We can be technical I suppose. Firing you for not getting a vaccine is not forcing you to get a vaccine either, the only actual forced vaccine would be if they strapped you down and jabbed you. When I said forced I did not mean litterally forced, Kaepernick didn't have a gun to his head telling him to stand up for the anthem. We could use the word coerced if you prefer.

Poor analogy.  The rules already existed in the NFL.  Players will rise, cover their hearts with their right hands, and stay silent during the anthem.  Intentional disregard for the rules results in fines.  The NFL tried to accommodate the "protest" players by allowing them to remain in the locker rooms until after the pregame stuff is over.

NOBODY WAS BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING.

Since the NFL balked at firing anyone, your argument is bogus on its face.  People have been fired for not getting vaccinated.  Massive difference.

I'm not being "technical."  I'm stating observable, provable facts.

My point was that coerced patriotism isn't real patriotism because it wasn't something done out of someone's own free will. Patriotism should be something someone voluntarily chooses because they love the country, not because they will be made fun of or fired for. If I told me wife to say "I love you" or I will throw her out of the house would that mean anything? Of course not.

That's not a "point".  That's an obfuscation based on an unproven premise.  Nobody in the NFL was FORCED to do anything, much less display "patriotism."  I explained this, but you ignored me completely.  Patriotism is one thing.  Showing respect for the nation by standing for 2 minutes is not "forced patriotism."  Standing does not imply you are a patriot.  Period.

You've answered my question indirectly.  You DO NOT understand the customs and traditions regarding national symbols.  You are assigning false meanings to the act of standing for the anthem, just like Kap did.  He said it was in protest.  I didn't see him protest by quitting or donating millions to his "cause".   Publicity stunt -- nothing more.

Does the NFL have the power to make arbitrary rules saying players have to stand during the anthem? Sure, they can make whatever rules they want, but my point was about NFL fans who wanted him to be fired for not standing. How is that significantly different than democrats who want us fired from private businesses if we don't get the vaccine? And not standing for the anthem doesn't even harm anyone. I think, as conservatives, our calls for and respect for personal freedoms should be consistent. If Kaepernick doesn't want to stand because he bought into the lie from BLM or he is doing it as a PR stunt, or whatever might have been going on in his head, then fine. I don't like him or agree with him but I am not going to coerce him to stand.

Arbitrary?  In whose mind?

The rules existed long before the "BLM Protest" attention whores started.  The NFL not only has the power to make the rules, they also decide on the punishment.

Who cares what some NFL fans wanted?  Name a player who was fired?  Saying some fans wanted it is irrelevant. 

Personal freedoms include responsibilities, not just rights.  If the rules say stand, he stands.  He was offered the option to remain in the locker room.  Didn't matter -- he wanted to throw a public tantrum.  He doesn't have the right when the air time (not cheap) is paid for by the NFL, the stadiums and the networks.  You can't steal someone's megaphone to broadcast your protest on the basis that you have some right.  Others have rights, too.

We can be technical I suppose. Firing you for not getting a vaccine is not forcing you to get a vaccine either, the only actual forced vaccine would be if they strapped you down and jabbed you. When I said forced I did not mean litterally forced, Kaepernick didn't have a gun to his head telling him to stand up for the anthem. We could use the word coerced if you prefer.

My point was that coerced patriotism isn't real patriotism because it wasn't something done out of someone's own free will. Patriotism should be something someone voluntarily chooses because they love the country, not because they will be made fun of or fired for. If I told me wife to say "I love you" or I will throw her out of the house would that mean anything? Of course not.

Does the NFL have the power to make arbitrary rules saying players have to stand during the anthem? Sure, they can make whatever rules they want, but my point was about NFL fans who wanted him to be fired for not standing. How is that significantly different than democrats who want us fired from private businesses if we don't get the vaccine? And not standing for the anthem doesn't even harm anyone. I think, as conservatives, our calls for and respect for personal freedoms should be consistent. If Kaepernick doesn't want to stand because he bought into the lie from BLM or he is doing it as a PR stunt, or whatever might have been going on in his head, then fine. I don't like him or agree with him but I am not going to coerce him to stand.

