grego

I doubt it's as much changing opinions as it is political opportunism. (For both parties) Brzezinski also went after New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the elected Democrats who have abruptly decided -- years after the fact, and long after she needed to feel "honored" by his support -- that Bill Clinton's multiple accusers deserve to be believed: "One of the reasons why we, and I mean me and Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrats, lost is because Bill Clinton’s behavior was accepted. It was pushed under the rug and even women defended him...I know but he continues to flourish today and his wife ran for president even though these women who accused him were attacked in the media, were maligned or settled. That’s a different standard than we’re holding other people who were accused of the same behavior or less today. And this is why we have Trump. It’s all connected." https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/11/21/msnbcs-mika-you-know-why-we-have-trump-bill-clinton-n2412048

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.html This article talks about it. (no molestation)

i rewatched the (somewhat) classic 80s movie private school (phoebe cates, matthew modine) a few years ago and im having the same reaction. guys climbing up buildings to watch girls showering, dressing up as girls to go into the showers, etc. the craziest thing was the way the girls reactes- usually with a laugh or an eyeroll. not to mention movies like porkys. funny at the time. hasnt aged so well.

it can happen. alot of it is the messenger. a clear message doesnt hurt.

i dont disagree with alot of that. like i said above, there are those that will not be won over. cant do anything about that unfortunately. but there are those that want to listen and have a conversation. thats who i'm talking about. part of the 'impression they are giving' is the impression that they are protesting the flag, and its good that eric reid spoke about that. he said he isnt protesting the flag. credit to him. and if thats what you are speaking about, i agree. but to say people are changing the subject to the flag isnt true. it was about the flag - at least in part- in the beginning, but i recognize reid is saying its not now.

Some, for sure. Others are there to be convinced. Some people still think conversation is a good thing.

I think it was a good move for players to not kneel this weekend. Shows that they are aware of the impression they are giving. That's how you win friends and influence people.

i actually agree with you here. i'm 100% anti violence, basically, unless youre being attacked.

There are definitely some men who see their girlfriends or wives like that. I think the main motivation for a physical reaction to someone grabbing a woman is less cynical. I don't know if it's nature or cultural (probably more nature) but protecting women in general, or children, the elderly, even animals, just by virtue of the fact that they aren't typically physically match a typical male seems like a normal, good, positive instinct. And many of those don't have a "property" characteristic to them the way a wife might.

I thought that was an interesting point. The last time I heard the phrase - or, I'm sure, used it myself - was talking about the evergreen college situation where the students quite literally took over the school. I Googled it to see what came up. Outside of a few references to McNair, it was almost all links to a book computer tech til page four or five. Then it talks about the federal government, evergreen, Dems saying it about the GOP,then a couple of other situations at Yale and ucsc - that one actually involved a black student group. Still, it's a term that is used when individuals take control over from those who are in charge and is appropriate in terms of its accuracy. I wouldn't think twice about using it, but I know why I'm saying it and what I'm saying. To your point, I don't know if there's a better way to look into its use, but it appears that it's used in lots of situations.

i thought the moskos site had videos organized into 9more) categories but just clicking around, i can't find ones that don't involve shootings, but i think they are there somewhere. other places ive seen some crazy ones are world star hip hop and youtube. if you look under blue lives matter in youtube, you'll find a bunch where someone (black male) was going nuts and didnt get shot. if you open up the first one in youtube, there will be more like it in the cue. obviously, blue lives matter wants to show these kinds of videos, while opponents will show bad shootings, which is really my point. every site has an agenda they want to emphasize. if youre not looking for them, youre not likely to find them. and when we dont see them, we assume they dont exist, but they do. some of the worst shootings by cops ive seen were white victims (those are on the cop in the hood site, link is below). if there are 4x as many whites killed than blacks, you would expect there would be a bunch of bad ones just based on the numbers. you just don't hear about them because it doesn't get clicks. http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/07/reducing-police-involved-shooting.html

cant respond now cuz i'm at work (supposed to be working). i'll try and respond later, but two quick thoughts- i think our interpretations of his tweet differ, so our responses to it differ. second, i think you read into my comment about being insulted if i were black something different that i was intending. of course, there are obvious things that people just know are offensive to people depending on their ethnicity. that doesnt mean anyone can say what its like to be another ethnicity. i actually see his tweet as insulting, self serving and ultimately harmful in that i see it as downplaying a problem. but, again, we see his tweet differently. the rotherham thing has to do with what hes doing- the desire for (many) white people to avoid being seen as anything resembling a racist is so strong, they will turn a blind eye to someone of another race doing something obviously wrong. i'll pm you the details later.

but the problem is, its an attempt to downplay or completely ignore a very real problem. the fact that its a prep school, privileged white guy who can't possibly claim to not know (despite not having come anywhere near it) about the problem of violence in inner cities- of which the vast majority of victims are black- makes it cringeworthy and unconscionable this is identical to the completely bogus article written by the white girl that was posted last year about the 'myth of the black absentee father'. as if, pretending theres not a problem is going to somehow fix it. but it wont. meanwhile, the virtue signaling white folks feel great about themselves for posting it. its bull****, everybody knows it, but nobody is saying it. its a kind of soft bigotry of low expectations. i'd be insulted if i were black. i'm insulted as a white guy. i'm insulted as a white guy who grew up in a bad, one parent household with no direction who went on to act out violently and got himself thrown in jail as a result. my mom was an abusive mess who left when i was 2 years old. dad was around but not involved. that crap messes up your head. across all races, kids in these kids of living situations are 5 times more likely to act out violently or end up in jail. downplaying it results in more screwed up kids and that pisses me off. let me ask you, have you heard of the rotherham child sex scandal?

did you look at the website i posted?

wonderful. i'm sure mr. reilly feels like a hero.

I think I would ask 'how do we know?' McWhorter said he didn't believe that whites were unjustly shot by cops. The reason was, he'd never seen it. Why didn't he? I don't think the article references it directly but there is a site done by a former cop, Peter Moskos. He has a bunch of police shooting videos on there. He's the one that sent McWhorter 'the list'. www.copinthehood.com

I posted this article just last week. I think it's interesting because the author is saying exactly what you're saying as far as the influence of videos (and the media) and how it influences what we believe. time.com/4404987/police-violence/

A single video isn't the best way to demonstrate a trend. All someone would have to do would be to find a video of a poc acting similarly and not getting shot. Or a white person getting shot (or shot by a poc cop) for no apparent reason. The best way to do it would be to find every shooting video you can, analyze and categorize them.

i'm with you. my impression is that individual teams don't want the PR headache or distraction, especially for a backup. and, i think owners are worried about their bottom line (of course, they are billionaires anyway, but). they think they'll suffer financially if they sign him, which may be true, i dunno. and i still stand by my argument that he's essentially RG3 in terms of his effective style, so unless youre committed to that style, theres no reason to have him as your backup. the niners thing as far as him having a contract offer is interesting, and if the ravens were really serious about him and his gf did what she did, that doesnt help him. even if they were undecided, her tweet was not helping, so that hurts. but i dont think theres collusion between teams to keep him out of the league, as far as i can tell.

ahhh yeah. totally get that. when i see people doing things for no other reason than....just because....it kinda drives me nuts. had an old girlfriend take me to her catholic church (i wasnt catholic). pretty soon, everybodys randomly kneeling, then sitting, then saying stuff in unison, then saying stuff in unison in latin, then crossing themselves. hey, why are we doing this? i dunno. just shut up and do it. grrrrr. and this was after i got yelled at by a priest in boot camp for having gloves on when he tried to put a wafer in my hand (which i chose as an alternative to having some strange man stick some food in my mouth- kind of a no brainer). guess i was always the kid who said 'why' to every answer. now, i get that, ultimately, there is a 'reason' for pretty much any ritual. its just usually a dumb one, imo.

i agree about the video (though i'd add that all kinds of people discussing all kinds of issues are guilty of this kind of thing). as far as the 'why; we stand for the anthem, that strikes me as more of an individual thing though. to many people (perhaps most), it does represent the country. (unless i misinterpreted it)

have you read john mcwhorter on this? he seems to echo exactly what youre saying. "The heart of the indignation over these murders is a conviction that racist bias plays a decisive part in these encounters. That has seemed plausible to me, and I have recently challenged those who disagree to present a list of white people killed within the past few years under circumstances similar to those that so enrage us in cases such as what happened to Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Walter Scott, Sam Debose and others." http://time.com/4404987/police-violence/ heres the blog of a former cop mcwhorter references. interesting stuff. http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/07/reducing-police-involved-shooting.html

agree that the second video was more clear and better for the cops than the first, in which i didnt see harmon turned or with a knife. ya, but just running should definitely not allow anyone to be shot (i dont think you meant that, btw). i think where there is debate is whether or not the presence of a knife, or if hes advancing (like the trans student that got shot- kinda looked like suicide by cop, though), etc. allows lethal force.

its not really a first amendment issue though (if i'm reading you correctly). they have a right to protest, but doing so while working for a private (which is debatable) company isnt protected if your employer doesnt allow it. heres an article about it. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/opinions/first-amendment-football-protest-callan-opinion/index.html agree with you that some folks are in a tough position if they want to be supportive, but if its me, i have to take care of my family- i'd definitely find ways to be supportive outside of kneeling if my employer didnt allow it.

Trying to sort thru this, kind of thinking out loud. I support anyone's right to kneel whole heartedly. By that same logic, I support a team owners mandate that players he's paying must stand, and if a player chooses to not play by the rules of said owner, he is (or will be) free to play for another team who's owner has different rules (even if I can disagree with both stances, practically and logically, but not in terms of absolute 'rights'). Been a long day, so please let me know if and where I'm screwing this up.