There's a difference between civil disobedience and ****ting on something a huge group of people hold very dear. It seems unreasonable to me to expect anything less than hatred from the aforementioned group of people. Just ask Charlie Hebdo. If you think this is the path to success, then you've been fooled by people who profit from stirring the pot

Furthermore, seeking equality in a country while simultaneously showing disrespect for the same country is a bad idea. If the reason why isn't self-evident to you, you're on your own.

Hanging your hat on whether or not people with criminal records should or should not have been killed is very thin. Pick a better spot. If you really have a point, there's a better spot.

Maybe remove the tinfoil hat and emulate every other oppressed people's path to success, vs. continuing to repeat the same actions expecting a new result. Keep listening to those who profit from stirring the pot and don't be surprised when you're living in a completely divided country amidst a race war. That's when we all lose except the orchestrators.

I'm pretty insulated from most outcomes, have nothing to lose, and no butthurt. I'm not Arian and come from immigrants. This is just one man's view.

Which oppressed people in history have found a path to success without protest (for bonus points, protest that wasn't seen as "disrespectful") or other form of organised uprising?

None. I'm sorry that's what you got from my post. Protests haven't been the decision-maker, and choosing your protests wisely for greatest affect towards your goal instead of for greatest absolute value of affect makes more sense. If you're trying to start a fight with a protest, that's fine. Just own it. If you're not, then choose something that doesn't **** on what your target audience holds dear.

I'm confused by this. Are you saying it's ok to kill people because they have a criminal record?

Isn't the point of protest to throw what people hold dear and their ideas to the ground? What's the point of protesting if nobody cares about the thing you are protesting against?

To bring this back to protesting, I think it's been shown that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for him to protest. Disproportionate policing and disproportionate use of force, the wealth disparities as evidence of the lingering effects of state and societal laws, effects that haven't been remedied, continued use of political shannigans in order to limit minority policy power, employment discrimination, etc.

Even if you don't call those things oppression, or disagree with his use of 'oppression' these are problems that need to be fixed and protesting to bring attention to them is fine. People will protest when Walmart doesn't say Merry Christmas, I think disproportionate police brutality is a bit more worthy of protest.

No. Who taught you that, or that this is the way to get what you want? It's counter-intuitive unless what you want is a fight.

So which oppressed people should they be seeking to emulate?

Again, what do you think a protest is? It's a fight to change a status quo. Once more I ask, what is the point of a protest if nobody cares about what you are protesting against? How does that encourage change?

And again I say there's a difference between striking a chord vs disrespecting something a large group of people holds dear. That doesn't encourage change; that establishes yourself as an enemy, which (publicly) seems to be the opposite of the intention. If it's really not, that's a tactic too, but call it what it is.

Also let's face it, he's a kid, and an athlete, not an intellectual. I'm sure what he's doing is coming from a good place, but he's about to be the Mike Tyson to someone's Don King.

Well, we don't need to be 'taught', we can look and see. Of course, history teaches us the same lessons as what we observe. I'd really suggest you check your intuition detector, but ymmv.

Peacefully and silently bearing witness is as far as you can possibly get from "want is a fight". The stated purpose of the C.Kaepernick inspired protests has been to "start a conversation". They have been wildly successful, almost unimaginably successful, in doing just that.

As an aside, depending on particular circumstances, there's nothing wrong with starting a fight. For example, Claudette Colvin was starting a fight.

Wasn't there another boxer way back when who used to use his sporting platform to say a bunch of outrageous things that upset a lot people? Whatever happened to that guy?

He went to prison. Just like M.Tyson. Just like D.King. You know, the real problem is black crime and thug culture.

I was speaking to you directly, not to an entire people. If you're going to start speaking as "we" I'm bailing. The problem here is that while you don't see it as an affront to a large group of people's core values, the large group of people does.

The stated purpose is irrelevant if a large group of people feels attacked by this. My line of reasoning is used widely when the situation is flipped, so I hope you can understand it universally vs. only when it benefits your cause. This is starting 2 conversations: the public one and the private one. Regardless of the Facebook information feedback loop where most people get their information from, so they can regurgitate it and participate in the faux intellectualism that's become a cancer in our society, disrespecting the national anthem is "fighting words" to a lot of people. It's going to continue to divide the country until something snaps and something awful starts. Revolution is the most common path to change, but claiming this isn't inflammatory is either naïve or deceitful. K is naive and young and probably has reasonably wholesome intentions, IMO. The rest profit from the churn, in one way or another.

This doesn't help.

When the lunch counter protests started in 1960, that was seen as "an affront to a large group of people's core values" wasn't it? A large group of people felt attacked by that, didn't they? They responded with violence and that violence awakened the nation.

What would you have said to the lunch-counter protesters and the Freedom Riders? "Hey, c'mon guys, you're ****ting on something a huge group of people hold very dear! That's no way to encourage change!"

This is incorrect. I'm fully aware that a significant buncha peeps are just going to be resolutely bitter.

Well, here's the problems. First, of course you gotta figure in the purpose of something, if you wanna evaluate the effectiveness of achieving that purpose. Like :duh:'

Second, I have no idea why you went all personal, but I meant "we" as in the sense of "anyone". People have been doing demos and actions for several hundred years. There's a pretty good track record regarding what tactics work, and what tactics don't work. You shouldn't be using "lines of reasoning", you should be reading some history. That's what I was trying to get at when I said your intuition was whacked.

LOL no. This is hysterical, conspiritardical, and hilarious... all at the same time.

I humbly disagree. These were never core values. These were simply beliefs. I'd argue that loyalty and patriotism to one's own country are on a different level and can be shared by groups on both sides of the issue you cite. If our country had been invaded by Russia at that time (as an absurd example), I believe both sides would have taken up arms in defense.

The nation is God, and disrespecting the nation is blasphemy.

LOL, if you don't think segregation was a "core value" in the deep South in 1960, I guess you're on your own.

I'd say the idea that black or any other minorities grievances aren't legitimate is a core aspect of a certain part of society's patriotism.

If they were true patriots then they'd recognize symbolic criticism of the nation and the flag is, if not justified, then certainly understandable.

But they aren't.

You are the terrorist ******* in this scenario advocating the murder of innocent people, in case that makes you feel bad or something...

What I'm trying to communicate is that there is no way at all starting the "conversation" this way with this group ends well. You're either banking on the fact that this group proves to be insignificant, or you're starting a fight, if this is what you think is the best way to go.



You're assuming K is a worldly intellectual activist and had the total effect of his actions calculated. I challenge this belief. He's a kid who was moved to an act of protest like so many others before him. It has become larger than him, and than whatever he was thinking when he did this. People on both sides are using this to further their cause and to rally the troops. Aside from your grammar you seem intelligent compared to the majority of people who would be in this discussion on the internet, but you seem to have drunk the Kool aid like most people on one side or the other of these issues.

I'm not convinced of this but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the spirit of true intellectual debate and not the typical internet argument.
Well... There's a lot to say here and I'm only so capable. The history that favors demonstration is your own, yet you still feel oppressed. So how's that demonstration working out for you? You've either accomplished your goals or you didn't. If you didn't, why are you repeating what didn't work? If you did, then why are you still protesting?

The Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Arabs, the Indians, probably more, all pulled themselves past this argument before it happened. They're thriving and earning American dollars just fine. That's history. This path we're discussing has NEVER accomplished that result.

I think all societies had a majority of people who felt this way before revolution started. As someone who cites history, I'm surprised you're so confident that this is ludicrous.

They're not my favorite example but let's start with the Jews. They thrive yet I've never seen the million Jew march.