MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: wadesworld on September 04, 2018, 10:30:09 PM
-
I know this is going to end up political and/or ugly but I don’t really care.
Between the response to the Kaepernick ad and the Trayvon Martin TV series it needs to be said.
So sheild your eyes and scream BeeJay.
You can admit an issue with racial injustices AND support the people who serve and protect our country and our streets. You can even disagree with how a person addresses those needs without throwing disrespect back at its face. That’s what this world needs. Respectful, constructive discussion, not mocking recreations. The fact that the response to Nike’s ad is “Boycott Nike!” or to go makes mocking image of it against Colin Kaepernick just proves Colin Kaepernick’s point. An MPD officer should not have to worry about leaving his house for the last time as he goes off to work, JUST LIKE an African American teen shouldn’t have to be worried about not returning home from a convenience store for walking in the rain with his hood up.
Thankful for parents that instilled a foundation of respect for all human kind and opened their doors to all in need, regardless of race, sex, age, etc. I’m not going to pretend I’m perfect at it, but when all you knew growing up was the respect your parents showed to all it’s incredibly disheartening to see responses like this. My parents are going straight to Heaven. We are all human beings. Let’s start acting like it.
One love.
-
History will treat Kaep much better than it will his detractors, including the NFL owners. It always treats those fighting for justice better than those who are opposed.
-
Burning clothes, shoes, etc in a "boycott" is an interesting decision. Of course, those same people could give those items to homeless/needy vets or others in need.
-
Burning clothes, shoes, etc in a "boycott" is an interesting decision. Of course, those same people could give those items to homeless/needy vets or others in need.
You can't own the libs by being selfless.
-
You can admit an issue with racial injustices AND support the people who serve and protect our country and our streets. You can even disagree with how a person addresses those needs without throwing disrespect back at its face. That’s what this world needs. Respectful, constructive discussion, not mocking recreations.
Do you think Mr Kapernick wearing "Police are pigs" socks contributed/led to respectful, constructive discussion?
-
Do you think Mr Kapernick wearing "Police are pigs" socks contributed/led to respectful, constructive discussion?
You mean a move that was taken out of context and repeated by his detractors endlessly over the past 24 months?
No it wasn't helpful. But it was blown out of proportion from the very beginning. Like this entire mess has been.
-
You mean a move that was taken out of context and repeated by his detractors endlessly over the past 24 months?
Please explain how his wearing policeman as pigs socks was "taken out of context". They say what they mean and mean what they say - loudly and clearly. I think they more honestly portray Kaep's feelings than the well scripted/stay on message speeches that have followed.
-
Do you think Mr Kapernick wearing "Police are pigs" socks contributed/led to respectful, constructive discussion?
Nope. And I was totally against Kaepernick when he first stayed seated (for some reason I remember him being seated, not kneeling, for a preseason game at first before starting to kneel?) for the National Anthem. I thought he was just being a baby about being named the backup in SF and thought it was stupid.
But the responses of hatred towards the guy are over the top and the responses to this campaign just go to show how much we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there's an issue out there.
Just like he could've gotten his message out there without those socks, people can get their message out there without spewing hate towards Kaepernick/Nike.
-
Do you think Mr Kapernick wearing "Police are pigs" socks contributed/led to respectful, constructive discussion?
I think that's part of wades point. Its not just a criticism of the anti-kaep side but also those who are supporting him.
Sultan is right that history will treat Kaep better, he is fighting for justice while those burning their nikes are fighting against it. But Lenny is also correct that Kaep has not always been a good messenger.
This us vs them mentality is going to get us in a lot of trouble if it keeps going unchecked.
-
Please explain how his wearing policeman as pigs socks was "taken out of context". They say what they mean and mean what they say - loudly and clearly. I think they more honestly portray Kaep's feelings than the well scripted/stay on message speeches that have followed.
You can believe what you want to believe. I said it wasn't helpful. But it has also been blown out of proportion. I think it's just one of those silly things that his detractors cling to.
-
Please explain how his wearing policeman as pigs socks was "taken out of context". They say what they mean and mean what they say - loudly and clearly. I think they more honestly portray Kaep's feelings than the well scripted/stay on message speeches that have followed.
And what do you think his "feelings" really are?
People's insistence that those who present opposing viewpoints must be perfect in order for their message to resonate baffle me. He's been misguided at times, but those claiming he is only in this for money and fame are the same ones who plug their ears to the numerous valid and truthful responses when asked about what he's done off the field to push his message.
But I wholeheartedly agree with TAMU, the constant need to pick sides and create warring factions has zero positive outcomes. I could even get down with "I don't like Kaep but I understand the message". Instead its red herrings and false equivalencies galore.
-
Nope. And I was totally against Kaepernick when he first stayed seated (for some reason I remember him being seated, not kneeling, for a preseason game at first before starting to kneel?) for the National Anthem. I thought he was just being a baby about being named the backup in SF and thought it was stupid.
But the responses of hatred towards the guy are over the top and the responses to this campaign just go to show how much we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there's an issue out there.
Just like he could've gotten his message out there without those socks, people can get their message out there without spewing hate towards Kaepernick/Nike.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/
Yep, until a military veteran suggested he kneel.
