Woke is white arrogance

[TomC]

No, it's not.

Please explain why you think that Kaep never accepted an offer.
Tom

The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

 

[untermensche]

The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

We know every NFL team just finished their preseason camps and Kaepernick was not invited to try out by anyone.

 

[Patooka]

The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

You could apply a little logic. First off, you're not going to see definitive proof one way or the other as you are basically asking for someone to prove a negative. However, the backlash against Kaepernick was really bad PR for the NFL. Him being blackballed put the sport in a bad light. This could all go away with simply one of the owners saying, "Colin Kaepernick is full of shit and here is the contract to prove it". Seeing as not a single NFL owner can provide any documentation supporting this, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

 

[ZiprHead]

Colin Kaepernick has had no offers from NFL teams since workout, say reports

 

[TomC]

The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

You could apply a little logic. First off, you're not going to see definitive proof one way or the other as you are basically asking for someone to prove a negative. However, the backlash against Kaepernick was really bad PR for the NFL. Him being blackballed put the sport in a bad light. This could all go away with simply one of the owners saying, "Colin Kaepernick is full of shit and here is the contract to prove it". Seeing as not a single NFL owner can provide any documentation supporting this, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

According to [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION];
The NFL consumers support BLM and, one would think, Kaep. The profitable thing to do would be hire him.

But that hasn't happened. Why do think that is?

The general consensus on TFT appears to be that the NFL owners are willing to take a big financial hit to support racism.
I doubt that's true.

But nobody seems able to come up with another possibility. Either Kaep isn't worth hiring or NFL team owners are willing to pay to be racist.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

You are most welcome.
No, I did not. I asked you about the basis for your claim of knowledge.
Since the NFL makes most of its revenue from its TV contract, I seriously doubt Mr. Kaepernick's protest affected the profits of the NFL at all. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim about the profitability or for that matter, his alienation of a huge chunk of NFL consumers?

Mr. Kaepernick made a choice. He vastly underestimated the negative reactions to his almost imperceptible act of protest by fans, the human shitpost that was POTUS and the cowardice of the NFL ownership.

Do I care what happened? Not really. But that does not mean I should blindly accept the kneejerk NFL apologia as fact.

Your Woke blinders are remarkable.

This has nothing to do with "Woke". It has to do with observing the actual facts and using reason. Really, you should try it.

If Kaep was a great player and loved by the fans, the NFL would have offered him a bigger, better, contract. They do this for the money.

Yes, and they bowed to perceptions of bigots and Trump supporters. You have yet to produce a scintilla of evidence that NFL revenues were affected by this.

That's the evidence that Kaep wasn't worth much. The NFL wasn't willing to pay him enough to get him to sign a deal.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. He was not made any offer - hence his lawsuit over collusion. This  Colin_Kaepernick gives a nice rendition of the events. Perhaps if you read it with comprehension, you may stop persisting in posting falsehoods.

And frankly, your use of the term "almost imperceptible", is laughable. Even I heard about it. And even now, I'm hearing about it. Kaep managed to punch through my utter disinterest in NFL long enough to give me an even worse impression of BLM.

Of course you heard about it.
Once some bigot or Trumpster started bellowing about it, the rest of them chimed in. I imagine it was a big topic at Klan meetings.
I think you give Mr. Kaepernick too much credit about your impression of BLM.

Sorry, super rich celebrities talking about how much of a victim they are is nauseating, to me. Too much like Trump complaining about how misunderstood he is by the nasty liberals.
Tom

What brought that particular straw man on?

 

[laughing dog]

The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

 

[ZiprHead]

Is Tom C displaying white arrogance?

 

[laughing dog]

You could apply a little logic. First off, you're not going to see definitive proof one way or the other as you are basically asking for someone to prove a negative. However, the backlash against Kaepernick was really bad PR for the NFL. Him being blackballed put the sport in a bad light. This could all go away with simply one of the owners saying, "Colin Kaepernick is full of shit and here is the contract to prove it". Seeing as not a single NFL owner can provide any documentation supporting this, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

According to [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION];
The NFL consumers support BLM and, one would think, Kaep. The profitable thing to do would be hire him.

But that hasn't happened. Why do think that is?

