New NFL National Anthem Rules

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19271
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#26 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 24, 2018 8:44 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Nor does the nfl. Whatevs. This isn't world ending.
I agree the NFL doesn't come out of this looking good either. But them, I can ignore -- they don't have the power to affect my life or that of my family. That's not an option with Donny. --Bob
So why are you commenting on this?
Because it's an example of a bully winning and I want my voice to be heard in protest. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19271
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#27 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 24, 2018 9:00 pm

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:Or the wife/girlfriend beaters. Free enterprise whichever way you look at it.
Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country.
How much did you follow him before he kicked Hillary's ass?
You mean by losing the popular vote by millions of votes?

Donny won. But in no way, shape, or form did he kick her ass. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6933
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#28 Post by tlynn78 » Thu May 24, 2018 9:12 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country.
How much did you follow him before he kicked Hillary's ass?
You mean by losing the popular vote by millions of votes?

Donny won. But in no way, shape, or form did he kick her ass. --Bob
She continues to do that by herself.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5580
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#29 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu May 24, 2018 9:14 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I agree the NFL doesn't come out of this looking good either. But them, I can ignore -- they don't have the power to affect my life or that of my family. That's not an option with Donny. --Bob
So why are you commenting on this?
Because it's an example of a bully winning and I want my voice to be heard in protest. --Bob
How is he bullying anyone by expressing his opinion, which is his right under the first amendment of the constitution? He didn't threaten to sue anyone in the NFL because he didn't like what they were saying or doing. Now that would be bullying.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#30 Post by Estonut » Fri May 25, 2018 12:54 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country.
How much did you follow him before he kicked Hillary's ass?
You mean by losing the popular vote by millions of votes?

Donny won. But in no way, shape, or form did he kick her ass.
I guess that you, like Hillary, still fail to understand that the popular vote means nothing.

He was well behind in most every poll, yet he outpoliticked the so-called "most qualified presidential candidate in history." Too bad her qualifications didn't include an understanding of how the United States Electoral College works. You bet he kicked her ass.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#31 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri May 25, 2018 4:23 am

Estonut wrote: You bet he and Vladimir Putin kicked her ass.
Fixed it for ya.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
ghostjmf
Posts: 7359
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#32 Post by ghostjmf » Fri May 25, 2018 5:35 am

My solution is that players who wish to should assume the prayerful hands-palms-together, pointing-upward pose & bow their heads. While standing. Of course, the League will then vote to bar that too.

This popped into my head while listening to a commentor on WBUR's Radio Boston show suggest a raised clenched fist. *That*, of course, would get instantly banned.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#33 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri May 25, 2018 3:03 pm

There is precedent for what the NFL is doing:

1934 German Soccer Team Banned for Failing to Salute
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#34 Post by BackInTex » Fri May 25, 2018 10:43 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:There is precedent for what the NFL is doing:

1934 German Soccer Team Banned for Failing to Salute
That is not precedent, but you comparing a Nazi salute to standing in respect of our National Anthem is telling. You keep defining yourself to us and it is not pretty; already assumed who you are, but as it becomes more real it becomes even more unbelievable.

Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.

The fact that you, and your Bobs, think that it's fine not to, and that the owners of the businesses being represented are bullies if they expect their employees to be respectful to their customers, puts you in a class by yourselves (with apologies to the word class).
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19271
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#35 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 25, 2018 10:51 pm

BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:There is precedent for what the NFL is doing:

1934 German Soccer Team Banned for Failing to Salute
That is not precedent, but you comparing a Nazi salute to standing in respect of our National Anthem is telling. You keep defining yourself to us and it is not pretty; already assumed who you are, but as it becomes more real it becomes even more unbelievable.

Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.

The fact that you, and your Bobs, think that it's fine not to, and that the owners of the businesses being represented are bullies if they expect their employees to be respectful to their customers, puts you in a class by yourselves (with apologies to the word class).
It's not just us. Compelled displays are worse than meaningless. They're the antithesis of freedom. The freedom our flag is supposed to stand for.

