[/zn/]

Don't be too literal ZN. It was a ridiculous post to mirror the ridiculous situation.

As far as Kaepernick, I've never felt that he was sincere. .

We part company on that. I just repeat my view that it's a common political talk radio tactic to evade issues by "mindreading" and smearing the presumed motives of activists. It's not real and it's not an argument, it's just dismissing something that is complex and volatile.

And I don't share your views on racial essentialism. You do not need "street cred" to protest racism. People from all walks of life can speak out on that--and we do not get to judge who gets to and who doesn't, not without looking like we ourselves are deliberately evading the issue. That's just more of the same talk radio "smear and discredit" stuff, which I generally take about as seriously as I do 8th grade razzing.

....

[moklerman]

We part company on that. I just repeat my view that it's a common political talk radio tactic to evade issues by "mindreading" and smearing the presumed motives of activists. It's not real and it's not an argument, it's just dismissing something that is complex and volatile.

And I don't share your views on racial essentialism. You do not need "street cred" to protest racism. People from all walks of life can speak out on that--and we do not get to judge who gets to and who doesn't, not without looking like we ourselves are deliberately evading the issue. That's just more of the same talk radio "smear and discredit" stuff, which I generally take about as seriously as I do 8th grade razzing.

....

But I'm not trying to discredit the cause. I'm not arguing that there isn't an issue of racial unrest and that Kaepernick's actions prove anything.

I'm basing my opinion of Kaepernick on his history and his actions. Something else I didn't mention was his timing. If he'd been an advocate or voice for this cause at any time before he was benched I'd be more open-minded about him being sincere. But, from what I've seen, most of what Kaepernick has done has been to benefit himself.

It's not impossible that in his own self interests he has discovered a way to help others with their problems but I think that is purely secondary or tangential to CK's true cause.

[AvengerRam]

What more would he have gotten than money?

Name something he would have gained beyond money, if he had won.

1. A finding of wrongdoing.
2. More money.
3. Attorney’s fees.
4. Costs.
5. Precedent that could assist future litigants.
6. The ability to publicly discuss the evidence.

Need I go on?

Certainly not any kind of "social justice" gains since a millionaire jock getting more millions is not actually a social justice issue.

CK never had a chance of actually achieving “social justice.” A win in arbitration, however, would have greatly enhanced his standing as an “activist.”

I can explain why if you need that. .

A houseplant has a better chance of educating me on nuclear physics than you have of explaining anything relating to this issue.

[/zn/]

But I'm not trying to discredit the cause. I'm not arguing that there isn't an issue of racial unrest and that Kaepernick's actions prove anything.

I'm basing my opinion of Kaepernick on his history and his actions. Something else I didn't mention was his timing. If he'd been an advocate or voice for this cause at any time before he was benched I'd be more open-minded about him being sincere. But, from what I've seen, most of what Kaepernick has done has been to benefit himself.

It's not impossible that in his own self interests he has discovered a way to help others with their problems but I think that is purely secondary or tangential to CK's true cause.

You are basing your interpretation on your opinion. of his actions. And you believe that puts you in a position to say who is or is not a "real" activist in the name of race.

I don't buy any of that.

I think it's mind-reading at its worst, and I also do not believe that anyone has the insight to selectively discredit activists who speak out on racial justice issues.

...

[/zn/]

1. A finding of wrongdoing.
2. More money.
3. Attorney’s fees.
4. Costs.
5. Precedent that could assist future litigants.
6. The ability to publicly discuss the evidence.

Need I go on?



CK never had a chance of actually achieving “social justice.” A win in arbitration, however, would have greatly enhanced his standing as an “activist.”



A houseplant has a better chance of educating me on nuclear physics than you have of explaining anything relating to this issue.

I see, the problem was that you were off topic.

The discussion I was part of had to do with what CK's motives were for the suit. The suit was filed because he claims he was denied a contract through collusion and he sought recompense for that.

