BLM, ALM, and your friends

[Metaphor]

You unaware that any EPL footballer has a different political opinion about this than you.

I am aware that human beings have different political opinions to each other.

hat straw man broke the irony meter. Please stop projecting your MO onto others. I asked my question because I was under the misimpression that you actually knew some relevant fact.

You asked the question because you wanted to imply I had made some claim of fact about soccer players that I had not made, or to accuse me, as of course you eventually did, of making a claim that had 'no basis in fact', as if I had made an extraordinary claim of any kind. The personal feelings of the soccer players is irrelevant to the question I asked.

In football, the players' uniforms for over a decade have supported all sorts of political symbolism. And players have been expected for decades to stand still and observe moments of silence for all sorts of occasions.

Would you like to answer the question?

Unlike you, I understand that refusing to wear a uniform is a big deal, since it means the individual is not permitted to play by rule. Unlike you, I understand that players make political statements on the pitch and off the pitch.

Unlike you, I understand that it is a false dichotomy to feel one has to be either for or against something.

Oh, so are you incapable of describing your position on whether employees should be forced to engage in political symbolism chosen by their bosses?

 

[laughing dog]

I am aware that human beings have different political opinions to each other.

Not relevant to the issue.

You asked the question because you wanted to imply I had made some claim of fact about soccer players that I had not made, or to accuse me, as of course you eventually did, of making a claim that had 'no basis in fact', as if I had made an extraordinary claim of any kind.

Your confidence in your mind reading ability is unfounded. I asked because I thought you actually might have some real information. But, you did not.

The personal feelings of the soccer players is irrelevant to the question I asked.

Your question was “Do you have any sympathy for players who don't want "Black Lives Matter" on the back of their shirt, and who don't want to take a knee?”. The question assumes the existence of a particular actual feeling of a player. After all, no player cares about it or wants to wear it, then your question is obviously pointless.

Oh, so are you incapable of describing your position on whether employees should be forced to engage in political symbolism chosen by their bosses?

The question you asked was “So, do you support players being forced to participate in political symbolism?” I answered it. While I am not surprised you appear incapable of comprehending it, that is not my problem.

 

[Metaphor]

Your confidence in your mind reading ability is unfounded. .

I did not make any claims about any specific person's internal states.

Your question was “Do you have any sympathy for players who don't want "Black Lives Matter" on the back of their shirt, and who don't want to take a knee?”. The question assumes the existence of a particular actual feeling of a player.

No. It does not assume that. It assumes the possibility of that.

The question you asked was “So, do you support players being forced to participate in political symbolism?” I answered it. While I am not surprised you appear incapable of comprehending it, that is not my problem.

No, you did not answer, and you still have not answered. But I'm not surprised that you haven't.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not make any claims about any specific person's internal states.

You wrote "You asked the question because you wanted". You cannot know what I wanted.

No. It does not assume that. It assumes the possibility of that.

Technically, it does not. But that really does not matter. If you want to ask questions that have no empirical relevance that is your perogative.

No, you did not answer, and you still have not answered. But I'm not surprised that you haven't.

Yes, I did. I noticed your problems with English in this discussion, so I will explain it more clearly. Given the long history in the EPL of players having to either wear statements or engage in on the pitch actions, it is part of their obvious expected employment to engage in such activities. As such, they are freely agreeing to those terms when they sign their contracts. Hence, no one is forcing them to do anything against their will.

What I find interesting, is that this "forcing to engage in political symbolism" in the EPL has been going on for ages, yet it now bothers you when it involves wearing the innocuous phrase "black lives matter".

 

[Metaphor]

Technically, it does not. But that really does not matter. If you want to ask questions that have no empirical relevance that is your perogative.

No. A hypothetical question does not mean that the question 'has no empirical relevance'.

Yes, I did. I noticed your problems with English in this discussion, so I will explain it more clearly. Given the long history in the EPL of players having to either wear statements or engage in on the pitch actions, it is part of their obvious expected employment to engage in such activities. As such, they are freely agreeing to those terms when they sign their contracts. Hence, no one is forcing them to do anything against their will.

Oh, I see. That's what you considered an answer.

Of course, you still haven't answered the question: do you support employers forcing their employees to wear uniforms with particular political messages?

What I find interesting, is that this "forcing to engage in political symbolism" in the EPL has been going on for ages, yet it now bothers you when it involves wearing the innocuous phrase "black lives matter".

Your sentence, of course, has multiple assumptions. The first is that I have been aware of a history of political messaging put on uniforms of soccer players by employers. Indeed, I am still not aware of any other examples. What kinds of political messages have been put on the uniforms of soccer players before? You also have assumed that the particular kind of political message 'bothers' me, instead of the existence of the forced political messaging at all.

Finally, the phrase is not "innocuous". Black Lives Matter is a particular political movement. But even if I agreed it was "innocuous", I would still not support employers forcing political messaging on employees uniforms.

 

[ruby sparks]

Update: the reason the slogan is on the shirts is apparently because the Premier League acceded to a request for it from players at all 20 premier league Clubs.


