Rasputin_Vol
"Slava Ukraina"
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 72,056
- Likes
- 39,842
So to be clear... Kaepernick takes a knee over here and these people condemn it. The same people, however cheer for Iranians to do the same thing. I'm just asking for simple intellectual consistency. If it is wrong in one case, then it should be wrong in all cases. Now, if the argument to be made is that we can carve out an exception for the Iranians because they are ruled by an authoritarian regime, then I counter that with what we have been seeing right here in The Land of The Free over the past 2 years (or really further back, but lets just say post-C19 to make it simple). Obviously there are levels to this where Iran could be on a higher rung of the ladder, but the US and these so-called western democracies have shown their teeth towards their own citizens.I actually enjoy your thinking on a lot of things, but these situations aren't even in the same hemisphere of one another.
We've have gradually moved into tyranny since 59 years and a day ago. This country, after these past two elections, has now convinced me that we are a banana republic. Some of you clowns just don't want to accept it yet.
Kaep got boo'd. Then documentaries were made about him and he received lavish endorsements that far exceeded what his playing career would normally have dictated. The Iranians face actual consequences. Kaep's life got better after he kneeled. He didn't have to work and made millions.
So to be clear, just because the consequences may be different in one case vs another, then that determines whether a grievance or protest is legitimate or not? For example, I'm sure there were people in the 1950s and 1960s that protested for the civil rights movement outside of the Deep South that didn't suffer the same consequences as those that took the same actions in the Deep South. Is one protest more legitimate than the other?Yeah. Consequences are different so fundamentally, it's different
So to be clear, just because the consequences may be different in one case vs another, then that determines whether a grievance or protest is legitimate or not? For example, I'm sure there were people in the 1950s and 1960s that protested for the civil rights movement outside of the Deep South that didn't suffer the same consequences as those that took the same actions in the Deep South. Is one protest more legitimate than the other?
He got blackballed by the NFL and he's hated by like 40% of the strangers and people he meets for the foreseeable future. These are real consequences.
He was blackballed for a time. Then he chose not to play in the NFL. He had opportunities. He then made more money off Nike than he would've as a borderline starter/backup.
Oh no people don't like him. How horrible his life must be.
Once again, he risked nothing. He's living a lavish, care-free lifestyle and does whatever he wants while claiming he's oppressed. The Iranians will face real life consequences. Not multi million dollar endorsements.
Even if he didn't know how it would benefit him, the worst case scenario was people are BIG MAD? How horrible.
You're wrong. He turned down a pay cut before he got black balled. You want to live in a reality where there were no consequences, so who am I to change your mind with facts?
He declined an option, turned down a paycut (which was called for), and his girl called a Ray Lewis a good house slave so the Ravens quit their pursuit. He had opportunities. Just because they weren't 25M a year doesn't mean he didn't have them.
There is no attempt here to demonstrate that he declined an offer after he was black balled, so I'll call it a win.
He declined the option after the 2016 season and all the kneeling. So.....you were saying?
But this is irrelevant in the conversation. The two situations, once again, are not comparable.
So he hadn't been blackballed yet, lol. Are you serious? He was on a team in 2016. You're just saying what I'm saying.