"We sorta came to a middle ground where he would take a knee alongside his teammate. Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect. When we’re on a patrol, you know, and we go into a security halt, we take a knee, and we pull security."
The lengths to which the protest has been twisted as "disrespectful" is nauseating.
-
Please explain how his wearing policeman as pigs socks was "taken out of context". They say what they mean and mean what they say - loudly and clearly. I think they more honestly portray Kaep's feelings than the well scripted/stay on message speeches that have followed.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3YKj-xVUAA67ZR.jpg)
-
Please explain how his wearing policeman as pigs socks was "taken out of context". They say what they mean and mean what they say - loudly and clearly. I think they more honestly portray Kaep's feelings than the well scripted/stay on message speeches that have followed.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-wore-socks-with-police-pigs-on-them/
-
Nope. And I was totally against Kaepernick when he first stayed seated (for some reason I remember him being seated, not kneeling, for a preseason game at first before starting to kneel?) for the National Anthem. I thought he was just being a baby about being named the backup in SF and thought it was stupid.
But the responses of hatred towards the guy are over the top and the responses to this campaign just go to show how much we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there's an issue out there.
Just like he could've gotten his message out there without those socks, people can get their message out there without spewing hate towards Kaepernick/Nike.
The message - that we are still a mostly segregated (and hence unfair) society is indeed an important one. The police didn't create the mess - as Mayor Daley famously said in '68 "The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve it!". Could they be more enlightened in how they carry out their mission of preserving the status quo - i.e., "law and order"? Absolutely. But the real problem is how do we change the status quo that the cops are charged with preserving and defending? In a too divided society it's important that those who are the agents of change be inclusive. Slogans ("What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!) give pause to many who honestly want a better society. So do Cops are Pigs socks. They disqualify Kaepernick as a leader of any movement seeking to be inciusive - IMO.
-
You can believe what you want to believe. I said it wasn't helpful. But it has also been blown out of proportion. I think it's just one of those silly things that his detractors cling to.
Yep. It allows for avoidance of any discussion or recognition of what (for many) are the uncomfortable truths surrounding the reasons for Kaepernick's protest.
And time and time again we see that many of those outraged by Kaepernick's protest are motivated by something more than respect for the flag.
http://www.timesonline.com/news/20180830/county-gop-secretary-called-black-nfl-players-baboons-in-facebook-post
-
The message - that we are still a mostly segregated (and hence unfair) society is indeed an important one. The police didn't create the mess - as Mayor Daley famously said in '68 "The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve it!". Could they be more enlightened in how they carry out their mission of preserving the status quo - i.e., "law and order"? Absolutely. But the real problem is how do we change the status quo that the cops are charged with preserving and defending? In a too divided society it's important that those who are the agents of change be inclusive. Slogans ("What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!) give pause to many who honestly want a better society. So do Cops are Pigs socks. They disqualify Kaepernick as a leader of any movement seeking to be inciusive - IMO.
LOL. It does not disqualify him except for those who are looking for ways to disqualify him. And if you think only one "side" is not being inclusive here, you aren't paying attention.
-
So do Cops are Pigs socks. They disqualify Kaepernick as a leader of any movement seeking to be inciusive - IMO.
So in order for Kaepernick to be a leader of this movement - which he already is, and it's not your choice anyways - he must be inclusive to the very people (bad cops) he's protesting against?
Should MLK Jr. have been disqualified as a civil rights leader because he wasn't inclusive to Bull Connor and George Wallace?
-
But I wholeheartedly agree with TAMU, the constant need to pick sides and create warring factions has zero positive outcomes. I could even get down with "I don't like Kaep but I understand the message". Instead its red herrings and false equivalencies galore.
Indeed, I agree. Rather than discuss the issue, the flag and the military are being used as shields to avoid having any discussion at all. The protest isn't about the anthem, and most definitely isn't about the military, but if you can somehow conflate those issues it allows you to dismiss out of hand any discussion of the actual injustice.
-
LOL. It does not disqualify him except for those who are looking for ways to disqualify him. And if you think only one "side" is not being inclusive here, you aren't paying attention.
Of course there are those (racists) who use Kaepernick's footwear or marcher's chants as cover for their bigotry - those folks are, sadly, a lost cause. But whether you want to concede it or not, there are a whole bunch of normal non bigots turned off by it. People receptive to the message but at odds with the messenger(s).
-
So in order for Kaepernick to be a leader of this movement - which he already is, and it's not your choice anyways - he must be inclusive to the very people (bad cops) he's protesting against?
Should MLK Jr. have been disqualified as a civil rights leader because he wasn't inclusive to Bull Connor and George Wallace?
LOL. All cops on Kaep's socks are pigs. Not some, all. MLK Jr. would NEVER have endorsed them. Bad analogy.
-
History will treat Kaep much better than it will his detractors, including the NFL owners. It always treats those fighting for justice better than those who are opposed.
This. All the other stuff is noise.
-
I think Kaepernick has done well with bringing awareness to the issue of police involvement in shooting deaths of black people.
That being said, the issue I have with the advertisement is that the tag line over the picture is a lie. He was benched before he even started kneeling because, at the time, he was the worst ranked starting QB in the NFL. Once no one in the NFL would take him (for one reason or another), Nike was paying him the whole time. He hasn't sacrificed a thing.
