Octopus Overlords

stimpy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:45 pm How about we laser in on this:

stimpy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:10 pm Would I have been happy if the NFL caved in on that policy for any other reason? No.

How many dui's do NFL players get?
Does the NFL have MADD logos and do the announcers talk about the dangers of drinking and driving?
How many wife beaters?
Does the NFL put the names of the victims on their helmets?
Where is the line? What makes one cause more important than any other?
It's them trying to be politically correct and getting behind a cause that doesnt directly make them confront their own league wide issues.

If the NFL doesn't speak out against all issues, they can't speak out against any issues?

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:59 pmIf the NFL doesn't speak out against all issues, they can't speak out against any issues?

I'm personally not watching another NFL game until they take a stance against microplastics.

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:59 pm

stimpy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:45 pm How about we laser in on this:

stimpy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:10 pm Would I have been happy if the NFL caved in on that policy for any other reason? No.

How many dui's do NFL players get?
Does the NFL have MADD logos and do the announcers talk about the dangers of drinking and driving?
How many wife beaters?
Does the NFL put the names of the victims on their helmets?
Where is the line? What makes one cause more important than any other?
It's them trying to be politically correct and getting behind a cause that doesnt directly make them confront their own league wide issues.

If the NFL doesn't speak out against all issues, they can't speak out against any issues?

Why aren't MADD against racism or domestic abuse or murder?

Defiant wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:41 pm With regards to the poll, perhaps the most disturbing thing is the 7-19% (depending on state) that feel the Jews caused the Holocaust.

http://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/

I can still buy that people can be goofy enough to be screw up that answer. Here is where my jaw drops (This is for Michigan because I am a narcissist and wanted to know how "we" respond as close to home as I could)

http://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/

http://www.claimscon.org/wp-content/upl ... .11.20.pdf

12.Some believe that the Holocaust did not happen. Do you believe the Holocaust happened?

Yes, I believe the Holocaust happened 89%
No, I do not believe the Holocaust happened 6%
Not sure5%

11% of 18 to 39 year olds surveyed in my state aren't willing accept the Holocaust as historical fact either due to ignorance or denial.

29.Do you think that it is acceptable for an individual to holdneo-Nazi views?

TOTAL ACCEPTABLE14%
TOTAL NOT ACCEPTABLE68%

Strongly acceptable3%
Somewhat acceptable11%
Somewhat unacceptable14%
Strongly unacceptable54%
Not sure 18%

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:58 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:56 pmThis is the number from the study's site. Not sure how the Guardian got to 63%.

I'm trying to find the details but they were talking one specific age grouping (25-39). Not overall.

Their headline is lacking that nuance.

Nearly two-thirds of US adults unaware 6m Jews killed in the Holocaust – study

Among Millennials, that I can see. The French number was something like 71%. But all "adults"?

A-yup, Millennials:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:56 pm

This is the number from the study's site. Not sure how the Guardian got to 63%.

Two different polls. Here's the new one that the Guardian is referring to:

Nationally, there is a clear lack of awareness of key historical facts; 63 percent of all national survey respondents do not know that six million Jews were murdered and 36 percent thought that “two million or fewer Jews” were killed during the Holocaust.

http://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/

Defiant wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:07 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:56 pm

This is the number from the study's site. Not sure how the Guardian got to 63%.

Two different polls. Here's the new one that the Guardian is referring to:

Nationally, there is a clear lack of awareness of key historical facts; 63 percent of all national survey respondents do not know that six million Jews were murdered and 36 percent thought that “two million or fewer Jews” were killed during the Holocaust.

http://www.claimscon.org/millennial-study/

That's a study of Millennials. The Guardian said "US adults." See above.


My guess is that's a subset of the full cross nation study.

Yeah, it looks limited to adults between 18-40

The poll did not poll those over 40:

http://www.claimscon.org/wp-content/upl ... OPLINE.pdf

Good lord, there's also small percentages of people that blame the Holocaust on: The US, Israel, Palestine and FDR*. *smh*

* - OK, there's an argument to be made that FDR could have put more effort into stopping the Holocaust, like allowing more refugees or bombing railroad tracks used to move Jews to the camps. But you can't blame him for the Holocaust.

