Kaepernick

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Joshua

I still can't quite wrap my head around the idea that an extremely common expression that I think most have heard/said multiple times in their life (and generally just means that the bosses, not the employees, should run the show) was taken as a literal comparison to inmates.

I've never known you to be anything other than a thoughtful poster but this am radio take is mind boggling in its idiocy.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group.

Misanthropy rather than prejudice. And you have the second bit backwards. I carefully evaluate and then, largely to amuse myself, create flamboyant caricatures. I could be more measured in my commentary I suppose but at the end of the day I'm arguing about sports with rednecks over the internet. This is not exactly a scholarly journal.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by chuck

I've never known you to be anything other than a thoughtful poster but this am radio take is mind boggling in its idiocy.

Surely you've heard the phrase "inmates running the asylum" in your life. What message did you think they were trying to convey? Did you think the person saying this was actually suggesting people are clinically insane?

I think it is abundantly evident that the point McNair was trying to make was that the success of their business, for good or bad, will be determined by the owners, not backup QBs.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Joshua

Surely you've heard the phrase "inmates running the asylum" in your life. What message did you think they were trying to convey? Did you think the person saying this was actually suggesting people are clinically insane?

I think it is abundantly evident that the point McNair was trying to make was that the success of their business, for good or bad, will be determined by the owners, not backup QBs.

But of course McNair did not mean the expression in a literal sense. It's just that right or wrong many of the players, especially some of the black players, are so hypersensitive about it all these days.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

But of course McNair did not mean the expression in a literal sense. It's just that right or wrong many of the players, especially some of the black players, are so hypersensitive about it all these days.

You're correct. But that doesn't mean I have to go along with it and reward it. I don't want to live in a world where the rules are made by those who claim/pretend to be the most offended. It's a terrible incentive structure and, dare I say, would only result in the inmates running the asylum. Literally.

[chuck]

Christ, you necks are fking hopeless.

[Big Texas]

I will throw in my two cents for whatever its worth.

Racism has been prevalent for a very long time. However, over the last 10-20 years those most racist had began to retreat to mere behind closed doors conversation. This confused many people (mostly white people). The perception was that racism was dying off. When in reality it was just no longer acceptable to be said out in public.

Whether you believe it or not. Trump opened some doors that should have remained closed. He began to make generalizations about groups of people in very unprofessional ways. I do not say this to start a political debate. (I am not interested in that at all). I am only pointing out that he made stereotypes the new norm.

The more he tweets the more people become comfortable with saying "whatever they feel" without regard for common decency.

Then people began making statements like "stop being so sensitive" "stop being so butt hurt" which only heightened tensions. There can be no compromise when professionalism, common decency, and respect are no longer priorities.

Just because you CAN say something does not mean you SHOULD.

McNair is 80 years old. Which means he was raised during a time where racism was the norm. So it is not above the scope of reality that he could still have some racist views. And then again he could not be racist. Whatever the case, no one knows for sure. So stop taking up for him when you don't know. Maybe you should just say "I hope he did not mean it that way".

Just my two cents. Intelligent debate is welcomed. However, emotional reactions will be met with silence.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by Big Texas

I will throw in my two cents for whatever its worth.

Racism has been prevalent for a very long time. However, over the last 10-20 years those most racist had began to retreat to mere behind closed doors conversation. This confused many people (mostly white people). The perception was that racism was dying off. When in reality it was just no longer acceptable to be said out in public.

Whether you believe it or not. Trump opened some doors that should have remained closed. He began to make generalizations about groups of people in very unprofessional ways. I do not say this to start a political debate. (I am not interested in that at all). I am only pointing out that he made stereotypes the new norm.

The more he tweets the more people become comfortable with saying "whatever they feel" without regard for common decency.

Then people began making statements like "stop being so sensitive" "stop being so butt hurt" which only heightened tensions. There can be no compromise when professionalism, common decency, and respect are no longer priorities.

Just because you CAN say something does not mean you SHOULD.

McNair is 80 years old. Which means he was raised during a time where racism was the norm. So it is not above the scope of reality that he could still have some racist views. And then again he could not be racist. Whatever the case, no one knows for sure. So stop taking up for him when you don't know. Maybe you should just say "I hope he did not mean it that way".

Just my two cents. Intelligent debate is welcomed. However, emotional reactions will be met with silence.

If no one knows, how about stop calling him a racist? I find it odd that you think the side that gives him the benefit of the doubt and doesn't assume the worst and brand him a racist is the one to be chastised.

[Big Texas]

Originally Posted by Joshua

If no one knows, how about stop calling him a racist? I find it odd that you think the side that gives him the benefit of the doubt and doesn't assume the worst and brand him a racist is the one to be chastised.

What chastisement are you referring to?

I am only suggesting that people not be so quick to jump on a side period. Either for or against. The only thing that is known for certain is what he said. The fact that he apologized for it is also an acknowledgement of SOME form of wrong doing. Even if it is only the fact that he spoke unprofessionally in what was supposed to be a professional meeting.

I am not chastising anyone. I am not in a position to do that. I am only offering my opinion.

[barrett]

If he said inmates running the asylum the comment never makes the article.

Instead he altered a common saying to make it about prisons and inmates. That isn't some conspiracy to think the worst of McNair, that is him screwing up and earning any scorn.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

What is truly ironic is McNair's greatest failing as it relates to winning is his affection and loyalty to Smith. So, he's branded a racist for sticking with an African American.