Also, the response to the ad by burning shoes and clothes is stupid. Donate it if you don't need it.
-
LOL. All cops on Kaep's socks are pigs. Not some, all. MLK Jr. would NEVER have endorsed them. Bad analogy.
You're being willfully ignorant of his explanation for the socks because it doesn't fit your narrative.
-
Of course there are those (racists) who use Kaepernick's footwear or marcher's chants as cover for their bigotry - those folks are, sadly, a lost cause. But whether you want to concede it or not, there are a whole bunch of normal non bigots turned off by it. People receptive to the message but at odds with the messenger(s).
Could you explain these people a bit further?
You're saying they would be on board with Kaepernick's message if someone else were delivering it?
-
Indeed, I agree. Rather than discuss the issue, the flag and the military are being used as shields to avoid having any discussion at all. The protest isn't about the anthem, and most definitely isn't about the military, but if you can somehow conflate those issues it allows you to dismiss out of hand any discussion of the actual injustice.
Agreed to a certain extent, but we also aren't good at isolating discussion points, we conflate everything for #reasons. It is not an unreasonable or unacceptable position to believe the anthem protests are disrespectful but also agree/support the reasons the protest is going on. However in our discussions, equating the protest to disrespectful somehow automatically means a person is against the cause. That creates an environment when the core problem gets masked because we are talking about relatively superficial things in absolute terms.
-
History will treat Kaep much better than it will his detractors, including the NFL owners. It always treats those fighting for justice better than those who are opposed.
You mean all of my aunt's anti-Nike Facebook memes aren't going to hold up?
-
The message - that we are still a mostly segregated (and hence unfair) society is indeed an important one. The police didn't create the mess - as Mayor Daley famously said in '68 "The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve it!".
You actually used a "police riot" to defend police?
-
Agreed to a certain extent, but we also aren't good at isolating discussion points, we conflate everything for #reasons. It is not an unreasonable or unacceptable position to believe the anthem protests are disrespectful but also agree/support the reasons the protest is going on. However in our discussions, equating the protest to disrespectful somehow automatically means a person is against the cause. That creates an environment when the core problem gets masked because we are talking about relatively superficial things in absolute terms.
Fair enough, I get your point. I will say--without a shred of empirical evidence to back my up my assertion--that I suspect the subset of people who find the method of protest disrespectful while supporting the reason for the protest is very, very small.
-
You're being willfully ignorant of his explanation for the socks because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Calling cops pigs has a history. It is the ultimate insult, similar to a racial epithet. Wearing clothing depicting all cops has pigs to protest the rare rogue cop is either disingenuous or not very bright. Either condition, IMO, disqualifies Kaep from being an important movement's spokesman. It's not about his explanation "fitting my narrative". It's about it passing the smell test.
-
Agreed to a certain extent, but we also aren't good at isolating discussion points, we conflate everything for #reasons. It is not an unreasonable or unacceptable position to believe the anthem protests are disrespectful but also agree/support the reasons the protest is going on. However in our discussions, equating the protest to disrespectful somehow automatically means a person is against the cause. That creates an environment when the core problem gets masked because we are talking about relatively superficial things in absolute terms.
Of people involved in the discussion, what % would you estimate fall in this category?
-
You actually used a "police riot" to defend police?
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.
-
I think Kaepernick has done well with bringing awareness to the issue of police involvement in shooting deaths of black people.
That being said, the issue I have with the advertisement is that the tag line over the picture is a lie. He was benched before he even started kneeling because, at the time, he was the worst ranked starting QB in the NFL. Once no one in the NFL would take him (for one reason or another), Nike was paying him the whole time. He hasn't sacrificed a thing.
Of course he has. He supposedly wants to play football.
-
They disqualify Kaepernick as a leader of any movement seeking to be inciusive - IMO.
If one past action for which one has explained themselves is disqualifying from any future leadership role, I suspect no one will ever be allowed to assume a leadership role ever.
-
Of course there are those (racists) who use Kaepernick's footwear or marcher's chants as cover for their bigotry - those folks are, sadly, a lost cause. But whether you want to concede it or not, there are a whole bunch of normal non bigots turned off by it. People receptive to the message but at odds with the messenger(s).
That's not really my point. My point is that you are somehow expecting perfection from the messenger, and taking a small thing he did two years ago to disqualify him. He hasn't done it since, and has done a lot of really good things, but NOPE .... he's now disqualified because of his choice of socks in September 2016.
LOL. All cops on Kaep's socks are pigs. Not some, all. MLK Jr. would NEVER have endorsed them. Bad analogy.
No but MLK most certainly screwed up. He admitted himself that he was too consumed by anger at times.
-
Fair enough, I get your point. I will say--without a shred of empirical evidence to back my up my assertion--that I suspect the subset of people who find the method of protest disrespectful while supporting the reason for the protest is very, very small.
I would respectfully disagree. I'm much older than most here (turn 70 this month) and quite a few of my friends/acquaintances (especially those 65 and older) feel that way. Some are no doubt disingenuous and use the "imperfect messenger" as an excuse - not most, though, at least as far as I can tell.
-
Agreed to a certain extent, but we also aren't good at isolating discussion points, we conflate everything for #reasons. It is not an unreasonable or unacceptable position to believe the anthem protests are disrespectful but also agree/support the reasons the protest is going on. However in our discussions, equating the protest to disrespectful somehow automatically means a person is against the cause. That creates an environment when the core problem gets masked because we are talking about relatively superficial things in absolute terms.