Those darn Israelis and their 1948 time machine!

President Grant should have nuked those Nazis when he had the chance.

Bearenstain Bears, 6M dead...whatevs. History is as fungible as fact!

Defiant wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:14 pm Good lord, there's also small percentages of people that blame the Holocaust on: The US, Israel, Palestine and FDR*. *smh*

* - OK, there's an argument to be made that FDR could have put more effort into stopping the Holocaust, like allowing more refugees or bombing railroad tracks used to move Jews to the camps. But you can't blame him for the Holocaust.

Nazis are so misunderstood!

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:35 pm

stimpy wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:10 pm I have expressed my opinion in the past about mixing politics and/or personal beliefs and sports.
I am against it.

I just wanted to laser in on this, only because I think the core issue is that people want distractions that allow them to completely ignore/forget that the world is on fire. So when trying to watch cars drive around a circular track or see athletes at any level manipulate a sportsball it's really, really uncomfortable to be reminded of systemic racism.

When I (broadly) see people complaining about the interjection of topics like BLM into whatever circus they're using to forget about life for a while, it's another way of saying "I don't care", which is lamentable.

It's also why I think certain people/groups/political parties want sportsball back - because it's a distraction. That it would then be used to broadcast a brief message of social injustice then is extra-intolerable as that is the very thing they're hoping people will forget about and get numb to as distractions are dialed up to 11.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I liked your TED talk and would attend more, but only if you stop using the term "sportsball." Please. Thanks.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:35 pm

When I (broadly) see people complaining about the interjection of topics like BLM into whatever circus they're using to forget about life for a while, it's another way of saying "I don't care", which is lamentable.

What I find hilarious is that the majority of the complaints are about what athletes do during the Anthem, which is itself a political statement that has nothing to do with the game.

Do I like the Anthem before games? Yes. But if I were to protest something wrong with the state of the nation, that's when I'd do it. Or immediately before/after. It's not like players are stopping play on 3rd and short to recite a list of grievances. Not yet, anyway. Keep marginalizing their efforts and they might. But for now you get uninterrupted circuses.

Defiant wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:47 pm This was a different poll from the one mentioned above. This one was run in several countries, was released in January and it used the term Shoah in France.

OK, makes sense then - thanks.

stimpy wrote:How many dui's do NFL players get?

Significantly fewer than the general population get (by rate).

stimpy wrote:Does the NFL have MADD logos and do the announcers talk about the dangers of drinking and driving?

No.

stimpy wrote:How many wife beaters?

*Significantly* fewer than the general population (by rate).

stimpy wrote:Does the NFL put the names of the victims on their helmets?

No.

stimpy wrote:Where is the line?

Where they want it to be.

stimpy wrote:What makes one cause more important than any other?

Freedom to care about whatever issues are most important to them. In this particular case, the vast majority of their players have had enough with police mistreatment of the black community. That’s the issue they care most about, and that’s up to them. Who the fuck is anyone else to tell them what they should care most about?

stimpy wrote:It's them trying to be politically correct and getting behind a cause that doesnt directly make them confront their own league wide issues.

There are no league wide issues with DUIs or wife beating.

It’s them finally listening to their players.

You mean the players dont support more stringent consequences by the league for their bad behaviour???
I'm shocked, I tell ya.....shocked!!!
And the league doesnt want to face the fact that they employ some thugs and drunks?
Doubly shocked!!!!

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/

Oh look over there.....racism!!!!

I'm really not sure that you are helping your case.

I counted. 17 charges since the start of the year. Some dropped already. Out of how many players in the league? 500? 750? I don't know, but I assume it's quite a few.

However, I would bet money that if you went and asked how many of the black players (or staff, I'd include them), have experienced racism, you'd find that the % would be pretty damn close to 100. But let's limit that to only since the beginning of the year. I'd be amazed if the answer wasn't over 50%.

But sure, continue your comparison. While I think that "thuggism" is probably a very valid discussion, I don't think you are going to find many folks around here will feel that it's even remotely worthy of comparison.

I wouldn't even call it only a race problem - though I'm sure it is significant. Young immature men who've had their asses kissed for their athletic ability their entire lives are suddenly given tons of money. I'm surprised it isn't worse.

