernick went way over his head in this and I imagine a better outcome would've been to leverage the attention around the sitting/kneeling, to work out a deal for them to be able to protest in other ways, especially something that allows the use of text and pictures. Choosing your target correctly is important when you're protesting. The optics just wasn't looking good in this case. It became "about the anthem", instead of the subject of the protest.
 

Petrae

Member
When you have cameras in your workplace, and when advertisers and people watching help to pay your salaries, try protesting. No matter which side of the issue your protest falls on, you’ve used your employer as a platform— and potentially caused them monetary damage as a result.

I can see why NFL owners felt the need to do something, but it’s a Kobayashi Maru scenario. If the owners side with the players, advertisers could cut back and a certain number of paying fans could stop going to games, buying merch, etc. Since the owners sided with the advertisers, they’re being vilified in the media and social media, while the players are up in arms over it.

In this highly charged/emotional/divisive time, you’re not going to be able to pick a political side without losing business somewhere. That’s why many businesses avoid visible/public politics. The NFL didn’t choose to engage— its employees did, and that led to what’s been a difficult decision-making process.
 
If you don't love our country enough to stand for the flag and those who gave their lives for our freedom, maybe you don't deserve to have a job, and maybe you don't deserve to live in our great nation.
 
Top Bottom