And I may be overreacting, but the owners seem extremely concerned by the impact on their business and I presume they have better data than me.

The first half is you being extremely disingenuous. You know him being loyal to Smith has nothing to do with him being called a racist. When people purposely twist words and put out false arguments like this it accomplishes nothing.

Regarding the 2nd part, the protests have clearly had a negative affect on business, I am not saying otherwise. I am saying that the impact has already happened. Look at this story for the Saints. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/03/ne...-refuses-award . The Saints protested during the anthem one time and stopped. Since then they have stood for the anthem every time. But because it happened once they lost this fan and he has picked a public fight with them. The damage of the anthem has happened and those fans aren't being won back by anything short of drastic measures like cutting guys who protest. So signing Kaepernick will inflame the minority of fans who have already walked, it will be ignored by the fans who ignore everything already, and it will win over the 50% of players who are angry at Texans ownership right now.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by chuck

This is not exactly a scholarly journal.

Et tu, Brute?

[Arky]

Well, sounds like the Texans have elected to go with McGloin and Yates so it seems Kaepernick is not a possibility unless there is another injury. There's another thread for Bob McNair.

-----------------------------------------------

Not to derail but something I find similar is the Breast Cancer Awareness deal. The NFL readily adopted this - every year we get a week or month of pink clothing on the football field. After several years of this, I think most of us are aware of breast cancer and most of us know where to go if we desire to donate to the pink ribbon (and it is a worthy cause). I'm just not quite sure why the NFL continues to do this..... Is the advertising a tax write-off for the NFL? Maybe if they continue with this, they could just drop the "Awareness" part - call it Breast Cancer Research (or something) - cause I don't know about you, but I'm plenty aware of the condition.....

[HPF Bob]

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.

Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?

He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.

Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.

It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".

The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.

Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.

Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?

He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.

Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.

It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".

The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.

Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.

I agree 100% Bob. I don't think George W. Bush was a perfect president but he gave an amazing quote last year at the Dallas Police Officers' Memorial. He said that...

Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

This is worst in arguments where people think painting the other side worse makes their side stronger. So we end up with wild accusations as the norm.

The only thing I'll add to your other comments is that McNair's players/employees were not really protesting during the Anthem. They held arms once but nobody was kneeling. Texans ratings weren't down and Texans seats were being filled. Deshaun Watson was a guarantee of fan interest for another decade. Everything was great in Houston and the owner's bottom line wasn't threatened. We weren't the 49ers with 2 years of ongoing protests. We weren't the Jaguars standing for God save the queen and kneeling for the anthem. McNair had always wanted choir boys on his team and those choir boys had mostly behaved like choir boys. JJ Watt was still helping the franchise bathe in the glow of $40 million raised for hurricane relief. And into that positive situation McNair decided that after years of being opinionless with his NFL peers, he wanted to choose now to assert himself with an all-time boneheaded comment.

So are guys who stood in respect for the anthem feel betrayed by an owner they previously had no complaints about. Our only malcontent with no business sense (Duane Brown) gets to grind his axe. We make a smart football trade that still must alienate some players on the team. And for every militant player in the league who thinks their must be racist owners, we announce that ours is the one they know about.

[Big Texas]

I agree 100% with the quote you mentioned.

I was always of the belief that one could respectfully "agree to disagree". It is not written anywhere that everyone must agree on everything.

Believe what you want about the protests. That's your right and your opinion. However, this day and age mature debate has become childish mudslinging. Rather than me prove my point I'm going to try and destroy the image of the person.

If the media wasn't so hell bent on sensationalism these outlandish and childish comments wouldn't even get off the ground. But every dumb comment is aired and re-aired over and over again.

Just a thought...would this argument be happening if the media just showed the person singing the anthem instead of searching for drama?

With all that said...misery loves company. When people are upset about something they want everyone else to be upset about it too. Which is our current situation.

[chuck]

The drumbeat for the team to look to Kaepernick is becoming ever more insistent, ever louder, from knowledgeable sources local and national. I have seen no one argue that Kaepernick to the Texans does not make football sense.

So as the calls to respond to football logic become louder, I suppose we'll see if ownership responds to its baser, ugly instincts (and to the reactionary instincts it wrongly supposes are held by the majority of its fan base) or if it responds to its imperative to field the best possible team.

I already know what it will do, and so do you. They would rather lose than put out idiot, racist fans.

I of course recognized a variant of that a decade ago or more.

In this case it's especially entertaining because Uncle Rick gave away all their draft picks cleaning up his own mess so there is literally no reason to tank.

And I can't wait for this collusion case to come to trial. In some respects it'll be more fun than all the Trumpspunkers in their orange jumpsuits.

[bikerack]

From my friend...

BOB wants Kaep. Up to management to make It happen. Have talked with his agent repeatedly. Big hurdles still to clear. Coach is so frustrated right now and has no faith in Savage. Neither does the locker room. Signing Kaep would probably bring them back together.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by bikerack

From my friend...

BOB wants Kaep. Up to management to make It happen. Have talked with his agent repeatedly. Big hurdles still to clear. Coach is so frustrated right now and has no faith in Savage. Neither does the locker room. Signing Kaep would probably bring them back together.

Thanks as always for the information. What are the hurdles? Who is placing them?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

Thanks as always for the information. What are the hurdles? Who is placing them?

I bet they're trying to muzzle him with the contract. Or at the least limit him to kneeling outside of the anthem.