JoshAllenHasBigHands

That's fair. These are complicated situations. What I don't want, however, is for my fandom of the team, and what I think is best for the product on the field, to be more important than today's political climate. When you mentioned the "bickering bills," I think it revealed that this impetus is too motivated by "what's best for the team" and not enough about "what's best for society."

That's right, boy, shut up and play football! As a white man, I find what he said only mildly racist. Therefore, you as a black man should accept his apology and move on! And if you don't agree to play football with the racist, you are off the team! Now let me ask you: you really think Tre should have to accept that racist behavior to continue to play football? You really think you are on the right side of that dispute?

Tre, and every other black player on the team, is the aggrieved party. And rightfully so. When it comes to racism, they shouldn't have to accept an apology because the coaching staff says they should toe the party line. That is really gross.

It wasn't. Fromm's tweet stated that he had already spoken to the team. Jamal Adams quote tweeted Fromm's, which, again, said he had already addressed the team. Then, Tre retweeted it. Tre's actions came after Fromm's apology. Even if that weren't true, it is still some evidence. There is no evidence to the contrary, aside from your supposition that the team may have accepted the apology. That is not evidence, though, that is speculation.

Tre's retweet of Jamal Adams, who said that Fromm wasn't really sorry and was just apologizing because he got caught, is strong evidence that there will be a problem. STRONG evidence.

I know at least a couple have come out in defense of him.

Isn't there a whole thread dedicated to people saying that the only reason the team is keeping Croom (black player) is because he is dating the owners daughter (and has been for well over a year)? I mean, if the owners had a racial sensitivity problem, Croom, an UDFA who barely made the roster, would not be on the team still.

I agree. I just dont think that, with team leaders like Tre saying what he did on twitter, the team can get away with keeping Fromm. I'm assuming - hoping - that the coaches consulted with the black coaches and team leaders before deciding to keep Fromm. Anything short of that would be unacceptable. That said, the Tyrod thing is silly. I doubt you will find a player on the team that thinks it was the wrong decision, or that it was racially motivated. That, and the fact that the team loves Allen, leads me to believe that most of this is just incorrect.

If you dig a little deeper on her twitter, she (its a her) is pretty clear that she is having a great racial awakening in light of the Floyd protests. I'm almost positive this girl doesn't have any additional reason to believe Fromm is a racist.

[edit discussion of confederate monuments - take it elsewhere] I don't really have an answer to your second part. All I have is that I have always known that to be case. I was told as much by people who refused to stand for the anthem (in that instance, they were inspired by their opposition to the war in Iraq). I appreciate that is not the sort of authority you were looking for. To be honest, I've never seen anyone suggest that not standing is anything but a slight. In any event, I don't think there is a reasonable argument to be made that not standing for the anthem is disconnected from those who served to protect and honor our country. Your third piece brings me back to my original point: intent or perspective is irrelevant. If an action (or monument) with respect to a symbol is intentionally disrespectful to what that symbol represents, it does not matter that there are those that don't "see" it that way. In other words, there cannot be competing interpretations. The confederate monuments are racist, period, regardless of intent. Not standing for the anthem disrespects our service members, period, regardless of intent.

Really? I remember during my college graduation (2009) multiple people refusing to stand for the anthem as a protest to, among other things, American Imperialism. What Kap did wasnt a first. Is it better left for another time? If your husband or wife died in service of their country, and kneeling amounts to spitting on that sacrifice, is that no less impactful? Is the scale of the offense less severe? I think the answer is yes, but I dont it is so “far afield.”

If you're saying this, I don't think you follow what I am saying. I understand that whatever intent there was when erecting those monuments, even when given the benefit of the doubt, you simply cannot disconnect those monuments from their racist history. That is my point. Kap cannot simply disconnect from what it means to kneel before the flag, because his intent is otherwise.

I have to be honest, I don't actually know the answer. I'm sort of just thinking about the whole thing critically. I assume that is true, simply because the convention is to stand to show respect, implying that doing the opposite is a sign of disrespect, but I could be wrong. I really just assume the point to get to a place where I can ask: does intent matter when interpreting symbols?

That is about what I remember, and why I cam around to Kap's methodology. However, if I may complicate the analysis a bit.... I wonder whether there is room for intent and opinion regarding the meaning of symbols in today's America. Kap's intent aside, kneeling for the anthem has always been a slight to the country and those who served for its betterment. Think about it in terms of the confederate monuments. The intent, so to speak, for many southerners was that those monuments represented honor, pride, etc. BLM and others said no, they represent racism. Furthermore, because it was racist, it didn't matter what the intent was for those who idolized the monuments. Therefore, the monuments could not stand. Apply that analysis here. I'm not sure Kap gets to rewrite the meaning of his actions, even if his intent is not meant to be offensive.

Dog park woman lost her job before the Floyd murder. That's just off the top of my head.

I don't recall the explanation, and I can't get behind the pay wall. Isn't it something to the effect of: Kap originally sat to protest, and then, after people complained it was disrespectful, he started kneeling instead to show that respect?

Josh quoted song lyrics, which included the n-word. He was insensitive, but not intentional. Fromm expressed prejudice. One is wayyyyy worse than the other.

Gotcha. He definitely needs to apologize.

What about Tre, who has been very vocal on Twitter? What about the other black (and white for that matter) players who have not been vocal?

Not in this climate. The Bills have to cut him.

He made a mildly racist comment in jest in a private text message. You think your text history (or everything you have said aloud) could survive that kind of scrutiny? Even if there isn't a drop of racism, what about sexism? Transphobia? Xenophobia? Have you been 100% woke at all time your entire life? What about before being woke was a thing. Is your record spotless back then too? And, lets keep in mind, it doesn't matter if the comment was made in jest. Uttering the words is all that matters. I don't know man, that is a tough bar.

In the follow up text she tells the other girl that this is a teaching moment. She just ruined this guy's career. Hell of a lesson.

Usually, yes. In this moment? No way. I don't think there is alot of interest at the moment in helping racists grow.

If the follow up tweet that just got posted is correct, Fromm is gone. Things are too tense for the Bills not to cut him. They would be fools to hold on to him.

Obviously racism is wayyyyy more problematic; however, he allowed some guy to call him "silly billy," and he didn't even blink an eye. That is a fire-able offense.