The general consensus on TFT appears to be that the NFL owners are willing to take a big financial hit to support racism.
I doubt that's true.

But nobody seems able to come up with another possibility. Either Kaep isn't worth hiring or NFL team owners are willing to pay to be racist.
Tom

You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is possible that the NFL owners are simply mistaken about the effect on their revenues from hiring Mr. Kaepernick at the time.

 

[TomC]

The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom

It was the NFL team bosses that placed the players in political positions when they had them come out for the anthem. No one should be forced to perform political acts.

 

[TomC]

I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom

It was the NFL team bosses that placed the players in political positions when they had them come out for the anthem. No one should be forced to perform political acts.

I agree.
But Kaep agreed to do that when he signed the contract paying him. ($25M, if I remember correctly).
The NFL didn't agree to televise Kaep's performance.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom

You have presented no evidence that
1) Mr. Kaepernick's behavior cost the NFL any money,
2) Mr. Kaepernick's behavior alienated a significant portion of the NFL's customer base, and
3) Mr. Kaepernick's reservation wage (i.e. the minimal acceptable salary) was millions of dollars.

As far as I can tell, your position is based solely on your beliefs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The "woke" never do.

To my best information Native Americans prefer that term. Until I hear something different, I'm going with that.

I had a discussion here, I can't remember with who, who had a problem with me using the "word" transexual and explained that only ignorant bad people used that term. The new approved term is "transgender". Or whatever it was. I can't remember. That's what I'm talking about.

For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.

No, that's just my point. It's bizarre to demand that everybody learns the intricate specialized terminology for every marginalized group. You're just wrong. The word use might be indicative of what tribe the person saying it belongs to. But maybe not. You don't know.

I'm not transsexual. But I do know people who are. Yes, it's more than one. If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem. No, it's not about caring. It's not a competition of who is the best ally or who is the most empathic. If using the wrong word makes you put people into the evil box then transexualism is a proxy. Then you don't really care about transexuals. You just like hating people and creating division. If that's the case then it's just an ego trip of sitting on a high horse passing judgement. It's the joy of taking down blasphemers and watching them burn. Nothing about it is progressing or productive. It's woke.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Have you watched any TV commercials lately?

Nope. I don't think I've seen a TV commercial in about seven years

If you didn't know any better you would assume blacks are about 70% of the population. When in reality, its more like 13%. I doubt its an accident that the actors auditioning for and being hired for the spots just happened to be black. I think what's actually happening is advertisers are trying to outwoke each other, and we've gotten to sorta absurd levels of wokeness.

So... this gets to a bit of a derail. But I'll roll the dice anyway.

I actually support temporary over-representation of many groups in fiction and representational entertainment. One of the challenges with society is that our map for how the world works gets set when we're fairly young, and is very strongly influenced by visual stimuli and what we observe of the interactions from adults. Part of shifting subconscious stereotypes lies in exposing young children to scenarios that defy those stereotypes. To do this in a way that can impact existing social stereotypes about black people or hispanic people or women requires that enough black and hispanic and female characters get shown to build a framework that doesn't tie race or sex to specific types of roles. But given the limited number of actual bodies involved in most representational fiction... you end up by necessity over-representing some subsegments.

It should be temporary, if it works. Once that stereotype is removed, once there's no longer that association, I think it would revert back to population norms.

I don't think it's a derail. And it's my thread... so there.

The problem with overrepresentation of minorities in media isn't the fact that they're there. I have no problem with that. I think it's good. The problem is that they're often awesome. They start out awesome. It's not interesting to watch. In the original Ghostbusters the characters had a bunch of obstacles to overcome, and they did it with great difficulty. In the new feminist Ghostbusters they were just awesome right out the gate. Their obstacles were the rest of society not believing in them. That's boring to watch. Wonderwoman was a yawnfest. Nobody wants to see somebody awesome easily crush enemies.

These kinds of films give away the woke mentality. Everybody knows that nobody starts out awesome. We all start out as weak and insecure. That's what's relatable. That's the characters we like seeing on the screen.