+1
-
Of course he has. He supposedly wants to play football.
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.
-
I would respectfully disagree. I'm much older than most here (turn 70 this month) and quite a few of my friends/acquaintances (especially those 65 and older) feel that way. Some are no doubt disingenuous and use the "imperfect messenger" as an excuse - not most, though, at least as far as I can tell.
First, happy birthday and congrats on hitting the big round number.
Second, I don't buy that (though, like the rest of us, I have no way of knowing for sure).
I just can't imagine there are people out there whose stance on police brutality or institutional racism is dependent on who's talking about it. You either think these are problems that need to be addressed or you don't. Good people certainly can disagree on the best methods to address these problems, but I can't get on board with the notion that anyone's values and ethics when it comes to these issues are determined by another's form of protest or choice of hoisery.
-
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.
While I agree that he wasn't a particularly good QB, I don't think there is the slightest question that some team along the way would have given a Super Bowl QB a chance to be the backup somewhere if it were not for the political baggage. So yes, he gave up playing football, albeit involuntarily, for his beliefs.
-
If one past action for which one has explained themselves is disqualifying from any future leadership role, I suspect no one will ever be allowed to assume a leadership role ever.
Depends on what that "past action" is.
If he used to wear a white hood, I'd say it's disqualifying.
If he used to get angry at racism (MLK's imperfection per Sultan), I'd say it's definitely not disqualifying. I'd even go so far as to saying it was a requirement to leading a movement against it.
If he used to wear cops are pigs clothing and he wants to lead an effective movement to improve police/community relations, I guess it's a matter of opinion. You (and Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, Brandi and others) disagree with mine.
-
A company that adopts a polarizing ad campaign, as has Nike, clearly is making too much money.
-
A company that adopts a polarizing ad campaign, as has Nike, clearly is making too much money.
This is how Nike operates, they have been doing this disruptive advertising for as long as they have been around. Well before they made Billions each year. Anybody remember the Charles Barkley I am not a role model commercial? Or how about the fact that they stuck by Kobe and Tiger.
Or how about this, they made an african american man the face of their shoe brand at a time when nobody did that. Before Jordan, there may have been only OJ (Hertz) as the face of a national brand. I am not old enough to know anything before the mid-80's so I may be wrong on that.
-
First, happy birthday and congrats on hitting the big round number.
Second, I don't buy that (though, like the rest of us, I have no way of knowing for sure).
I just can't imagine there are people out there whose stance on police brutality or institutional racism is dependent on who's talking about it. You either think these are problems that need to be addressed or you don't. Good people certainly can disagree on the best methods to address these problems, but I can't get on board with the notion that anyone's values and ethics when it comes to these issues are determined by another's form of protest or choice of hoisery.
Thanks, best wishes most appreciated.
Second, I'm sure if I polled my acquaintances on what their stance on police brutality and institutional racism is the result would be a unanimous "I'm against it". Solutions offered would run the gamut from specific measures to shrugs of "I don't really know". But all would view MLK Jr as an effective uniter up to the task of taking on these big issues. Maybe it's a generational thing, but they don't put Kaepernick even remotely in that league.
-
Does your upbringing skew your views? How so? Happy for CK he has a very supportive family.
As for Nike, I don’t give a crap what they do for advertising. I’m rockin Jordan Lows today on the basis of I feel like wearing them.
(https://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/colin-kaepernick-family-mom-dad-parents.jpg)
-
Thanks, best wishes most appreciated.
Second, I'm sure if I polled my acquaintances on what their stance on police brutality and institutional racism is the result would be a unanimous "I'm against it". Solutions offered would run the gamut from specific measures to shrugs of "I don't really know". But all would view MLK Jr as an effective uniter up to the task of taking on these big issues. Maybe it's a generational thing, but they don't put Kaepernick even remotely in that league.
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.
-
Calling cops pigs has a history. It is the ultimate insult, similar to a racial epithet.
Honest question.
I've heard this argument before, that pig is to a cop what the n-word is to a black person or is at least similar to it. I don't buy the argument that it is the same but I can understand one that says it is similar.
Are there any other professions that have a "career epithet" the way that cops do? Any other jobs where if you call someone in that profession a certain name it is considered as bad or almost as bad as the n-word? I personally can't think of any. If no other professions have something like this, why do cops? Why is that if you insult someone else's choice of profession they might tell you to "eff off" but if you call a cop a pig it's considered on another level?
To be clear, I'm not advocating for or minimizing calling cops pigs. I'm just curious how it got to this point. Is there something specific in history? Is it that being a cop is a bigger part of someone's identity than people who do other jobs? Are cops just the only profession that has been targeted by hateful speech in this way?
-
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.
Bullsh*t. Colin Kaepernick was way better than Brett Hundley. You might be the last person on earth who thinks that he is unemployed simply due to his football abilities.
-
A company that adopts a polarizing ad campaign, as has Nike, clearly is making too much money.
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.)
-
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.