When someone being paid millions of dollars can't turn out a decent performance and instead decides to act like a baby, insult the audience, and incite violence on a nationally televised program, it's a whole different ball of wax than joe bus driver being forced to put experimental drugs in his body or starve.

The comparison is entirely disingenuous

This is not tribal warfare, this is class warfare

I think an understanding of my thought process might help. If I really want to talk about an issue I like to first sort of set out that issue like a debate moderator might. Provide some facts and context to set the groundwork. So for example ask if pinneapple is good on pizza. Then cover that pepperoni is spicy and salty while pinneapple is acidic and sweet.

Then when the discussion gets going I will usually state my opinion. Often I have an opinion though sometimes I don't but just find the discussion itself interesting. I don't like to lead out with just an argument of pineapples on pizza is awesome. If you don't like this type of discussion I totally get it, no judgements on you. My wife has no interest in debates of any kind.


One of the reasons I started this thread is that I have been listening to a number of podcasts about the human brain and how societies interact. This is where I nerd out a little bit but I find it very interesting at just how unobjective the human brain can be and how often tribalism really dictates our thinking. The podcasts have covered a number of studies which illustrate how susceptible to false memories, group think, tribalism, etc. Politics just seems to be such a perfect example of this the way people divide so consistently along political lines and over issues.

Thats why, to each their own.

Imo ALL wives have no interest in debate. We are wrong and thats that.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

pineapple on pizza sucks...

I think an understanding of my thought process might help. If I really want to talk about an issue I like to first sort of set out that issue like a debate moderator might. Provide some facts and context to set the groundwork. So for example ask if pinneapple is good on pizza. Then cover that pepperoni is spicy and salty while pinneapple is acidic and sweet.

Then when the discussion gets going I will usually state my opinion. Often I have an opinion though sometimes I don't but just find the discussion itself interesting. I don't like to lead out with just an argument of pineapples on pizza is awesome. If you don't like this type of discussion I totally get it, no judgements on you. My wife has no interest in debates of any kind.


One of the reasons I started this thread is that I have been listening to a number of podcasts about the human brain and how societies interact. This is where I nerd out a little bit but I find it very interesting at just how unobjective the human brain can be and how often tribalism really dictates our thinking. The podcasts have covered a number of studies which illustrate how susceptible to false memories, group think, tribalism, etc. Politics just seems to be such a perfect example of this the way people divide so consistently along political lines and over issues.

If you don't like this type of discussion I totally get it, no judgements on you. My wife has no interest in debates of any kind.

My guess is that she probably gets disgusted with being gaslit for refusing to consider the horrible authoritarian ideas that you constantly try to slip into the conversation.

"Why don't you consider the benefits of death camps for the unvaccinated, honey? There's always a reasonable compromise. Stop being so irrational."

Poor analogy.  The rules already existed in the NFL.  Players will rise, cover their hearts with their right hands, and stay silent during the anthem.  Intentional disregard for the rules results in fines.  The NFL tried to accommodate the "protest" players by allowing them to remain in the locker rooms until after the pregame stuff is over.
NOBODY WAS BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING.
Since the NFL balked at firing anyone, your argument is bogus on its face.  People have been fired for not getting vaccinated.  Massive difference.

Red herring. I clearly mentioned the calling for the firing of Kaepernick. The focus was not on NFL rules or actions, remember the theme of this thread. The focus is on inconsistencies in ideologies based on tribal affiliation. Kaepernick picked up a far left talking point when he kneeled in protest and he caught flack from people on the right. I am talking about the ideology of people being free to make choices in their life absent coercion which is then thrown aside for Kaepernick because he wasn't on our side.

I'm not being "technical."  I'm stating observable, provable facts.

Then you are nitpicking. I clearly wasn't talking about people having to do things at the barrel of a gun.

That's not a "point".  That's an obfuscation based on an unproven premise.  Nobody in the NFL was FORCED to do anything, much less display "patriotism."  I explained this, but you ignored me completely.  Patriotism is one thing.  Showing respect for the nation by standing for 2 minutes is not "forced patriotism."  Standing does not imply you are a patriot.  Period.

