thebandit27

Yeah, but have they ever made an insensitive joke that someone could easily misinterpret as racist? Because even if that’s not what Fromm meant, that’s the danger of declaring him an unabashed racist.

Here’s a pretty solid piece about the movement from that bastion of far-right ideology known as The Atlantic: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/534192/

Well I’ll say two things about that: 1) the poster specifically mentioned Portland, so if Antifa were involved in looting/rioting, that location would make the most sense since I understood Portland to be their proverbial home turf 2) if they weren’t involved at all, then some other group made sure to use some of their typical “artwork” to make it look that way...which was really all I was saying to Logic: that all it takes is to look at some pics from Portland area news sites that show the graffiti to see why someone would suggest that they’re involved in the damage. Apparently that makes me an uneducated fool that thinks he knows more about Portland than a resident.

Did you flip through the pictures? There were Antifa markings painted in a few of them. Also, chill a bit. I don’t even know who Andy Ngo is and I’m not stumping for anyone. Never once did I say that I know more about Portland than you, so maybe try relaxing a bit and not getting overly emotional about it. See above.

I don’t know who Andy Ngo is, but do you live near this part of Portland? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.koin.com/news/crime/photos-damage-to-downtown-portland-after-overnight-riot/amp/ https://katu.com/news/local/photos-downtown-portland-damage-after-3-nights-of-protests#photo-9 Maybe he’s not making it up...

Then you tag him. You’ve effectively got 7 years to make a decision.

I don’t doubt any of that and like I said: I believe that the sentiment you’re expressing is valid and appropriate. It’s beneficial for people to hear your testimony about your experience. I simply figured that I’d point out that including statements that don’t appear to be factually accurate leaves room for people to pick nits, but that’s up to you to decide how to convey your message.

I’m not defending them. WEO asked what he was possibly missing, and I answered. I didn’t say it was the morally right thing to do. Direct your outrage elsewhere.

I’m sure that the intent is good here; the issue I have with your post is that the two facts presented are simply incorrect. It isn’t mainly African Americans killed by police (though on a per-million-people basis AAs make up a disproportionately high percentage of victims), and a very quick google search shows multiple 10+ year sentences for white officers convicted of murdering unarmed black people within the last calendar year. None of that is to say that police violence or racial inequities aren’t an issue that deserves attention, but rather to say that the argument has more staying power when the facts presented are accurate. I’m not excusing the assault, but standard protocol is apparently to secure the area and not touch the victim until the med team arrives (have to find the source of that but I read it yesterday)

No, I mean the Allen tweets from when he was 17. Fromm’s controversy isn’t tweet-related; it’s a text message

Anyone that hasn’t looked into the Allen tweets at this point is speaking from a position of ignorance. He was a kid quoting hip hop lyrics and Modern Family. Ill-advised given the subject matter? Sure. Racist at all? Nope.

Well that, to me, is a decidedly different statement than to default to “everyone”, and far more defensible

I admire your introspection. I don’t believe that it qualifies you to say that literally everyone is either racist or complicit. I will simply leave it at that.

The only part of this that presents a bone worth picking is the idea that everyone is either racist or complicit. I don’t believe that’s true.

On whose side? Aren’t you being a bit presumptuous?

One thing is clear to me: there are a number of folks that conflate “forgive” with “condone”

1. I believe it’s more that I put too much emphasis on the details and not the sentiment. 2. As I said to K-9, that was purely my opinion. And I also made it clear that the players and owners are free to do as they please as long as they accept the fallout

Is it pandering to simply say “what is it that you want me to know? I’m listening”? Because that’s something that I’ve struggled with quite a bit (not just on this subject but in general). You might find that what you believe isn’t far off from the people that you feel you’d be pandering to...

Oh you can have an opinion, and you can express it. I’m saying that you seem to be getting a bit emotional and the content of your contributions isn’t leading to constructive discussion. Like I said: I know a thing or two about that type of delivery

In retrospect you’re probably correct about #1, and I think that a more measured approach would have been more beneficial Regarding #2, that’s my personal opinion as to how I would feel. I have a fan base and a business to consider, and what do I do the next time when a player wants to protest on the field for a cause that may not be benevolent? Again JMO

I definitely agree that he would’ve benefited from some foresight regarding how not to undermine his own message.

I had two problems with Kaep’s kneeling from the beginning: 1) the original statement where he contended that unarmed black men are murdered by police daily; I understand it’s a very sensitive subject, and yes, it’s 100% true that even one is too many, but his narrative was false. It made his overall purpose of raising awareness of racial and cultural inequities diluted. That’s a shame because I think there would’ve been less backlash if his initial commentary had been more grounded or measured. I’d like to think that I’d have been more receptive, As I admit that it made me listen less. 2) protesting is something to be done on one’s own time; not on the time of a person that is paying you millions of dollars to play a game. All of that said: the players had every right to protest, so long as they were willing to accept that owners had every right to respond as they saw fit.

You’re once again looking for trouble. If what you’re implying were indeed the case, why would the Panthers cut Newton and hand starting money to Bridgewater? Case closed. You’re making an uproar over Brissett and Winston.

It’s the easiest thing on earth for anyone that studies the game to see: the ones that lost their jobs had contracts that were easy to get out of. Done.

You still don’t seem to understand why the two situations are dramatically different