These woke movies are dependent on viewers who assume that because the characters are women or black (or transgendered black women) they will be weak. And the film is about proving the viewers preconception wrong. That's going to be a very very short window of opportunity. We only. (sometimes) think like that now because we've, for so many years, been fed the idea that the sluts and the blacks get murdered first. But that stopped in the 90'ies. For thirty years now minority characters have been as complex as the non-minority characters. Until now. Now the minority characters are paper thin again. They're awesome at everything. That's not progress IMHO.

The world of woke movie making are fighting an enemy that died in the 1980'ies. Now they're preaching to a choir. These woke movie goers don't seem to care if the stories are any good. They're like fundamentalist evangelicals just wanting their religious views be validated, and they cheer at that. Movies were fine before woke came along. No, not Disney movies. But that was it. That was the last bastion of mainstream conservative value movie making.

But I can't see how this woke paradigm can last. These woke movies are all boring. Once the novelty has worn off the wokes are going to tire of watching them and then the money will stop funding them.

To continue my ramble, this is what I love about Dan Harmon of Rick and Morty fame. He's woke. But he's smart woke. His stuff is awesome. But that requires genius to pull off. Almost none of the woke stuff out there is made by geniuses. Dan Harmon is pretty alone in his category. Also worth noting is that his stuff is self referential and about woke topics. He rarely touches on topics outside woke topics.

So it's not like I think woke films can't be good. It's more like demanding that every film is woke will inevitably lead to a multitude of bland boring movies that are essentially all the same. But like I said. I think it's transitory, and I think the woke movie trend is already dying. I think Black Panther was peak woke.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.

So we should call out racist strutures and policies? What the hell is your problem then? More importantly, what the hell is your plan? You unleash angry bile on anyone who does the actual work of treying to untangle systemic racism and accuse them of complicity in the rise of Nazism, but you advance no plan or strategy of your own.

I'm cool with calling out racist structures and policies. But I'm also cool with people not doing it. Woke is about demanding that everybody get on the programme of following a very narrowly defined post modernist interpretation of oppression (not that I think most wokes understand they are) and then vitriolically attacking anybody who disagrees.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.

My god, logic is actually dead.

No, thinking that your arguments against a largely imaginary foe are stupid as hell do not mean I'm arguing for your largely imaginary foe.

I see you are using the "no, I didn't" defence. Well done. That sure showed me.

 

[Politesse]

I'm cool with calling out racist structures and policies. But I'm also cool with people not doing it. Woke is about demanding that everybody get on the programme of following a very narrowly defined post modernist interpretation of oppression (not that I think most wokes understand they are) and then vitriolically attacking anybody who disagrees.

Who are you talking about?

I don't vitriolically attack people for not confronting racism and sexism and so forth. If they're actively promoting it, then sure, they're fair game. They sure as hell won't hold back on their opinions of my position, why should I grant them any more of a favor?

I am also baffled by what a "narrowly defined postmodernist position" could possibly be other than a contradiction in terms.

 

[Politesse]

I see you are using the "no, I didn't" defence. Well done. That sure showed me.

"No I'm not" is the only reasonable response to such an absurd claim. Why would you know what groups or identities I belong to better than I would? You are really not making much of a case here for being the antidote to arrogance, going around telling people who they are and treating their disagreement liek its a legal case they have to win rather than a simple correction of the dumb damn thing you just said. If that's what you think humility looks like, that really reframes the semantic weight of your argument concerning these "Wokes".

 

[fromderinside]

Eye roll.

Shame.

End of comment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm cool with calling out racist structures and policies. But I'm also cool with people not doing it. Woke is about demanding that everybody get on the programme of following a very narrowly defined post modernist interpretation of oppression (not that I think most wokes understand they are) and then vitriolically attacking anybody who disagrees.

Who are you talking about?

I don't vitriolically attack people for not confronting racism and sexism and so forth. If they're actively promoting it, then sure, they're fair game. They sure as hell won't hold back on their opinions of my position, why should I grant them any more of a favor?

That's stacking the deck. If your definition of actively promoting racism and sexism is not using the current politically correct terminology then you're one of the people I am talking about.

I am also baffled by what a "narrowly defined postmodernist position" could possibly be other than a contradiction in terms.

I agree. It should be. That's not stopping the wokes. I've never seen anybody use the word "intersectionalism" while also understanding how incredibly weak that position is. It's more common in the mouth of somebody on a righteous crusade convinced how correct they are.