Respect

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Then why did he have an unfavorable rating north of 60% in mid to late 60's?  MLK was disliked by the majority of Americans, the vast vast vast majority of white people, and the US government.  It's easier for those still alive now when MLK was alive (please read I am not accusing you or your friends of anything) to say, MLK was great, he was a great uniter...but history paints a different picture.

MLK is one of the most whitewashed figures in all of history. If you go back and actually read his speeches and letters, he was sometimes downright angry at whiteness. He openly criticized the US government and patriotism, specifically the Vietnam War. In one of his speeches he called the United States the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world." As you point out, more than half the country hated him at points. Now, all we remember are the nice sounding parts of his "I have a dream" speech. He actually wasn't even going to talk about his dream at that speech. The speech started out as a battlecry for Black Americans, but Mahalia Jackson who was sitting behind King shouted "tell them about your dream Martin, tell them about the dream" and the rest is history.

[Pakuni]

Well then he should work at being a better football player. He is not a very good QB.  All 3 QBs on my team's roster (Browns) are better than Kaep.  Wouldn't have been true last year, I actually wanted them to pick him up, but this year he would have no spot.

Been through this last year ... Kapernick was an effective QB in 2016. He had a terrible 2015, but bounced back.
In 11 starts with a joke of a supporting cast (top WRs were Jeremy Kerley and Quinton Patten), he completed 59 percent of his passes, threw 16 TDs against 4 INTs, ran for another 468 yards and two TDs and had a 90.7 QB rating.
Those numbers aren't earth-shattering, but they're better than a lot of guys with starting gigs right now.

[Lennys Tap]

Then why did he have an unfavorable rating north of 60% in mid to late 60's?  MLK was disliked by the majority of Americans, the vast vast vast majority of white people, and the US government.  It's easier for those still alive now when MLK was alive (please read I am not accusing you or your friends of anything) to say, MLK was great, he was a great uniter...but history paints a different picture.

I'm sure it's, to a great extent, generational. To my peers and me (young people in MLK's day) he was pretty much universally accepted/respected. His "I have a dream" speech was (I guess with Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" inaugural) the foundation of our beliefs. Maybe the old farts today unfairly criticize Kaepernick like the old farts of the 60s put down King - I'm willing to consider that if not wholeheartedly embrace it.

[4everwarriors]

No.  They clearly know their customer base though.  (And it's not a dentist in Milwaukee who buys a pair of sneakers when he earns enough Kohl's Cash to make it worthwhile.)

Phil Knight obviously doesn't care, then, whether or not he loses sales, right?

[GGGG]

Phil Knight obviously doesn't care, then, whether or not he loses sales, right?

He won't.  He knows his customer base.

[dgies9156]

If Mr. Kapernick wants to protest the government, that's his right. But when you are employed by a division of the National Football League, you have an obligation to "tow the line" at work and at company events. That means that if your company tells you to stand, you stand or you leave.

It's same whether he is employed in the National Football League, General Electric or East Bumfork Construction. You are part of something bigger than yourself.

Mr. Kapernick failed to distinguish between his personal views on his own time and what he said or did as a representative of the National Football League in a National Football League place of work. The National Football League took appropriate action.

If Nike somehow discovers that using Mr. Kapernick, an unemployed football player, helps them sell more shoes or tap a previously unexploited market for athletic shoes, go for it. I assume Uncle Phil and the team in Beaverton know what they're doing!

[naginiF]

He won't.  He knows his customer base.

losing the fringe customer with a move that solidifies, and/or grows, your brand loyalty with Gen Z and Millennials?  you do that every day.

Plus, the only market you lose those fringe customers in is the US not the global market.

[naginiF]

If Mr. Kapernick wants to protest the government, that's his right. But when you are employed by a division of the National Football League, you have an obligation to "tow the line" at work and at company events. That means that if your company tells you to stand, you stand or you leave.

It's same whether he is employed in the National Football League, General Electric or East Bumfork Construction. You are part of something bigger than yourself.

Mr. Kapernick failed to distinguish between his personal views on his own time and what he said or did as a representative of the National Football League in a National Football League place of work. The National Football League took appropriate action.

If Nike somehow discovers that using Mr. Kapernick, an unemployed football player, helps them sell more shoes or tap a previously unexploited market for athletic shoes, go for it. I assume Uncle Phil and the team in Beaverton know what they're doing!

I know this has been covered in previous locked threads but what appropriate action did the league take?  I thought KP was suing the league that the action the league took was to collude to keep him off a roster and a judge just ruled that there was sufficient enough evidence to move the case to trial. 

[LON]

Well then he should work at being a better football player. He is not a very good QB.  All 3 QBs on my team's roster (Browns) are better than Kaep.  Wouldn't have been true last year, I actually wanted them to pick him up, but this year he would have no spot.