Kaepernick is a much better QB than many QBs who are currently on active rosters. However, he is not a good enough QB in the eyes of the owners to justify the media circus that comes with him. It is a true statement that if he was better, he would be on an NFL team right now. It is also a true statement that his political beliefs are keeping him from being on an NFL team at his current skill level.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Phil Knight obviously doesn't care, then, whether or not he loses sales, right?
He won't. He knows his customer base.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
LOL. Nathan Peterman is starting for the Bills.
Milton Plum used ta start for da Lyons, hey?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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
-
Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. The subject was Respect and posters kept it that way. We come from different generations, backgrounds and experiences but when the tone is respectful I learn things here.
-
Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. The subject was Respect and posters kept it that way. We come from different generations, backgrounds and experiences but when the tone is respectful I learn things here.
Agree Lenny.
As a side note, in an early post of yours you ascribed a position to me that did not and do not take.
-
Agree Lenny.
As a side note, in an early post of yours you ascribed a position to me that did not and do not take.
Apologies.
-
IIRC, CK didn't do anything that violated the NFL's rules.
If I spoke up on an issue or issues that were contrary to my Company's corporate values and objectives and offensive to our customers, I'd be disciplined, or worse. The fact is that once we are employed there not only is a set of rules but also a set of customs and values that are unwritten but you don't cross because the implication on the Company's shareholders or stakeholders is too significant.
Not every modicum of good sense is written down. Sometimes, you just have to use your good judgment. Life is not the government -- sometimes you have to act without a formal set of policies, procedures and rules to lean on!
I'll say again, I don't have a problem with Mr. Kapernick expressing his views. What he did was threaten a stream of revenue and profitability to the National Football League by using a National Football League venue to express views that were contrary to maximizing National Football League shareholder wealth.
-
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.
exactly. They ran all of the numbers on this before doing it.
-
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.
100% agree. This was a calculated marketing move, one that makes sense for Nike.
-
We are having this conversation. That is one sign that what Kaepernick did is making thoughtful people think -- and even have a respectful conversation about an important, controversial subject.
The NFL has pledged tens of millions of dollars to social causes viewed as important to leading minority groups (mostly blacks) in the United States. That pledge didn't come until after what Kaepernick and other kneelers did.
The NFL attempted to enact new rules forbidding anthem protests but backed down and agreed to discuss the issue more with the players -- Trump and his faux patriotism be damned.
Police brutality is being discussed more now than ever, and Kaepernick and the kneelers are one reason why.
Those who say Kaepernick's protests have "accomplished nothing" are obviously wrong.
As for him being an "imperfect messenger" ... well, sure. I mean, we have one pretty damn imperfect messenger sending out about 2 dozen incendiary (sometimes borderline treasonous) tweets per day -- and he has a job even more important than an NFL QB.
MLK was an imperfect messenger, as has been discussed. So was Ali. So was JFK. So was Jefferson. Etc, etc, etc. Welcome to being human! Heck, many would argue that Jesus was an imperfect messenger, too!
-
^^^^
Ban des guzs
-
If I spoke up on an issue or issues that were contrary to my Company's corporate values and objectives and offensive to our customers, I'd be disciplined, or worse. The fact is that once we are employed there not only is a set of rules but also a set of customs and values that are unwritten but you don't cross because the implication on the Company's shareholders or stakeholders is too significant.
Not every modicum of good sense is written down. Sometimes, you just have to use your good judgment. Life is not the government -- sometimes you have to act without a formal set of policies, procedures and rules to lean on!
I'll say again, I don't have a problem with Mr. Kapernick expressing his views. What he did was threaten a stream of revenue and profitability to the National Football League by using a National Football League venue to express views that were contrary to maximizing National Football League shareholder wealth.
He didn't threaten anyone's wealth. Gimme a break.
And it doesn't matter what you get to do in your workplace. He is a member of a union and subject to a collective bargaining agreement that doesn't require him to stand for the anthem.
-
MLK was an imperfect messenger, as has been discussed. So was Ali. So was JFK. So was Jefferson. Etc, etc, etc. Welcome to being human! Heck, many would argue that Jesus was an imperfect messenger, too!
One of the tried and true methods of attempting to discredit something you don't agree or believe in is complaining about delivery or method. Which is almost always followed up with some form of "thats not my problem" when asking for an alternative suggestion.
-
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.
My wife, as a minority and "anchor baby" is very conflicted when it comes to the anthem. Generally, we both stay in the concourse for the anthem but if we get to our seats she'll stand but that's it. The first few times she was at a game after the election she started crying during the anthem considering what this country's leadership openly thought of people like here. She knows the US was a land of opportunity for her parents but also now there are many who tell her to "go back where you came from."
Her brother is in the Navy, currently stationed abroad, and supports Kaepernick's actions. One Vietnam vet I often attend games with also supports Kaepernick and his kneeling, but when we're at games together he asks that we just don't be disrespectful of others during the anthem. He's cool if I just keep my hands in my pockets during the anthem.
-
He didn't threaten anyone's wealth. Gimme a break.
And it doesn't matter what you get to do in your workplace. He is a member of a union and subject to a collective bargaining agreement that doesn't require him to stand for the anthem.
True dat. But he also isn't guaranteed to have a job if no one wants to hire him as a second string quarterback and first string distraction, which he would be. Tim Tebow could probably have been on an NFL roster as a backup as well, but he's also a distraction that owners didn't want to deal with either. Maybe he should have filed suit too, hey?