So if you attended a sports game in a foreign country would you stand and place your hand over your heart or salute their flag just to show respect to the other country? If you say no because it isn't your country then it clearly isn't just respect and you are back into the territory of patriotism.

And regardless, a forced or coerced sign of respect is equally as meaningless as one of patriotism so my point remains valid.

You've answered my question indirectly.  You DO NOT understand the customs and traditions regarding national symbols.  You are assigning false meanings to the act of standing for the anthem, just like Kap did.  He said it was in protest.  I didn't see him protest by quitting or donating millions to his "cause".   Publicity stunt -- nothing more.
Arbitrary?  In whose mind?

I do understand the customs and traditions regarding national symbols, that is why I know they are arbitrary. There is nothing inherent about standing that shows it is respectful.

Personal freedoms include responsibilities, not just rights.  If the rules say stand, he stands.  He was offered the option to remain in the locker room.  Didn't matter -- he wanted to throw a public tantrum.  He doesn't have the right when the air time (not cheap) is paid for by the NFL, the stadiums and the networks.  You can't steal someone's megaphone to broadcast your protest on the basis that you have some right.  Others have rights, too.

Maybe they should have ignored him then, just saying. He probably got more attention because of all the people butt hurt that he kneeled than if conservatives just ignored him.

Freedoms include responsibilities... like taking steps to reduce the spread of a disease?

My guess is that she probably gets disgusted with being gaslit for refusing to consider the horrible authoritarian ideas that you constantly try to slip into the conversation.

"Why don't you consider the benefits of death camps for the unvaccinated, honey? There's always a reasonable compromise. Stop being so irrational."

Now you are just purposefully lying about my arguments.
#1 Not every idea I have brought up is one I supposed, I have told you that multiple times but you can't or refuse to see the difference between talking about an idea and actually supporting it.
#2 Never once did I bring up anything real authoritarian, quit being hyperbolic.

Do you know one of the best ways to defeat a really bad idea from someone else? Reason through their argument, acknowledging the pros but then showing the cons and how it is a bad idea. But you refuse to even entertain the other sides ideas for a second even if just to show where they are bad ideas. You think they will listen to you because you insult them?

As for your reply about Kaepernick, please see my reply to Flapp. The focus was not on NFL rules so much as it was about a response from conservative fans.

This thread is going a little too far off the main topic. The Kaepernick example was never meant to bring up that old issue or to attack or defend him, it was just an observation and I don't think we should spend too much time on it. If you feel the Kaepernick incident was not a comparable example, thats fine, we can agree to disagree and move on. Lets try to cover some of the science on the main topic.

There was an interesting study performed on a college campus where the participants would fill out a questionaire and then be told to go to another building for part of the study. Along the way they would encounter an actor wearing either a jacket with either their college's sports team or the logo of a rival college sports team. The results showed that participants who were sports fans were less likely to help out the injured person wearing an opponents jersey and more likely to help out the injured person wearing the same college jersey. IIRC the people who didn't care about sports helped the injured person the same regardless of which logo.

This was an example of how the us vs them can be stronger than the belief that an injured person should be helped. The tribal identity in this case was a sports team. And there have been other studies that looked at issues surrounding sports. For example judging whether referees made the right calls: If  referee makes a call it should either be correct or incorrect, and all that matters are the facts of the play right? Yet you don't often see both teams or fans agreeing agreeing or disagreeing with the referee at the same rate. If the call benefits your team you are more likely to say it was a good call than the other team and vice versa. This tribal loyalty is stronger than an objective look at the referee's call.

pineapple on pizza sucks...

Haha, I knew someone would bite onto that one.

But come to think about it, that could be an interesting study.
Inform people that Biden likes pineapple pizza and Trump hates pineapple pizza then ask them whether they like pinneapple on pizza and also ask whether they are republican democrat or independent. It would be interesting to see if there was any significant difference between self identified republicans and democrats as to whether they like pineapple on pizza.

Do you know one of the best ways to defeat a really bad idea from someone else? Reason through their argument, acknowledging the pros but then showing the cons and how it is a bad idea.

