The Super Bowl is often not particularly interesting because one team is too dominant. Last night’s match was a good one, with plenty of great plays and personal efforts.
But I’m sick to death of the little woke sayings on the backs of the helmets, and it was stupid to have two “national anthems.”
This is not good for the country. Are some of us supposed to stand for one, and some of us for the other? That’s insanity. They’re promoting division (in the name of “inclusion,” of course).
We have to have one national anthem, and it was very wrong for the NFL to go along with this divisive concept of separate songs.
QUOTE: But I’m sick to death of the little woke sayings on the backs of the helmets…
Indeed, you have a right to possess and express your views publicly…even when others disagree. Yet, in the spirit of “free speech”, don’t others have the same right? Isn’t that good for the country? Wouldn’t it be better to live in a society that embodies …“ I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” than one where the “thought police” control what gets expressed?
Straw man. Did Crowhill say they didn’t have the right in that post?
Nope…he sure didn’t. My point was that “he” has a right to express his views. As well, “they” do too and that is a good thing for the country…even when there is disagreement. So, is there disagreement with that point?
Why would there be?
Crowhill’s point isn’t that anybody shouldn’t be allowed to say things or that their being allowed to say things makes it a worse country.
It’s that they stuff they’re saying (via their helmets, etc.) is stupid so they shouldn’t say it, because saying stupid stuff never helps and can hurt. Wouldn’t it be better for the country if people exercised their right to free speech to only say constructive, useful, and intelligent things?
Nobody but you raised the issue anyone’s right to the speech, but that doesn’t mean the content of the speech can’t be criticized as socially harmful, and the speakers can’t be criticized as negatively contributing to society.
Indeed, I raised the right of speech as context for a larger point…that each can have their opportunity to share their views. As well, the ones wearing the helmets could just as easily say the perspective that you and Crowhill expressed is stupid and it would be better if you didn’t hold to that point of view.
That’s “my” point…each side can freely express their view and be critical of the other…if they desire and that can be a good thing for the country. Not sure where you got the idea that content of speech can’t be criticized as socially harmful or criticized as negatively contributing to society. My point was the opposite.
So, if you or anyone disagrees with that…that’s fine…everyone has the right to express their view and criticize others. As I quoted previously, a good social norm is… “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Then the only question is why your perfectly sensible comment has any relevance to the conversation, since no one was suggesting anything different.
And of course they could just as easily say my viewpoint was stupid. That is implicit in the idea that people are free both to speak and make judgments about speech. But again, it doesn’t seem relevant to a post where no suggestion was made that anyone was restricting from speaking or from having an opinion on other people’s speech.
QUOTE: That is implicit in the idea that people are free both to speak and make judgments about speech.
Crowhill’s comments reminded of this “value” as he was expressing his view about what’s “not good for the country”.
With all the ills of our society…having the ability of personal expression is a plus and “good for the country”. So, some may say things that we find “stupid” and it’s sometimes exhausting to see. Yet, it’s so nice to have this ability versus the contrary.
Having two national anthems is a bad idea. Either we are one nation or at least aspire to be one, or we are just separate factions. Maybe we should delete the 3rd verse of the SSB? But, to have a black national anthem… stupid and divisive.
Right. If there’s some reason to amend the national anthem, or pick another song, then let’s talk about that. But having one song for one ethnic group is nuts.
QUOTE: If there’s some reason to amend the national anthem, or pick another song, then let’s talk about that.
New Zealand and Denmark have more than one official national anthem. Switzerland’s national anthem has different lyrics for each of the country’s four official languages. Canada modified its national anthem. It would be interesting to see if Congress had the discipline to amend or select a different US national anthem, if such a bill was ever allowed to be introduced.
There was a recent effort to do something akin to this with bill H.R. 301…which would have created an official US National Hymn. Yet, it seems it never had the opportunity to be voted on.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr301/summary
Supporters argue that the bill elevates the song to an official status without taking away from Francis Scott Key’s anthem that Americans have come to know. “We should have one national anthem, irrespective of whether you’re black or white. So to give due honor and respect to the song, we ought to name it the national hymn. To make it a national hymn, I think, would be an act of bringing the country together. It would say to people, ‘You aren’t singing a separate national anthem, you are singing the country’s national hymn.”