LOL.  Nathan Peterman is starting for the Bills.

[JWags85]

LOL.  Nathan Peterman is starting for the Bills.

The thought that he's an inferior quarterback to Drew Stanton and couldn't find a roster spot with the Browns is also hilarious.  Stanton would kill to have Kaep's 2016 numbers in any chance he had to start.

I completely understand the argument that the media fervor and distraction turns teams off to him as a backup (which is hypocritical in and of itself when you look at the other nonsense that players survive to stay on rosters), but the constant assertion that this is purely a football decision is maybe the most absurd storyline of the ordeal.

[4everwarriors]

LOL.  Nathan Peterman is starting for the Bills.

Milton Plum used ta start for da Lyons, hey?

[Its DJOver]

FWIW the ad that Nike released doesn't touch on the social issues that CK has been attempting to address.  It's more of the usual dream big style and don't underestimate me even if i'm disabled theme that many apparel companies have been running with for years.

"Don't ask if your dreams are crazy, ask if their crazy enough."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2794327-colin-kaepernick-featured-in-latest-nike-ad-dont-ask-if-your-dreams-are-crazy?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

[Jockey]

You missed my point, Brandi - I wasn't defending the police, merely pointing out that the biggerl problem is with the orders that come from higher places.

Gotcha.

[dgies9156]

I know this has been covered in previous locked threads but what appropriate action did the league take?  I thought KP was suing the league that the action the league took was to collude to keep him off a roster and a judge just ruled that there was sufficient enough evidence to move the case to trial.

The appropriate action was nobody in the National Football League signed him to a contract. Consider parallel: Suppose you or I said something or did something that our employer found offensive or otherwise detrimental to the primary mission of enhancing shareholder value. Now, further suppose we were terminated for our very uncorporate like behavior.

If it was on our ubiquitous "permanent record" that we were terminated for a behavioral-related financial cause and a future employer discovered that fact and did not hire us, then, gee, is the onus on us or on the previous employer.

Reality one in life: Actions have consequences. Mr. Kapernick has discovered that first-hand. You don't threaten your employer's livelihood and then whine because he or she reacted to it.

In a connected world where things stay out there "forever" and anything we do that ends up in a newspaper, on a website or otherwise archived is available to prospective employers. one must be very careful about how one's image affects one's future employability and future income.

[Spotcheck Billy]

If Mr. Kapernick wants to protest the government, that's his right. But when you are employed by a division of the National Football League, you have an obligation to "tow the line" at work and at company events. That means that if your company tells you to stand, you stand or you leave.

It's same whether he is employed in the National Football League, General Electric or East Bumfork Construction. You are part of something bigger than yourself.

Mr. Kapernick failed to distinguish between his personal views on his own time and what he said or did as a representative of the National Football League in a National Football League place of work. The National Football League took appropriate action.

If Nike somehow discovers that using Mr. Kapernick, an unemployed football player, helps them sell more shoes or tap a previously unexploited market for athletic shoes, go for it. I assume Uncle Phil and the team in Beaverton know what they're doing!

IIRC, CK didn't do anything that violated the NFL's rules.

[GGGG]

losing the fringe customer with a move that solidifies, and/or grows, your brand loyalty with Gen Z and Millennials?  you do that every day.

Plus, the only market you lose those fringe customers in is the US not the global market.

Yep.  Exactly. 

[GGGG]

The appropriate action was nobody in the National Football League signed him to a contract. Consider parallel: Suppose you or I said something or did something that our employer found offensive or otherwise detrimental to the primary mission of enhancing shareholder value. Now, further suppose we were terminated for our very uncorporate like behavior.

If it was on our ubiquitous "permanent record" that we were terminated for a behavioral-related financial cause and a future employer discovered that fact and did not hire us, then, gee, is the onus on us or on the previous employer.

Reality one in life: Actions have consequences. Mr. Kapernick has discovered that first-hand. You don't threaten your employer's livelihood and then whine because he or she reacted to it.

In a connected world where things stay out there "forever" and anything we do that ends up in a newspaper, on a website or otherwise archived is available to prospective employers. one must be very careful about how one's image affects one's future employability and future income.

Actually if he is not being signed because he didn't stand for the anthem, that's collusion and against the law.  He is then right to sue.

Remember he is not employed by the NFL, but by a team.

[tower912]

I was contemplating the anthem knicker twisting on Labor Day at a class A minor league baseball game.  In my line of sight in my section, 6 men left their hats on during the anthem.  I contemplated JB and if he really would have gone and knocked them off.  I contemplated that nobody seemed to care.  I contemplated that there are people on both sides who are looking for a reason to be outraged and will take any weak sauce reason to do so.  Then I watched baseball.