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:55 pm I wouldn't even call it only a race problem - though I'm sure it is significant. Young immature men who've had their asses kissed for their athletic ability their entire lives are suddenly given tons of money. I'm surprised it isn't worse.

Race is still significant. Put those guys in expensive cars and if they're black they'll get pulled over more often. More exposure to law enforcement means more opportunity to "smell weed" or whatever.

I mean don't DUI or have illegal weapons or drugs and it will probably turn out better. But the odds of getting caught are higher if you're black.

TheMix wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:35 pm I'm really not sure that you are helping your case.

I counted. 17 charges since the start of the year. Some dropped already. Out of how many players in the league? 500? 750? I don't know, but I assume it's quite a few.

1696 active players - over 2000 if you count practice squads.

So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Where's your hate on the other leagues for their anti-racism movements when they have players who get charged with DUIs and have domestic abuse issues too, then? Why are you singling out the NFL? I don't see you dunking on the NBA or MLB or the NHL or MLS or European soccer, only the NFL.

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Not acceptable. No one said it was acceptable but you know that.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:18 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Not acceptable. No one said it was acceptable but you know that.

Well people sure the hell go out of their way to constantly dispute what I post.
Why? Is trying to prove me wrong or say that my posts don't live up to their lofty standards more important to them then the substance?

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:23 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:18 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Not acceptable. No one said it was acceptable but you know that.

Well people sure the hell go out of their way to constantly dispute what I post.
Why? Is trying to prove me wrong or say that my posts don't live up to their lofty standards more important to them then the substance?

It's not like you really debate this kind of topic honestly or answer questions people directly ask you.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:18 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Where's your hate on the other leagues for their anti-racism movements when they have players who get charged with DUIs and have domestic abuse issues too, then? Why are you singling out the NFL? I don't see you dunking on the NBA or MLB or the NHL or MLS or European soccer, only the NFL.

Because I generally stand behind efforts to make things more equal for all people.
Those leagues have not made such dizzying turnarounds on their beliefs for not only their teams, but their players.
The NFL has made such small public strides in addressing the issues that their teams and players have that to glomb onto this issue in the way that they have seems disingenuous at best.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:31 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:23 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:18 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Not acceptable. No one said it was acceptable but you know that.

Well people sure the hell go out of their way to constantly dispute what I post.
Why? Is trying to prove me wrong or say that my posts don't live up to their lofty standards more important to them then the substance?

It's not like you really debate this kind of topic honestly or answer questions people directly ask you.

Are you kidding me? I'm wrong no matter what, so why bother?

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:23 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:18 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:12 am So the violence and illegal acts are acceptable to you guys because you deem them to be such a small percentage.
Got it.

Not acceptable. No one said it was acceptable but you know that.

Well people sure the hell go out of their way to constantly dispute what I post.
Why? Is trying to prove me wrong or say that my posts don't live up to their lofty standards more important to them then the substance?

It is a matter of perspective. You are claiming it is a big problem. However, "17 charges" across 2000 people sounds like a lot but it is less than the crime rate in the general population by about half. To be transparent it is difficult to say that solidly because crime isn't reported in charges. It is counted typically in incident reports. That means the rate is probably even lower because there could be multiple charges per incident.

That said crime stats are messy at best. We are just hearing about these crimes because they are higher profile. In any case, the number is lower compared to the population. Does that make the crime acceptable? No. It means that there is less crime there than outside so it begs to question why these crimes should result in outrage or impact whether they should be able to protest.

I'm sure the victims disagree.
But since they're such a small percentage, who cares, am I right?

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:39 am I'm sure the victims disagree.
But since they're such a small percentage, who cares, am I right?

What is your point? Are you upset because we don't live in Utopia?

To be clear, are you arguing that the NFL shouldn't push unity/anti-racism issues until they've also addressed all other issues? Or just the ones you picked as the most important (apparently domestic violence and drinking and driving)?

malchior wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:43 am

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:39 am I'm sure the victims disagree.
But since they're such a small percentage, who cares, am I right?

What is your point? Are you upset because we don't live in Utopia?

You may not, but I do.

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:43 am To be clear, are you arguing that the NFL shouldn't push unity/anti-racism issues until they've also addressed all other issues? Or just the ones you picked as the most important (apparently domestic violence and drinking and driving)?