-
Tim Tebow could probably have been on an NFL roster as a backup as well, but he's also a distraction that owners didn't want to deal with either. Maybe he should have filed suit too, hey?
Tim Tebow has given multiple opportunities with other teams (Jets, Eagles, Pats) and twice lost out to Mark Sanchez. He only once beat a team over .500 and had a career passing percentage lower than Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell. He was also given the opportunity to change positions to prolong his career and he refused. Kap and Tebow are not comparable.
-
True dat. But he also isn't guaranteed to have a job if no one wants to hire him as a second string quarterback and first string distraction, which he would be. Tim Tebow could probably have been on an NFL roster as a backup as well, but he's also a distraction that owners didn't want to deal with either. Maybe he should have filed suit too, hey?
Kaep should just play baseball.
-
He didn't threaten anyone's wealth. Gimme a break.
And it doesn't matter what you get to do in your workplace. He is a member of a union and subject to a collective bargaining agreement that doesn't require him to stand for the anthem.
Brother Sultan, the National Football League exists to maximize earnings to team owners. The teams within the league are investments, pure and simple. If Mr. Kaepernick (my apologies for the earlier mis-spellings) was able to maximize one or more team's earnings by holding a roster position, I assure you he would be on someone's roster.
It's called capitalism and it works!
Was an owner going to be in a poorhouse because Mr. Kaepernick was signed, with his progressive beliefs? Probably not. But when I say wealth was threatened, I mean that the ability to maximize cash flow and earnings from stadium revenue, television and ancillary merchandise was at risk because a certain segment of National Football League fan would refrain from watching games, thereby reducing television revenue; buying team merchandise; or, purchasing tickets and using stadium catering services.
How large a threat that would be is anyone's guess. It also is debatable whether Mr. Kaepernick's skills are sufficiently sharp to be a quarterback in the National Football League. Granted, his skills are probably greater than most of the quasi-professionals who played quarterback in the past half century for the Chicago Bears, but that is not a standard against which a professional should be measured.
-
i had an assistant(note-past tense) who turned to me and said that she had a very dear friend who was fighting breast cancer and very typically, was loosing her hair during the chemo phase of treatment. she proceeded to tell me that she wanted to shave her head to be "in unity" with her during this very trying time of her friends life. i did commended her for her loyalty, but then suggested to her(very strongly) that there may be a few other ways to honor her friend. my sympathies were truly with her friend, but i could not allow my (ex)employee(s) to use my place of business to show everyone else that she "cared".
she is not, not with me anymore because of that issue, but think next crazy thought or move and you'll understand why i almost started cutting myself again
am i against people fighting breast cancer because i "strongly" suggesting she NOT shave her head? absolutely not. i have had a number of friends and family members fight this fight. if my assistant would have asked me if she could've worn a pink ribbon on her scrubs, maybe even with her friends name on it, i could have considered that. the head shaving thing, however, could generate more questions than answers. the last thing i needed was for us having to explain to everyone who walks in to our office why i've got an employee looking like prymaat conehead
-
i had an assistant(note-past tense) who turned to me and said that she had a very dear friend who was fighting breast cancer and very typically, was loosing her hair during the chemo phase of treatment. she proceeded to tell me that she wanted to shave her head to be "in unity" with her during this very trying time of her friends life. i did commended her for her loyalty, but then suggested to her(very strongly) that there may be a few other ways to honor her friend. my sympathies were truly with her friend, but i could not allow my (ex)employee(s) to use my place of business to show everyone else that she "cared".
she is not, not with me anymore because of that issue, but think next crazy thought or move and you'll understand why i almost started cutting myself again
am i against people fighting breast cancer because i "strongly" suggesting she NOT shave her head? absolutely not. i have had a number of friends and family members fight this fight. if my assistant would have asked me if she could've worn a pink ribbon on her scrubs, maybe even with her friends name on it, i could have considered that. the head shaving thing, however, could generate more questions than answers. the last thing i needed was for us having to explain to everyone who walks in to our office why i've got an employee looking like prymaat conehead
I'd say this is more of a them problem and not a you/her problem. Honestly, I have no idea why it would negatively impact your business to have a woman with a shaved head as your admin. What if it wasn't for solidarity, what if she just got too darn hot in the summers and wanted to keep cool? Is it the solidarity or is it the fact that a woman was not conforming to gender stereotypes (oh look it's the freaky bald girl)?
-
As one who has shaved his head a few times for friends who have cancer, I disagree completely with your stance, RS.
-
i had an assistant(note-past tense) who turned to me and said that she had a very dear friend who was fighting breast cancer and very typically, was loosing her hair during the chemo phase of treatment. she proceeded to tell me that she wanted to shave her head to be "in unity" with her during this very trying time of her friends life. i did commended her for her loyalty, but then suggested to her(very strongly) that there may be a few other ways to honor her friend. my sympathies were truly with her friend, but i could not allow my (ex)employee(s) to use my place of business to show everyone else that she "cared".
she is not, not with me anymore because of that issue, but think next crazy thought or move and you'll understand why i almost started cutting myself again
am i against people fighting breast cancer because i "strongly" suggesting she NOT shave her head? absolutely not. i have had a number of friends and family members fight this fight. if my assistant would have asked me if she could've worn a pink ribbon on her scrubs, maybe even with her friends name on it, i could have considered that. the head shaving thing, however, could generate more questions than answers. the last thing i needed was for us having to explain to everyone who walks in to our office why i've got an employee looking like prymaat conehead
You wouldn't let an employee shave her head? I mean...why? Even if it isn't about supporting her friend with cancer, why do you care what their hairstyle is?
