American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Cappy]

You could argue that the NFL is like any other league or corporation in North America. They try to appeal to the largest base of customers and their political views.

However, the issue of Kapernick is pretty much how cancel culture works. A small group of people create a firestorm that forces the company or business to essentially cut ties with the individual in order to save face to that segment of the population.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is an interesting take. Is the NFL right or left wing? I mean yes, they are owned by bazillionaires but also they bring awareness to many causes.

They raise awareness so that their owners can get away with being huge pieces of garbage in their private lives and treating their players like chattel. I can't think of anything more right-wing.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is an interesting take. Is the NFL right or left wing? I mean yes, they are owned by bazillionaires but also they bring awareness to many causes.

No team thought Kaepernick was good enough to get around all the noise? Were fans really going to boycott games? I don't think NFL fans would boycott games for any reason including child murder.

I’m really not sure how it’s an interesting take. 100% without the controversy around him protesting police brutality he would made a team. Teams simply weren’t interested in him because of the “baggage” he brought and more and more NFL executives and management have said as much. https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of...175616379.html

So he literally lost his career for his political beliefs, yet it’a “interesting” to say he got cancelled. But Tim Allen who had his mediocre show with mediocre ratings cancelled from ABC, picked up by Fox, still cancelled cause it wasn’t great, and that’s cancel culture?

As for whether the NFL is left or right, it’s neither, it’s a business. The people who “cancelled” Kaepernik for his views on racism and police brutality though? Yeah that was the right…

They’ve been doing this since before Jane Fonda.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is an interesting take. Is the NFL right or left wing? I mean yes, they are owned by bazillionaires but also they bring awareness to many causes.

No team thought Kaepernick was good enough to get around all the noise? Were fans really going to boycott games? I don't think NFL fans would boycott games for any reason including child murder.

It's but so much a left vs right as it is that the NFL brand is literally about patriotism and military.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

They raise awareness so that their owners can get away with being huge pieces of garbage in their private lives and treating their players like chattel. I can't think of anything more right-wing.

I still find it fascinating and interesting. Why do liberals support the NFL if it's so right wing? But they won't support, I don't know, Rosanne?.

[OptimalTates]

Rosanne was at one point the number one watched show. At the time Rosanne Barr, the actress, would have been seen as quite left, sure. But the show itself as the (white) working class poor but loving family was obviously something that the right could support with the left. But when it was revived in the late 2010s she had already shifted right and supported Trump over Hilary but the ratings were a success.

It wasn’t that she was right that she was removed. It was that she’s insane. She tweeted that Soros was a Nazi. She has thanked Trump for saving all the children being molested in pizzagate. She became a QAnon. And then of course the intoxicated tweet that actually got her canceled appeared to be racist in nature as she referred to Valeri Jarrett, a Black politician, as a monkey posting “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

So it wasn’t her politics that got her cancelled it was her perceived bigotry after decades of controversy. In fact it was so very clearly not because of her politics that they continue it after Rosanne Barr was “cancelled” because of how well the show was received before her apparent racist tweets.

Recently That’s 70 Show was revived as That 90’s Show. Most of the main cast made at least cameos except for Masterson who played Hyde. That’s because the actor has been accused of rape by multiple women and is about to go through trial. Was he canceled in your opinion? Seems similar in that his (alleged) heinous actions have cost him a job. But I guess since he wasn’t a Trump supporter it’s the normal “actions have consequences” and not “cancel cutler run amok.”

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I still find it fascinating and interesting. Why do liberals support the NFL if it's so right wing? But they won't support, I don't know, Rosanne?.

To me:
- the NFL as a league is now decently progressive
- the NFL Owners are right wing as there is
- people watch NFL for the sport, not the off-the-field activities

Kapernick was not banned by the league, but it seems the owners made their teams avoid him. Vast difference.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by calculoso

To me:
- the NFL as a league is now decently progressive
- the NFL Owners are right wing as there is
- people watch NFL for the sport, not the off-the-field activities

Kapernick was not banned by the league, but it seems the owners made their teams avoid him. Vast difference.

Since when is sexual assault and domestic violence progressive?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Since when is sexual assault and domestic violence progressive?

The league does that or the players do? I don’t lump them in the same basket.


The league raises awareness for various causes (racism, etc), suspends/bans players for assaults (debatable whether they are strict enough), etc. Those are progressive actions.

[PsYcNeT]

Progressive as in "progressively watching the mental deterioration of their players brains due to CTE" I suppose.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How about Tim Allen? No longer Buzz Lightyear and sitcom cancelled? Other than supporting Trump I don't think he's said anything ####ty. Not like JK Rowlings transphobic tweets or Armie Hammers rape fetishes.

JK Rowling has not made transphobic tweets. On the other hand, a baying mob has set out to destroy her.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

JK Rowling has not made transphobic tweets. On the other hand, a baying mob has set out to destroy her.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

Lol the UK is basically ground zero for the anti-trans movement, and JK routinely rolls out the Mumsnet canards with alarming regularity. She also retweets and likes posts from ultra-chuds like Graham Linehan and has made increasingly more fringe posts about bio-truths for the last 5 years.

She also absolutely *loves* to quote-tweet trans activists and unleash a plague of smooth brained idiots into their mentions.

But yeah sure, she's an ally for ??? reasons

[Barnet Flame]

Thanks for all those enlightening examples.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

JK Rowling has not made transphobic tweets. On the other hand, a baying mob has set out to destroy her.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

You could quote the tweet she made before this statement was required to be released that started the whole thing.

[OptimalTates]

She liked a tweet that called transwomen "men in dresses".

She tweeted support for Maya Forstater who was fired for transphobic comments (under a guise of supporting free speech).

She wrote a book where the murderer ended up being a transwoman trying to keep her secret. When caught there was a quip about not having fun in prison as a pre-op transwoman.

She wrote a book where the murderer was a man who dressed up as a woman to kill women.

She deleted previous tweets praising Stephen King and blocked him after he said "trans women are women."

Even in her "let's clear up my position essay" she had several transphobic dog whistles including the bathroom debate:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.:"

Barnet Flame might be correct in that saying she hasn't actually made any clearcut transphobic tweets. But to argue she isn't transphobic would be hilarious.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

You could quote the tweet she made before this statement was required to be released that started the whole thing.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...509313?lang=en

There you go.

Happy now?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...509313?lang=en

There you go.

Happy now?

Your going to argue that isn’t transphobic?

[Barnet Flame]

I don’t believe she is.

But I do believe that you can be labelled transphobic just for trying to discuss and protect the rights of women.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

I don’t believe she is.

But I do believe that you can be labelled transphobic just for trying to discuss and protect the rights of women.

The first tweet wasn’t defending women. It was mocking inclusionary language.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

I don’t believe she is.

But I do believe that you can be labelled transphobic just for trying to discuss and protect the rights of women.

How does liking a tweet saying transwomen are just men in dresses protect the right of women?

How does taking issue with someone saying that transwomen are women protect the right of women?

She had wrote like 5 crime books and one the killer was a transgendered woman, another was a man who dressed up as woman and described as a transvestite. She was clearly pushing a narrative here.