NFL can do whatever they want and I can have an opinion on that.
If that doesn't jive with your opinion, such is life.
Clear enough?

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:47 am

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:43 am To be clear, are you arguing that the NFL shouldn't push unity/anti-racism issues until they've also addressed all other issues? Or just the ones you picked as the most important (apparently domestic violence and drinking and driving)?

NFL can do whatever they want and I can have an opinion on that.
If that doesn't jive with your opinion, such is life.
Clear enough?

Not really. You may not believe it, but I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from on this. Why do you apparently find it concerning that the NFL is taking a stand on an issue important to many of its players? You seem to be saying it's because they're not doing enough on domestic violence and drinking and driving, but that's a false equivalence among issues.

If the issue you really don't want to see professional leagues take stances on any social issues because you just want to see the sports and not worry about society while you're doing it, that's one thing. If that's your take, then we can have a discussion on that. It's an understandable position, but I think it's a bit naive, particularly given the prevalence of sports and sports figures in our society. But if that is your position, stop throwing things like domestic violence and drinking and driving into the mix. It only clouds the discussions and makes you seem disingenuous.

I've made my view on mixing sports and societal and political issues pretty clear. I'm against it.
But you guys would be just fine with societal and political issues popping up in whatever it is you do to get away from life for a bit, right?
Video games?
Jogging?
Going out to eat?
Concerts?
Salt cave?
Hell....if they put "End Racism" on the Grand Canyon just think of how many people on vacation would see it. That would certainly get results!!!

But fuck me for wanting something so selfish.How dare I.
That must mean I'm a racist and I don't care about anything but my own personal experience.
Fuck the rest of the world. You're lucky I let you share it with me.
NOW KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!

Maybe when sports are played by robots programmed by robots. Until then, there are humans involved and when shit is hitting the fan they may want to say something about it.

stimpy wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:37 am I've made my view on mixing sports and societal and political issues pretty clear. I'm against it.
But you guys would be just fine with societal and political issues popping up in whatever it is you do to get away from life for a bit, right?
Video games?
Jogging?
Going out to eat?
Concerts?
Salt cave?
Hell....if they put "End Racism" on the Grand Canyon just think of how many people on vacation would see it. That would certainly get results!!!

But fuck me for wanting something so selfish.How dare I.
That must mean I'm a racist and I don't care about anything but my own personal experience.
Fuck the rest of the world. You're lucky I let you share it with me.
NOW KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!

Stop with the false equivalencies. It's not helping your cause. It's OK to admit that you want something selfish and to say you want sports to be free from social issues. Just stop with that and don't try to bring all this other stuff into it - it's not helping your cause.

Then we can discuss whether it is realistic for NFL athletes, many of who are Black, to be told to keep quiet about these issues and just accept it. FWIW, as you've probably guessed, I don't think it's realistic to tell them to keep quiet. Many of them see the effects of racism on their communities or the communities they came from and see that they have a platform from which they can try to make a difference, and they want to do that. We often treat our athletes as role models and then get disappointed when they do something bad (like domestic abuse or drinking and driving, to name a couple of random examples ). In this case, though, they're actually trying to do something good and live up to being role models.

So I'm guessing your next point may be something along the lines of, "OK but does the NFL have to officially get involved beyond just the players doing something?" And here you get to whether the NFL should be responsive to its workforce or not. Should they risk alienating part of their audience by taking stances on social issues? On the other hand, are they going to risk alienating part of their audience if they don't take a stand on social issues? Personally, I'm OK with corporations and organizations like the NFL taking stands. In this case, they're taking a stand for what I think is a good cause (equality). If they took a stand I disagreed with, I could certainly evaluate whether I wanted to continue watching.

So you're free to not like the NFL taking positions on social issues, but stop cloaking it in bogus issues of domestic violence or drunk driving, stop trying to draw false equivalencies between the NFL and other activities, and stop trying to pretend that you weren't commenting on the NFL's positions when you type "Good job, NFL!!!" after noting that their ratings are down. I'm still going to disagree with you on whether the NFL should be taking social positions, but at least we can discuss the actual issue instead of all these detours to nowhere.