I've been fighting this issue since I was in high school. I choose not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because I don't agree that we are "one country under God." This became an issue my senior year. I stood my ground then. I'm sure as hell not budging now. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19271
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#36 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 25, 2018 10:56 pm

BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:There is precedent for what the NFL is doing:

1934 German Soccer Team Banned for Failing to Salute
That is not precedent, but you comparing a Nazi salute to standing in respect of our National Anthem is telling. You keep defining yourself to us and it is not pretty; already assumed who you are, but as it becomes more real it becomes even more unbelievable.

Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.

The fact that you, and your Bobs, think that it's fine not to, and that the owners of the businesses being represented are bullies if they expect their employees to be respectful to their customers, puts you in a class by yourselves (with apologies to the word class).
And by the way, it sure sounds like you're advocating for the right of people who agree with you not to be offended. Which, in a different context, is a supposed right that I'm pretty sure you'd vehemently deny exists. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#37 Post by BackInTex » Fri May 25, 2018 11:03 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:There is precedent for what the NFL is doing:

1934 German Soccer Team Banned for Failing to Salute
That is not precedent, but you comparing a Nazi salute to standing in respect of our National Anthem is telling. You keep defining yourself to us and it is not pretty; already assumed who you are, but as it becomes more real it becomes even more unbelievable.

Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.

The fact that you, and your Bobs, think that it's fine not to, and that the owners of the businesses being represented are bullies if they expect their employees to be respectful to their customers, puts you in a class by yourselves (with apologies to the word class).
It's not just us. Compelled displays are worse than meaningless. They're the antithesis of freedom. The freedom our flag is supposed to stand for.

I've been fighting this issue since I was in high school. I choose not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because I don't agree that we are "one country under God." This became an issue my senior year. I stood my ground then. I'm sure as hell not budging now. --Bob
There is no compelling. Just like McDonald's does not compel people to wear those silly hats. It's just a requirement if you want to work for them, but that is your choice. These players can stay in the locker room, go home, or take off their uniforms and sit in the stands. No one is compelling them to stand. They have choices.

And I'm not shocked you wouldn't stand during the pledge. Rather than quietly staying silent, simply not reciting the words you disagree with, you chose instead to be a pointy stick.

Do you stand when 100% of the time when a judge enters a courtroom? Why?
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19271
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#38 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 25, 2018 11:20 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
That is not precedent, but you comparing a Nazi salute to standing in respect of our National Anthem is telling. You keep defining yourself to us and it is not pretty; already assumed who you are, but as it becomes more real it becomes even more unbelievable.

Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.

The fact that you, and your Bobs, think that it's fine not to, and that the owners of the businesses being represented are bullies if they expect their employees to be respectful to their customers, puts you in a class by yourselves (with apologies to the word class).
It's not just us. Compelled displays are worse than meaningless. They're the antithesis of freedom. The freedom our flag is supposed to stand for.

I've been fighting this issue since I was in high school. I choose not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because I don't agree that we are "one country under God." This became an issue my senior year. I stood my ground then. I'm sure as hell not budging now. --Bob
There is no compelling. Just like McDonald's does not compel people to wear those silly hats. It's just a requirement if you want to work for them, but that is your choice. These players can stay in the locker room, go home, or take off their uniforms and sit in the stands. No one is compelling them to stand. They have choices.

And I'm not shocked you wouldn't stand during the pledge. Rather than quietly staying silent, simply not reciting the words you disagree with, you chose instead to be a pointy stick.

Do you stand when 100% of the time when a judge enters a courtroom? Why?
It's only a pointy stick to snowflakes who choose to be offended by my failure to agree with their views. For those with enough confidence in their own beliefs to afford me the freedom to express mine, it's not a problem.

Justice Jackson (writing in 1943) is worth quoting at some length:
Justice Robert Jackson wrote:Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity.

As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Justices Black and Douglas also are eloquent on the subject:
Justice Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas wrote:Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds . . . . The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised . . . persecution.
And no, we do not stand when judges enter the courtroom. We stand for juries to honor their service. We do so because we are participants in a process that is pulling them away from their lives and jobs for days at a time, and we wish to show respect to the service they are affording to us in particular. Pretty much the same sort of reason one stands to show respect for veterans, whether or not you believe the wars in which they fought were justified. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#39 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat May 26, 2018 6:03 am

BackInTex wrote:
There is no compelling. Just like McDonald's does not compel people to wear those silly hats. It's just a requirement if you want to work for them, but that is your choice.
Actually, there is a difference. The "silly hats" identify employees and are a part of the corporate branding, much the same as the various logos and decals on NFL uniforms accomplish the same things. But, those who do not want to wear the "silly hats" for religious reasons (Jews, Sikhs, Muslim women, all of whom have their own headwear) are able to do so under the Civil Rights Act. In fact, seeing someone wearing a religious headdress in McDonalds tells me that the company is tolerant of all religious beliefs and makes it a place that's more appealing to do business with.

