BringBackOrton

Welcome to 1776. Freedom is calling. Will you answer? There are zero laws on the books prohibiting "forced patriotism." So what are you talking about?

I don't understand how you can believe in exploitation of the subconscious, and then say I hold contempt for people's ability to think freely. How can the two issues be separate in your mind? Keep in mind, it does not have to be purposeful to occur.

I'm sure you're well-versed in the psychology of persuasion. Of how certain words, or certain phrases can invoke certain emotions? The connotation of language. There is a difference between hearing "The new NFL anthem policy is X." and hearing "It's a disgrace that the new NFL anthem policy is X because it's unjust and unAmerican!" We all like to think we're smarter than that. That we're more objective than that. That we are too strong, too grounded, to impervious to unconscious sway. But most of the data out there suggests otherwise. To quote Men in Black (lol), "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Absolutely. But I'm saying their interpretation and comment is likely the vehicle for the news. How many people heard about the NFL anthem policy from independent reporters? How many people heard about the NFL anthem policy from ESPN talking heads or SportsCenter personalities, or podcasters, or radio hosts, or sports blogs, or Twitter personalities? I think the numbers aren't close, to be honest K-9. That's just my opinion.

Well, I think there's a reason Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith and every media talking head with pure op/ed stuff makes millions and millions, and reporters on the beat make pennies comparatively. Who gets more traction? Who are people tuning into more?

This is not how sports media is run. "So and so chose to stay in the locker room, team refused to comment, now let's throw it over to our panel who will scream at each other with their opinions on the matter." That's more like it.

I disagree. That's a hill I'm willing to die on. ?

Hey, thanks! The emotion invoked would I guess be frustrated? I find it frustrating that folks who are unaware of what rights are, and who they are guaranteed by, and what constitutes a right versus privilege, are the ones who are attempting to dictate the rights of others. I find it frustrating that the NFL exercising their moral right is compared to Nazism, which is a slap in the face to any victim of true Nazism. I find it frustrating that the NFL is accused of "hating blacks protesting injustice," when they are a business who are attempting to protect their bottom line. I find it frustrating that this new anthem policy is such an issue, when anthem policies have clear precedent. I find that issues like this blur the line between Invisible Hand and mob rule. And that frustrates me most of all. Folks look at this issue and say "look at the larger picture." Maybe that's what I'm doing as well, just from a different angle. Does that answer your question? I suspect it may, but I can delve deeper if you wish. Probably. The major news outlets all have some skin in the NFL game, no?

The NFL will put out memos to ESPN and their reporters to not comment on the lack of attendance.

I'm not angry. I would look to the posters in this arena, and who among them are inflammatory in their ignorance.

In the original topic, there were several posters talking 1st amendment, talking the NFL doesn't have the right to mandate stuff, talking the fact it's a public stadium makes it a government issue. There's more misinformation than you think.

That's not true. At all.

This is what you said: You are the definition of low-information. Holy smokes. You pulled the Nazi card when there's an already existing league in the US with a mandatory anthem policy. One that's been around for decades. Of which you never cared or bothered to discover. It's hilarious how mighty and moral folks get when they've been admittedly ignorant to "wrongdoing" for 20 years in their own nation. Yeah sure, you're a defender of truth and justice and the American Way 20 years after the fact. LOL.

It's a **** perspective, because the NBA has required standing for the anthem for 20+ years. You LACK perspective. Period.

Why can't it be both, Bobbo? Pretend all you want like 99% of people don't care. You'll continue to be wrong.

I would argue that this new policy is a direct result of backlash from the protesting, so yes.

Adam Silver is a modern day slave owner, if you ask me.

And I've seen that larger point mentioned over and over and over in this debate. I don't understand why. It's irrelevant, you agree. So why does it continue to conflate the argument? People are allowed to be hypocrites. In fact, they have the right to be.

Our government isn't, though. I contend that if I owned an NFL team, I could make it mandatory that everyone who buys a ticket for admission must stand and salute the anthem unless they are unable to stand. I could make it mandatory that all shops close, that no one is allowed to use the bathroom, and that no one is allowed to cheer during a long note. And anyone who breaks these rules is ejected. I could do all of those things, and none of them would infringe on anyone's rights, and it would be much worse if the government told me I couldn't. That's the harsh pill that you and every other person screaming needs to swallow.

"Hello, who is this?" "Hello! I'm looking for a Mr. Kettle." "This is him, may I ask who is calling?" "This is Mr. Pot, it's a pleasure to finally meet you!"

I did not say those times of war were the same as any other time. However, you claimed that the playing of the anthem regularly "cheapens" it. The thousands of times it was played before SB25 and 9/11 did not cheapen EITHER rendition. Frequency does not reduce the capacity for reflection. It is no different than praying everyday versus twice a year at Christmas and Easter. Does the person who prays everyday "cheapen" his experience because he does it more frequently? Maybe he does, because sometimes he's going through the motions. But that's on him, not the act of prayer. There is ZERO reason to blame the anthem itself for the bad behavior of its listeners. "Regardless, the playing of the anthem commands a certain solemnity. And playing it at raucous sporting events cheapens it far more often than it inspires people." For some, maybe. Not for me. Whenever I have been in attendance of the national anthem, since I've been an adult, I choose to reflect on the appropriateness of it being played before a sporting event. I choose to marvel at how blessed I am to spend the next 2 to 3 to 4 hours caring about an arbitrary game instead of worrying about the world, about food, about shelter, about clean water for my family. I marvel at how our country is so great, we can pay millions to athletes for a glorified gladiator battle. I think about how incredible it is that people from all walks of life, of all races, of all creeds, of all orientations can sit together and forget all their differences, because they all hate the Jets more than anything else. Maybe I'm the only person who thinks about that. But I don't think so. And no, I'm not perfect, I've used the restroom during a rendition once or twice. But my mind has wandered while in prayer, too. That doesn't make regular prayer useless. I do not have any flag "memorabilia."

Maybe there has. But it was a fringe topic. No one complained about the National Anthem at that Yankees game after 9/11. No one complained about the National Anthem in Super Bowl 25 after the start of the Gulf War. Go watch those videos again and tell me those were cheap displays of patriotism. Go tell me you don't feel ANYTHING. And I'll call you a liar.

"Don't play the anthem before sports" takes emerged around the same time as Mr. Pig Socks. I wonder why.

Usin this thread as an example, most people who are screaming about forced patriotism don't understand what the First Amendment means sooo