[NWarsh]

I was contemplating the anthem knicker twisting on Labor Day at a class A minor league baseball game.  In my line of sight in my section, 6 men left their hats on during the anthem.  I contemplated JB and if he really would have gone and knocked them off.  I contemplated that nobody seemed to care.  I contemplated that there are people on both sides who are looking for a reason to be outraged and will take any weak sauce reason to do so.  Then I watched baseball.

Haha, great post!  I often wonder how many of those people who are truly outraged, stand when the national anthem is being played on a game they are watching at home?  I obviously have not evidence of this, but based on the many times I have watched sporting events at gathering, I would bet less than 1% of those people actually stand up.  If it truly is about respect, I would expect those people should be standing every time the national anthem is on.

[mu03eng]

Of people involved in the discussion, what % would you estimate fall in this category?

It's a fair question, I don't have any survey or demographic information, everything I "know" is acedotal. As an example, I know a fairly large group of Vietnam vets that Kaepernick's means of protest invoke thoughts of how they were treating coming back home from the war and they don't like the method. However, almost to a person they support his cause, including one gentleman that ran(and won) for city council in his city so he could more directly get involved in the police-populace engagement (sits on the police/fire committee now).

I agree it's not a particularly large group I would guess, but it's also not inconsequential. The way I look at it, these types of causes need all the allies you can get, what have you won if you alienate allies in your effort to raise visibility.

[jutaw22mu]

The thought that he's an inferior quarterback to Drew Stanton and couldn't find a roster spot with the Browns is also hilarious.  Stanton would kill to have Kaep's 2016 numbers in any chance he had to start.

I completely understand the argument that the media fervor and distraction turns teams off to him as a backup (which is hypocritical in and of itself when you look at the other nonsense that players survive to stay on rosters), but the constant assertion that this is purely a football decision is maybe the most absurd storyline of the ordeal.

Stanton's spot in the browns is for mentorship of Mayfield.  Kaep could not beat out Taylor or Mayfield and would not be suitable for a mentorship role. 

If you're mediocre at what you do, whether it's football or lawyering or being a scientist, there is less tolerance for stepping out of line than if you're one of the best.  The headache for HR is not worth it as much as one of the top performers would be.  Cam Newton could have initiated this protest unscathed because he is elite---Kaep is a fringe starter not worth the drama.

[Pakuni]

I agree it's not a particularly large group I would guess, but it's also not inconsequential. The way I look at it, these types of causes need all the allies you can get, what have you won if you alienate allies in your effort to raise visibility.

That's a very fair question/point.
But I also tend to believe that a majority of the people who are open to the message, but alienated by the method, eventually will get over the alienation because the message is what matters.
Case in point ... Ali was widely reviled for his refusal to enter the draft, even among those who might otherwise have been sympathetic to his cause (Jackie Robinson, for example, sharply criticized Ali). Today, it's that act far more than his boxing accomplishments that make him an iconic figure.
I definitely don't elevate CK to Ali status, but I do believe that many of the people who are open to the message eventually will let go of their misgivings over his form of protest, just like with Ali.

[naginiF]

Haha, great post!  I often wonder how many of those people who are truly outraged, stand when the national anthem is being played on a game they are watching at home?  I obviously have not evidence of this, but based on the many times I have watched sporting events at gathering, I would bet less than 1% of those people actually stand up.  If it truly is about respect, I would expect those people should be standing every time the national anthem is on.

I've only witnessed one person stand for the national anthem when they are not at the event and it's my wife (actually 3 because now my kids do it too).  At home, at a bar, at friends houses, it doesn't matter she is standing and paying attention to the anthem.  She has absolutely no problem with athletes kneeling for it, or me not standing when not at the stadium, or me sitting for God Bless America.  I didn't know that was even a thing until i met her.

[Jay Bee]

me not standing when not at the stadium, or me sitting for God Bless America.  I didn't know that was even a thing until i met her.

Sheltered life you lead. You sit, but do you ever kneel (nh)?

[mu03eng]

That's a very fair question/point.
But I also tend to believe that a majority of the people who are open to the message, but alienated by the method, eventually will get over the alienation because the message is what matters.
Case in point ... Ali was widely reviled for his refusal to enter the draft, even among those who might otherwise have been sympathetic to his cause (Jackie Robinson, for example, sharply criticized Ali). Today, it's that act far more than his boxing accomplishments that make him an iconic figure.
I definitely don't elevate CK to Ali status, but I do believe that many of the people who are open to the message eventually will let go of their misgivings over his form of protest, just like with Ali.

But Ali was very very famous in his own right so the message could overcome the method, Lebron would be similar in the modern day.

Kaepernick wasn't all that famous prior to this (if I remember correctly no one noticed he sat for the first game, only happened during the GB preseason game that people noticed), he doesn't have enough fame to overcome his imperfect message IMO