The original comparison I made wasn't between the Nazi salute and the national anthem. It was between the reaction to the "lack of respect" shown in both cases. You keep defining yourself everytime you align with Trump's autocratic practices. Forced adherence to a particular flag, anthem, or leader, is not a sign of respect; it's a sign of autocracy. Most telling in this case, the entire anthem issue was really caused by Donald Trump as a way to stir up trouble. If he hadn't shot his mouth off, Colin Kaepernick and the couple of others who felt the same way would have done their little protests in obscurity, with nobody noticing or caring. It was when Donald Trump took it upon himself (not coincidentally because a black football player protesting mistreatment of blacks) to make it an issue worthy of the attention of the President of the United States that it became an issue.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#40 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat May 26, 2018 6:09 am

BackInTex wrote: Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.
Try taking a look sometime at the crowds during the game and see how many of those standing are doing so "respectfully" and how many are swigging beers, looking at the cheerleaders, looking at the singer to see if he or she will screw up the lyrics ,or staring off into space. At times of crisis (following 9/11 or the Kapernick incident), people do take it more seriously, but most of the time, it's just an opportunity to stretch people's legs.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#41 Post by Estonut » Sat May 26, 2018 6:20 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: Standing during a country's national anthem, any country's, by all present, regardless of citizenship, is universally expected, proper, and respectful to the citizens of those countries.
Try taking a look sometime at the crowds during the game and see how many of those standing are doing so "respectfully" and how many are swigging beers, looking at the cheerleaders, looking at the singer to see if he or she will screw up the lyrics ,or staring off into space. At times of crisis (following 9/11 or the Kapernick incident), people do take it more seriously, but most of the time, it's just an opportunity to stretch people's legs.
Aren't you watching through the lens of a TV station? Try going to a game sometime to get an unfiltered opinion of the crowd's behavior. Oh, never mind, they don't issue discount coupons for ballgames, do they?
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#42 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat May 26, 2018 6:58 am

Estonut wrote:Aren't you watching through the lens of a TV station? Try going to a game sometime to get an unfiltered opinion of the crowd's behavior. Oh, never mind, they don't issue discount coupons for ballgames, do they?
I have been to plenty of ball games (and they do have discounts available). A lot of people stand because they are expected to stand.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
T_Bone0806
FNGD Forum Moderator
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: State of Confusion

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#43 Post by T_Bone0806 » Sat May 26, 2018 1:03 pm

BackInTex wrote: There is no compelling. Just like McDonald's does not compel people to wear those silly hats. It's just a requirement if you want to work for them, but that is your choice. These players can stay in the locker room, go home, or take off their uniforms and sit in the stands. No one is compelling them to stand. They have choices.

And I'm not shocked you wouldn't stand during the pledge. Rather than quietly staying silent, simply not reciting the words you disagree with, you chose instead to be a pointy stick.
If it were that simple....

If the reaction for those who did that was "well, I don't agree with it, but that's his/her right to remain silent", and it ended there, fine.

But it doesn't. In school, that "agitator" is going to be immediately targeted for verbal (if not physical) abuse by other students. Peer pressure, and fear of being a target for abuse, is a powerful thing. So most of those students FEEL compelled to go along with the masses...for the sake of survival. You're all intelligent people...I don't have to point out the many parallels in history to this type of situation.

I always say the pledge of allegiance. I can't physically stand during the anthem, but I would if I could. But I didn't get all worked up about those FEW (at the time) who didn't. They weren't taking a dump on the flag, which is how many seemed to view it, they were using the playing of the anthem as a forum to demonstrate their feelings that for some, phrases like "land of the free", and "with liberty and justice for all" have not applied to everyone in this country. Perhaps there were better ways to express those opinions, but that is what they chose. I doubt it would have gained a whole lot of traction had the president not taken on the role of the school bully by ripping not only those handful of players but pretty much the entire NFL, inciting the escalation of a blaze out of a single matchstick. Our president sure does love to stir up the shit. And so once again, anyone who stated that they felt that the players had the right to do what they did were hit with words like "snowflake" and the extremely offensive "libtard". resurrections of variations on the phrase "America...Love It Or Leave It", and even invitations to stand in front of a firing squad.