"We, the Players, stand together with the singular objective of eradicating racial prejudice wherever it exists, to bring about a global society of inclusion, respect, and equal opportunities for All, regardless of their colour or creed. This symbol is a sign of unity from all Players, all Staff, all Clubs, all Match Officials and the Premier League #blacklivesmatter #playerstogether."

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1680826

So there at least seems to be quite widespread support from the players themselves.

 

[ruby sparks]

From just before the start of one of this week's games:

 

[laughing dog]

No. A hypothetical question does not mean that the question 'has no empirical relevance'.

It does in this case. Especially since there is no evidence that any player had a problem with it.

Oh, I see. That's what you considered an answer.

At least there is some evidence you can read English with comprehension.

Of course, you still haven't answered the question: do you support employers forcing their employees to wear uniforms with particular political messages?

Are you under the impression that posters must answer any irrelevant question asked? In this case, there is no evidence anyone was forced. In this case, it is well accepted practice to have players acknowledge political messages on the pitch. In this case, I do not.

In other cases, if it is not an accepted practice, then it would be generally no.

Your sentence, of course, has multiple assumptions. The first is that I have been aware of a history of political messaging put on uniforms of soccer players by employers. Indeed, I am still not aware of any other examples. What kinds of political messages have been put on the uniforms of soccer players before? You also have assumed that the particular kind of political message 'bothers' me, instead of the existence of the forced political messaging at all.

Actually, I wondered (correctly as it turns out) whether you were completely ignorant about this issue. Clearly, you have not thought about it until the BLM and the knee come up which somehow sparked your interest.

Finally, the phrase is not "innocuous". Black Lives Matter is a particular political movement.

So?

But even if I agreed it was "innocuous", I would still not support employers forcing political messaging on employees uniforms.

Rest assured that the club of people who care is a lot smaller than you think.

 

[Metaphor]

It does in this case. Especially since there is no evidence that any player had a problem with it.

I did not claim any player had spoken out against it. In fact, I would not expect anybody to speak out even if they did object. But that isn't the point. I think it's reasonable to assume that not every player in the EPL thinks exactly alike on this issue (or indeed, any issue at all).

Actually, all I assumed (correctly as it turns out) is that you were completely ignorant about this issue.

So, you do not have any other examples of political messaging on soccer uniforms before this example?

So?

So, political messaging is different to other kinds of messaging. Asking players to wear the logo of a corporate sponsor is widely accepted. But if players had the name of a particular political party or the symbol of a particular religion put on their clothing, that seems to me a horse of a different colour.

Rest assured that the club of people who care is a lot smaller than you think.

Evidently, although you do not trust my mind reading skills, you are certainly confident in your own.

 

[blastula]

Sports team employees go in knowing they have to wear a uniform, which can be altered at any time, including wearing symbols, like pink ribbons, for example, which could perhaps upset the rabidly anti-feminist, you know the type.

I see, so pink ribbons are about political feminism and not about breast and gynecological cancers?

Holy non sequitur, who said that?

Tell me, are there any protections at all from their bosses political opinions that you would like to see for workers? Or is it "the boss said it, you wear it, end of story"?

I think there should be limits. Did you never think about it until this week worrying about your hypothetical athlete so tragically oppressed for wearing a blm shirt?

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/Nv2iTkKUk60[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ruby sparks]

From the English Premier League last year:

'Kick it (racism) out'.

 

[Metaphor]

Holy non sequitur, who said that?

Well, if the example is not an example of being required to wear something political, why was it mentioned?

I think there should be limits. Did you never think about it until this week worrying about your hypothetical athlete so tragically oppressed for wearing a blm shirt?

I was not aware that any soccer player in the EPL had previously been required to wear a shirt with a political message on it. Indeed, I've asked for examples of political messages that they've been required to wear in the past and nobody has given me one.

But, I did not call an athlete who had to wear a BLM shirt 'oppressed', though I do think there is a loss of dignity for any athlete forced to support a particular political message or go without playing.

My workplace encourages employees to wear an item of purple clothing on 'Wear it Purple' day. I don't see it as particularly useful or harmful. But I would find it disconcerting if my boss said 'wear a purple item of clothing or don't bother showing up, and you will be docked that pay'.

 

[blastula]

Holy non sequitur, who said that?

Well, if the example is not an example of being required to wear something political, why was it mentioned?

Another non sequitur reply. It was given as an example, and your response was a non sequitur. I didn't say it had to have a certain meaning because it doesn't.

I think there should be limits. Did you never think about it until this week worrying about your hypothetical athlete so tragically oppressed for wearing a blm shirt?

I was not aware that any soccer player in the EPL had previously been required to wear a shirt with a political message on it. Indeed, I've asked for examples of political messages that they've been required to wear in the past and nobody has given me one.

I gave you an example in my first reply to you.

But, I did not call an athlete who had to wear a BLM shirt 'oppressed', though I do think there is a loss of dignity for any athlete forced to support a particular political message or go without playing.

Sure, you weren't calling them oppressed, you were just asking about "sympathy" for them for wearing it. Big difference.

Gawd, no wonder your forum exchanges go on for dozens on posts. The bad faith obtuseness is thick enough to cut with a spoon.

But this exchange is ending here for me.