-
i had an assistant(note-past tense) who turned to me and said that she had a very dear friend who was fighting breast cancer and very typically, was loosing her hair during the chemo phase of treatment. she proceeded to tell me that she wanted to shave her head to be "in unity" with her during this very trying time of her friends life. i did commended her for her loyalty, but then suggested to her(very strongly) that there may be a few other ways to honor her friend. my sympathies were truly with her friend, but i could not allow my (ex)employee(s) to use my place of business to show everyone else that she "cared".
she is not, not with me anymore because of that issue, but think next crazy thought or move and you'll understand why i almost started cutting myself again
am i against people fighting breast cancer because i "strongly" suggesting she NOT shave her head? absolutely not. i have had a number of friends and family members fight this fight. if my assistant would have asked me if she could've worn a pink ribbon on her scrubs, maybe even with her friends name on it, i could have considered that. the head shaving thing, however, could generate more questions than answers. the last thing i needed was for us having to explain to everyone who walks in to our office why i've got an employee looking like prymaat conehead
This would be funny if you are bald.
-
Shave your head? That’s nothing compared to what ZFB did to show solidarity with his buddy.
-
You wouldn't let an employee shave her head? I mean...why? Even if it isn't about supporting her friend with cancer, why do you care what their hairstyle is?
Brother Sultan, I agree with you on this one. Very few employers any more are likely to say a hairstyle, beard or mustache or most clothing is inappropriate unless the employee is market facing. Some may have very strong opinions on the look a bald woman, but by-and-large, that's irrevelant.
I understand regulating behavior and establishing standards of appearance for customer facing employees. But it was not clear whether this employee was market facing and whether the baldness would affect her ability to do her job. I'm guessing it's no.
-
i had an assistant(note-past tense) who turned to me and said that she had a very dear friend who was fighting breast cancer and very typically, was loosing her hair during the chemo phase of treatment. she proceeded to tell me that she wanted to shave her head to be "in unity" with her during this very trying time of her friends life. i did commended her for her loyalty, but then suggested to her(very strongly) that there may be a few other ways to honor her friend. my sympathies were truly with her friend, but i could not allow my (ex)employee(s) to use my place of business to show everyone else that she "cared".
she is not, not with me anymore because of that issue, but think next crazy thought or move and you'll understand why i almost started cutting myself again
am i against people fighting breast cancer because i "strongly" suggesting she NOT shave her head? absolutely not. i have had a number of friends and family members fight this fight. if my assistant would have asked me if she could've worn a pink ribbon on her scrubs, maybe even with her friends name on it, i could have considered that. the head shaving thing, however, could generate more questions than answers. the last thing i needed was for us having to explain to everyone who walks in to our office why i've got an employee looking like prymaat conehead
So it sounds like you are okay in this instance because she asked your opinion and you gave it. But Rocket Man, if she had shaved her head and you disciplined her in any way for it....she would own your practice and you'd be on the street right now. Unless you make your employees sign some sort of uniform policy...and you better make sure that men also are not allowed to shave their heads.
-
So it sounds like you are okay in this instance because she asked your opinion and you gave it. But Rocket Man, if she had shaved her head and you disciplined her in any way for it....she would own your practice and you'd be on the street right now. Unless you make your employees sign some sort of uniform policy...and you better make sure that men also are not allowed to shave their heads.
Or let women have moustaches, if a no facial hair policy.
-
Shave your head? That’s nothing compared to what ZFB did to show solidarity with his gay buddy.
(Yh),aina.
-
i had an assistant(note-past tense) who turned to me and said that she had a very dear friend who was fighting breast cancer and very typically, was loosing her hair during the chemo phase of treatment. she proceeded to tell me that she wanted to shave her head to be "in unity" with her during this very trying time of her friends life. i did commended her for her loyalty, but then suggested to her(very strongly) that there may be a few other ways to honor her friend. my sympathies were truly with her friend, but i could not allow my (ex)employee(s) to use my place of business to show everyone else that she "cared".
she is not, not with me anymore because of that issue, but think next crazy thought or move and you'll understand why i almost started cutting myself again
am i against people fighting breast cancer because i "strongly" suggesting she NOT shave her head? absolutely not. i have had a number of friends and family members fight this fight. if my assistant would have asked me if she could've worn a pink ribbon on her scrubs, maybe even with her friends name on it, i could have considered that. the head shaving thing, however, could generate more questions than answers. the last thing i needed was for us having to explain to everyone who walks in to our office why i've got an employee looking like prymaat conehead
So if the woman herself had cancer and lost her hair, you'd force her to wear a wig even if she didn't want to wear one?
-
Brother Sultan, the National Football League exists to maximize earnings to team owners. The teams within the league are investments, pure and simple. If Mr. Kaepernick (my apologies for the earlier mis-spellings) was able to maximize one or more team's earnings by holding a roster position, I assure you he would be on someone's roster.