Some ideas are so unreasonable and dangerous that to entertain them is to give them a foothold of legitimacy that they do not deserve.

When you compare me with a terrorist for standing up for my rights then there is no middle ground. You are my enemy, and you are the enemy of everything this country is supposed to stand for.

Red herring. I clearly mentioned the calling for the firing of Kaepernick. The focus was not on NFL rules or actions, remember the theme of this thread. The focus is on inconsistencies in ideologies based on tribal affiliation. Kaepernick picked up a far left talking point when he kneeled in protest and he caught flack from people on the right. I am talking about the ideology of people being free to make choices in their life absent coercion which is then thrown aside for Kaepernick because he wasn't on our side.

And I CLEARLY posted that this is a red herring and IRRELEVANT because he was not IN FACT fired.  What some fans and others may have called for is not a valid point unless you have evidence it was only one political affiliation ("tribe") doing so.

Then you are nitpicking. I clearly wasn't talking about people having to do things at the barrel of a gun.

Please show me where I said you were talking about people having to do things at the barrel of a gun.

So if you attended a sports game in a foreign country would you stand and place your hand over your heart or salute their flag just to show respect to the other country? If you say no because it isn't your country then it clearly isn't just respect and you are back into the territory of patriotism.

Each service has variations on how to show respect in various situations and settings.  If it's a US color guard, and the foreign country's anthem is played, the colors of the US color guard, be it an Army or other ceremonial flag, will be dipped, and all uniformed personnel will render THE SAME respect they would for the US anthem.  If that includes a salute, then that will be rendered.

If I were attending as a civilian, the same rules apply.  If I stand and cover for the US anthem, I do the same for the foreign anthem.

Variations occur if the event includes military units in parade formation where the commanders of the marching units render honors -- the rest of the unit does not unless commanded to.

Short answer -- you refuse to acknowledge the difference between "respect" and "patriotism" when discussing national symbols.  You're like a broken record piling on story after story with no real foundation.  So, yes, I would stand and cover my heart for a foreign nation's anthem.  In the US, foreign anthems are played first (if more than one, in alphabetical order of country names), and the US anthem always last.  In other countries, the rules are set by the host country.

And regardless, a forced or coerced sign of respect is equally as meaningless as one of patriotism so my point remains valid.

One ......... more .........time .......

Nobody is being FORCED! 

Polly want a cracker?

I do understand the customs and traditions regarding national symbols, that is why I know they are arbitrary. There is nothing inherent about standing that shows it is respectful.

WRONG.

36 US Code § 301 - National anthem -- Not arbitrary., but law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

Maybe they should have ignored him then, just saying. He probably got more attention because of all the people butt hurt that he kneeled than if conservatives just ignored him.

Freedoms include responsibilities... like taking steps to reduce the spread of a disease?

He got the attention because Social Media, MSM and Leftist Progressive Socialist Liberals used the story to further divide the nation.  I didn't give a rat's ass about the story, but the media blew it way out of proportion.

When other athletes saw it was an attention getter, they jumped on the band wagon.

In this day and age, you don't have to be able to do anything to get attention.  You just have to be a victim of something that the Left champions (Like BLM).  They will raise you up as a celebrity and make you famous if you aren't already. 

Kap milked the gravy train for as long as the victimhood cow would give.

Where is Kap and BLM now?  Did Cops suddenly stop killing innocent unarmed blacks?  Did Kap succeed in fixing the problem by taking a knee?

Last I checked, crime, including murders, are at an all time high in many places. 

Oh, that's right.  Kap no longer has a paid-for nationally televised platform from which to show his ass in public.   

This thread is going a little too far off the main topic. The Kaepernick example was never meant to bring up that old issue or to attack or defend him, it was just an observation and I don't think we should spend too much time on it. If you feel the Kaepernick incident was not a comparable example, thats fine, we can agree to disagree and move on. Lets try to cover some of the science on the main topic.