:roll:

Yes, there are those who will not budge in their commitment to what they believe in. But there are so many more who will back down to avoid the backlash.

Which sounds like being compelled to me.
"#$%&@*&"-Donald F. Duck

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#44 Post by Estonut » Sat May 26, 2018 5:34 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:A lot of people stand because they are expected to stand.
You don't actually know anyone's motivation but your own.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19271
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#45 Post by Bob78164 » Sat May 26, 2018 7:51 pm

Estonut wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:A lot of people stand because they are expected to stand.
You don't actually know anyone's motivation but your own.
We draw inferences about state of mind all the time, using our experience and common sense. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#46 Post by Estonut » Sat May 26, 2018 7:55 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:A lot of people stand because they are expected to stand.
You don't actually know anyone's motivation but your own.
We draw inferences about state of mind all the time, using our experience and common sense.
Inference is not factual knowledge. It is one's best guess and is colored by one's experience and common sense. SSS has a habit of deciding what goes on in the minds of others.

Had he said, "I think (or I Believe) that a lot of people stand because they are expected to stand," I wouldn't have commented. He stated it as fact. It might be, but that is unknown. I am sick of both his mind-reading and his broad-brush pronouncements.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3601
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#47 Post by Appa23 » Sat May 26, 2018 9:31 pm

[quote="Bob78164]
And no, we do not stand when judges enter the courtroom. We stand for juries to honor their service. We do so because we are participants in a process that is pulling them away from their lives and jobs for days at a time, and we wish to show respect to the service they are affording to us in particular. Pretty much the same sort of reason one stands to show respect for veterans, whether or not you believe the wars in which they fought were justified. --Bob[/quote]

I guess that they don’t stand for judges in California, but that is the generally-followed rule of court decorum elsewhere. You rise when the judge enters as a demonstration that he holds a superior position. It also is a way to determine if anyone might be troublesome during a gearing or trial.

As an Army civilian, I am expected to stand when my commanding colonel or a general enters the room. They routinely do the “at ease” signal when people start standing. My biggest issue has been remembering to say sir when addressing them.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#48 Post by BackInTex » Sat May 26, 2018 9:46 pm

Bob78164 wrote:We draw inferences ... using our experience and common sense. —Bob
Who is "we"? Whenever it is not you doing it, you call it racism or prejudice.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#49 Post by BackInTex » Sat May 26, 2018 9:55 pm

Bob78164 wrote:And no, we do not stand when judges enter the courtroom. We stand for juries to honor their service.
Really? Because the courts I've been in (Texas and Kansas), even as a jury member, we are seated, then instructed by the bailiff "all rise" as the judge enters the courtroom. Is the protocol different in California? Even in federal courts?
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New NFL National Anthem Rules

#50 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat May 26, 2018 10:05 pm

Estonut wrote: Try going to a game sometime to get an unfiltered opinion of the crowd's behavior.
Here's an unfiltered opinion of crowd behavior at several NFL games after the original Trump pronouncement on the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/spor ... otest.html

And there is plenty of evidence about collective crowd behavior and the pressure to conform. One of the classic studies was the Asch experiments in the 1950's in which people would give wrong answers to fairly simple questions because they were in the presence of a number of others who were giving out the wrong answers.
Why did most subjects conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar."
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psycholo ... rmity.html

There have been numerous similar studies since Asch first performed his test. Many people conform their behavior when they are in a crowd, regardless of their personal feelings. T-Bone said something similar in his post in this thread, without the reference to scientific studies.

If I made a statement that a lot of people in the crowd at a particular football game had high blood pressure, I obviously don't know that because I didn't measure it or have access to their records. But I do know from studies that a substantial percentage of adult Americans have high blood pressure (about 1/3 to 1/2 depending on the definition of what is "high"). And based on those percentages, the probability that many people in a particular crowd have high blood pressure is a virtual certainty.

So, I'm not going to engage in silly little word games just because I personally haven't conducted interviews with crowds at a stadium.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply