Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
"The national anthem has two purposes. First is to honour our flag and our country and the second is to pay respect to our troops. Athletes who take a knee during the anthem are out of place because that's not what this time is for, so it's disrespectful."
"The time right after a shooting is no time to discuss gun laws and how those not directly affected in this tragedy are also affected by gun violence. It's an important discussion, but this is clearly not the right time."
By analogy, are these arguments really so different from those offered by GGG and Photon?
|
This is why analogies are often a bad way to contrast a situation.
Your first analogy is a lot more correlative than your second, so I'll tackle that, because the second isn't really worth addressing.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, you believe
an athlete taking a knee in
response to systematic oppression by the justice system and being told to do it elsewhere
is equivocal to
a women speaking out in
response to systematic issues in the social system,
and then a man saying "well what about my issues?" and being told to do it elsewhere
Do you notice the key difference here? Your analogy is only directly comparable if you give the same weight to the anthem as a broad swath of women openly admitting their issues.
Do you believe that these men would be bringing these issues up in a vacuum? Specifically, the kneejerk response of most interjectors to hijack this issue (or say, a thread about this issue) is always less about actually looking for a solution, and more about drowning out the voice of women. How many times have you seen kneejerks complain about Male Rape or Against Male Domestic Abuse? In contrast, how many times have you seen these same men volunteer for or fund initiatives to combat these issues? How many times have they included the plight gay men face regarding these issues?