It's called capitalism and it works!
Speaking of capitalism, this just in from MarketWatch (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07):
Talk of Nike Inc. sales taking a hit from the company’s decision to put ex–NFL player Colin Kaepernick at the center of its latest “Just Do It” campaign is looking overblown, based on data from a Silicon Valley digital commerce research company.
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.
“There was speculation that the Nike/Kaepernick campaign would lead to a drop in sales, but our data over the last week does not support that theory,” said Hetal Pandya, co-founder of Edison Trends.
Nike’s stock has also held up after its initial slump. The stock was up 1% on Friday and remains in the black for the month. It has gained 29% in 2018, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which since 2013 has counted Nike as a member, has gained 5%, as the S&P 500 index has risen about 8%.
The news generated plenty of online buzz, with social engagement around Nike and Kaepernick rising sharply this week, according to 4C Insights, a marketing technology company. Mentions of and comments about Nike on social-media platforms rose 1,678% on Sunday and Monday, according to 4C data. Mentions of Kaepernick spiked 362,280%, the data showed.
+++
But yeah ... a bunch of old white men are burning their 12EEE Nike walking shoes. I'm sure the company is crushed.
-
Speaking of capitalism
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday
#1 Stop the politics
#2 you know better than the 31% nonsense. This is why folks say #FakeNews
-
So if the woman herself had cancer and lost her hair, you'd force her to wear a wig even if she didn't want to wear one?
Come on man! You should know better than this! I think you got my point, but if you’ve never owned a business, well...Never mind
-
Come on man! You should know better than this! I think you got my point, but if you’ve never owned a business, well...Never mind
MU82 is a pioneer. Canned as a 'journalist' decades before journalists were canned EN MAS. He's good for crying about people being kind, but when it gets to real world stuff.. yeah.. not the best...
-
#1 Stop the politics
#2 you know better than the 31% nonsense. This is why folks say #FakeNews
#1 Show us what the politics were in that post, unless your contention that the very word "capitalism" (which I used quoting another poster) was political.
#2 I don't know that 31% was nonsense. I was quoting MarketWatch. Why would they lie? It would seem they were just presenting the data they had.
#FakeNews -- ban dis guy for using the favorite political phrase screamed a dozen times a day by his political hero! Politics! Ban him!
Canned as a 'journalist' decades before journalists were canned EN MAS.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to waste my time giving you the truth because you obviously don't care about truth.
But it is pretty sad that you are celebrating the negative personal circumstances of any fellow human being, let alone a fellow MU grad and fellow Scooper.
You are one of the least Christian people I have come across in all my years of association with Marquette. Not sure what happened in your life to make you so angry and bitter, but I feel sorry for you.
-
#1 Show us what the politics were in that post, unless your contention that the very word "capitalism" (which I used quoting another poster) was political.
My 'contention' means nothing. You whining about 'capitalism' is clearly political.
#2 I don't know that 31% was nonsense. I was quoting MarketWatch. Why would they lie? It would seem they were just presenting the data they had.
It's nonsense and you know better. You are a simpleton, but that doesn't give you a pass to spew simpleton sh!t to the real. Let's talk about their run rate.... were they running at a 40% increase online, and now it's 30%? How do they measure this? What are the dollars? Shhhh. You're talking about about nothing. What does 31% mean and what company releases this type of info on a comp basis? Doesn't exist.
>>> FakeNews -- ban dis guy for using the favorite political phrase screamed a dozen times a day by his political hero! Politics! Ban him!
Great argument.
>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to waste my time giving you the truth because you obviously don't care about truth.
OK
>> But it is pretty sad that you are celebrating the negative personal circumstances of any fellow human being, let alone a fellow MU grad and fellow Scooper.
I'm not celebrating the fact that you got pushed out of your small wage-earning career many years ago. It's just factual. Not a big deal. You made small loot, but got fired.
>> You are one of the least Christian people I have come across in all my years of association with Marquette. Not sure what happened in your life to make you so angry and bitter, but I feel sorry for you.
You flare up over a Christian that make acts of kindness toward you by placing a gift on your tree; you're so triggered that you cry online; does this mean you hold me in a higher regard than those meany oppressive Jesus-lovers??
We pray for you.
To be clear, if you apologize, I will take care of you as needed (nh).
-
Come on man! You should know better than this! I think you got my point, but if you’ve never owned a business, well...Never mind
Can you actually expand on what you meant? Why did you strongly discourage your employee from shaving her head? Would you only be upset with her since it was voluntary in the situation you mentioned? Would you let a male employee shave his head voluntarily?
-
What a piece of work.
Somebody pointed out that Friday and Saturday night posts get a little off the rails, and they were right.
-
What a piece of work.
Somebody pointed out that Friday and Saturday night posts get a little off the rails, and they were right.
Yeah JB usually morphs into his angry, mysogynist, snowflake routine on weekend evenings. Sad.
-
Yeah JB usually morphs into his angry, mysogynist, snowflake routine on weekend evenings. Sad.
Does anyone else think he'd have been banned long ago if he didn't bring good AAU knowledge? I feel like people have been banned on here for considerably less
-
Yeah JB usually morphs into his angry, mysogynist, snowflake routine on weekend evenings. Sad.
NM
-
Locked, because of course.