That was said in response to people who were claiming his only motive was money AS OPPOSED TO social justice. No, the lawsuit was about money all along. He got money if he settled and he got money if he won.

Since you read that out of context, you then decide that you should type up all the normal obvious stuff about lawsuits, as if that were a response.

The point of the lawsuit was money as opposed to social justice (which could never have been the point of that lawsuit, it's impossible). Therefore, settling for money does not mean being a social justice sell-out.

That was the context. I thought that was obvious but... not everyone is always in on "the obvious."

...

[moklerman]

You are basing your interpretation on your opinion. of his actions. And you believe that puts you in a position to say who is or is not a "real" activist in the name of race.

I don't buy any of that.

I think it's mind-reading at its worst, and I also do not believe that anyone has the insight to selectively discredit activists who speak out on racial justice issues.

...

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm offering my opinion. But I'm not basing my opinion on my interpretation. Whatever that means. I don't know how to more clearly say that my opinion of him is based on what I've read about his past and his actions.

I never claimed to know what he's actually thinking so your continued claim of mind-reading just seems to be an intentional diversion of the conversation. If your argument is that we can never judge someone based on their actions and because we can't literally read their minds then I'm not sure why you'd feel any justification in commenting on anything.

[AvengerRam]

I see, the problem was that you were off topic.

...

No, the problem is that I responded directly to your comment, made you look like a fool, and now you’re trying to change the subject and put up irrelevant strawmen.

[/zn/]

No, the problem is that I responded directly to your comment, made you look like a fool, and now you’re trying to change the subject and put up irrelevant strawmen.

\

Naw you apparently had no idea what the comment meant.

So for example, you actually say he would get from the suit a finding of wrongdoing.

That has nothing to do with anything being discussed. The ONLY wrongdoing that could be found would relate directly to collusion, which is the league and at least one team discussing not signing CK. That's it. That's the only possible "wrongdoing."

Now think about that. The point I was making (which it seems I have to repeat cause you're still no acting like you know the context of the conversation) is that the lawsuit has nothing to do with social justice and always had to do with money. That's argued against those who, for whatever convoluted reason, argue that in settling for money, he showed he didn;t really care about social justice.

You know, political talk radio. No matter how illogical the "argument", smear the character and motives of your target.

So finding wrongdoing in a case of collusion has nothing whatsoever to do with social justice. So when I said what else could he have gotten besides money, that was asking what SOCIAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES could he get? And it's none (which is the real answer). Not "what happens in lawsuits." Here the issue was this: does settling mean he is a social justice sell-out? No...this suit could never have anything to do with social justice either way.

Saying he could he could have gotten a finding of wrongdoing doesn't respond to that point or that conversation. You took something out of context.

He sued for the lost contract money, he settled for money, there was no outcome that could ever possibly have anything to do with social justice. The lawsuit was always about money.

You're acting like that isn't the conversation (though it is) and that instead the conversation is about the outcomes of lawsuits in general.

It's as if I said, where's a good place to go for breakfast, and you started describing the different types of domesticated chickens raised in the USA.

....

[moklerman]

ZN, maybe I've glossed over you saying so but it seems you're not seeing that the collusion case is directly tied to the social justice? Yes, the case itself was about lost income but he lost that income because he was kneeling and being a huge distraction. You don't think that they're connected and one wouldn't have happened without the other?

[dieterbrock]

I never claimed to know what he's actually thinking so your continued claim of mind-reading just seems to be an intentional diversion of the conversation. If your argument is that we can never judge someone based on their actions and because we can't literally read their minds then I'm not sure why you'd feel any justification in commenting on anything.

That’s because ZN is the board hypocrite. He’s allowed to read your mind and inform you that mind reading is no bueno
Kaepernick’s history of bone headed decisions certainly lends credibility to your assumptions.
Since none of us know what really went on in his head that led to his actions.

I just hope he gets signed by a team soon.