 

[SimpleDon]

Update: all the players in the 1st game ‘took a knee’ before the kick off.

It’s good to see The Premier League, and the players, taking a lead on this.

They may know they need some good PR. There was criticism of some players not agreeing to a pay cut during the lockdown, when other less well paid staff were either furloughed or in some cases let go.

Do you have any sympathy for players who don't want "Black Lives Matter" on the back of their shirt, and who don't want to take a knee?

Do you think people should be forced to participate in political movements at work?

Why do you think that BLM is a political movement? Do you not realize that it is a humanitarian movement?

What do you think BLM is is trying to accomplish politically?

Do you have sympathy for people who believe that Black Lives don't Matter (BLdM)?

I will make this easier for you. Here is how BLM defines itself. Point out what you think defines them as a political movement in the countries that they operate in.

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.

We are expansive. We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.

We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

FIFA, the world wide sanctioning body for world football, had a campaign for years called "Say no to racism" that they forced every player in world football to wear on their shirts. Do you feel that this was a political campaign and do you feel sympathy for the players forced to wear the slogan who wanted to say yes to racism?

 

[laughing dog]

I did not claim any player had spoken out against it. In fact, I would not expect anybody to speak out even if they did object. But that isn't the point. I think it's reasonable to assume that not every player in the EPL thinks exactly alike on this issue (or indeed, any issue at all).

Thank you for admitting you had no factual basis for your question. Your assumptions and expectations are reflections of your mindset not reality.

So, you do not have any other examples of political messaging on soccer uniforms before this example?

Say no to racism.

So, political messaging is different to other kinds of messaging. Asking players to wear the logo of a corporate sponsor is widely accepted. But if players had the name of a particular political party or the symbol of a particular religion put on their clothing, that seems to me a horse of a different colour.

And you feel that is the same as "Black Lives Matter"? If so, explain why. If not, explain why it is relevant.

Evidently, although you do not trust my mind reading skills, you are certainly confident in your own.

No mind reading there. It was guess that maybe one or two people give a rat's ass about your (or my) opinion on this.

 

[Metaphor]

Why do you think that BLM is a political movement?

Because it has a list of political demands for the government, like defunding police.

Do you not realize that it is a humanitarian movement?

Whether it is or not does not stop it being a political movement.

What do you think BLM is is trying to accomplish politically?

BLM has said what it wants. It wants to defund the police and spend the money on welfare for communities of colour.

Do you have sympathy for people who believe that Black Lives don't Matter (BLdM)?

I've never a met a person who believes that.

FIFA, the world wide sanctioning body for world football, had a campaign for years called "Say no to racism" that they forced every player in world football to wear on their shirts. Do you feel that this was a political campaign and do you feel sympathy for the players forced to wear the slogan who wanted to say yes to racism?

I'd object, for example, if "Say no to Racism" was a particular organisation that had particular political aims.

It strikes me that nobody here would defend the EPL for a second if they had put 'all lives matter' on their shirts. After all, what could be more innocuous than 'all lives matter'? No, they would immediately object and say it is absolutely not appropriate that players should be forced to wear such a thing. They'd say it because 'all lives matter' has a context beyond the literal words. So does black lives matter.

EDIT: I'd also object to players being forced to wear a shirt that said all lives matter, because of the context beyond the literal words.

 

[Metaphor]

Thank you for admitting you had no factual basis for your question. Your assumptions and expectations are reflections of your mindset not reality.

Yes, laughing dog, it's called a hypothetical. Some people can engage in them without getting frightened.

Say no to racism.

Is that an organisation with particular political aims? I'd object to that message if it required you to believe in critical race theory, for example.

And you feel that is the same as "Black Lives Matter"? If so, explain why. If not, explain why it is relevant.

I already have. All across America, BLM is making demands such as defunding of police. Do you believe defunding police is a political aim with which somebody might disagree?

No mind reading there. It was guess that maybe one or two people give a rat's ass about your (or my) opinion on this.

No: the mind reading was where you claimed to know exactly how many people I think 'cared'.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, laughing dog, it's called a hypothetical. Some people can engage in them without getting frightened.

Some people can mistakenly feel their hypotheticals are either relevant or will advance the discussion.

Is that an organisation with particular political aims?

It is a political statement

I'd object to that message if it required you to believe in critical race theory, for example.

You feel your objection is relevant because we are discussing the validity of your opinion? We are not.

I already have. All across America, BLM is making demands such as defunding of police.

It is neither a political party nor a religion.

No: the mind reading was where you claimed to know exactly how many people I think 'cared'.

Wrong again - just a guess.

 

[Metaphor]

It is neither a political party nor a religion.

Since BLM takes positions on faith, I'd say it ticks that particular religion box. Hell, they even have kneeling to your superiors in their holy law.

But in any case, BLM is a political organisation with political goals. One of its goals is defunding the police, a position the majority of the population disagrees with.

Wrong again - just a guess.

You said the number of people who cared is less than I think. You are making a statement that you know what I think.

As usual, your accusations of mind reading don't stop you from engaging in mind reading. Nor does your difficulty with English stop you from claiming it's other people who have the comprehension problems.