There was an interesting study performed on a college campus where the participants would fill out a questionaire and then be told to go to another building for part of the study. Along the way they would encounter an actor wearing either a jacket with either their college's sports team or the logo of a rival college sports team. The results showed that participants who were sports fans were less likely to help out the injured person wearing an opponents jersey and more likely to help out the injured person wearing the same college jersey. IIRC the people who didn't care about sports helped the injured person the same regardless of which logo.

This was an example of how the us vs them can be stronger than the belief that an injured person should be helped. The tribal identity in this case was a sports team. And there have been other studies that looked at issues surrounding sports. For example judging whether referees made the right calls: If  referee makes a call it should either be correct or incorrect, and all that matters are the facts of the play right? Yet you don't often see both teams or fans agreeing agreeing or disagreeing with the referee at the same rate. If the call benefits your team you are more likely to say it was a good call than the other team and vice versa. This tribal loyalty is stronger than an objective look at the referee's call.

Not sure how the tribal thing came up.  But are you grasping at herd mentality?

I think you are trying to make connections based on what you assume for many on this board.  Then you started grasping at straws to try to make a point by attempting to provoke thought based on your assumptions/profile of folks here. 

Are there folks on the ends of the spectrum?  Yeah, in more ways than one that I have observed.  That's the thing with generalities and trying to throw a blanket over groups.

It's my opinion. 

Imagine the world without a United States of America.  Do you think it would be better or worse?  Would another world leader have done better?  Worse?  If Hitler wasn't stopped by the Allies -- in great part by the US -- would Europe be under the heel of a totalitarian dictator to this day?  Would Russia have won the Cold War before it even started?  Would Japan have annexed the entire region inside the Pacific Rim?

No need to derail this thread.  Just a "thought experiment."

Everyone has a right to his/her/its opinion, but not all opinions are right.   

Flapp, I know my views are controversial; but I consider you and most on this forum, as the last generation, of old-school American patriots, that truly loved and served, what they thought was the American republic.

Yes; even though transitioning, to what I and many other Americans now recognize America, as the US empire; the former American republic did play a major positive role, in modern World history, as you correctly pointed out.  However, with your generation, being the last bastion, of what was the American republic, the future, of what you loved, will be the current US imperial Power Okole served by today's younger brainwashed subject-citizens, as I often refer, to a particular hi-tech someone, on this forum.

You are one, of the most knowledgeable members, here.  Hence, understand that I sometimes need, to joust words with you, in order, to keep my sword, as sharp as yours.      

Flapp, I know my views are controversial; but I consider you and most on this forum, as the last generation, of old-school American patriots, that truly loved and served, what they thought was the American republic.

Yes; even though transitioning, to what I and many other Americans now recognize America, as the US empire; the former American republic did play a major positive role, in modern World history, as you correctly pointed out.  However, with your generation, being the last bastion, of what was the American republic, the future, of what you loved, will be the current US imperial Power Okole served by today's younger brainwashed subject-citizens, as I often refer, to a particular hi-tech someone, on this forum.

You are one, of the most knowledgeable members, here.  Hence, understand that I sometimes need, to joust words with you, in order, to keep my sword, as sharp as yours.      

"but I consider you and most on this forum, as the last generation, of old-school American patriots, that truly loved and served, what they thought was the American republic."

Very well stated.
As a father,  a grandfather, uncle, and
Mentor,  I've done my best, but nobody gets out of here
alive and the kids will carry on as they see fit.
Frankly if they fuck it up, they suffer, I'm dead,
At that point, I don't care about anything anymore.
 

Not sure how the tribal thing came up.  But are you grasping at herd mentality?

I once googled "tribadism" and something really bad ass came up. NSFW

Learn something new everyday.
“commonly known by its scissoring position,”

Tribadism. Gonna try use that in my next scrabble game. Hope somebody challenges and looks it up.
Can imagine if it slipped into a spelling bee.
Can you provide the definition?
Can you use it in a sentence ?

Flapp, I know my views are controversial; but I consider you and most on this forum, as the last generation, of old-school American patriots, that truly loved and served, what they thought was the American republic.

Yes; even though transitioning, to what I and many other Americans now recognize America, as the US empire; the former American republic did play a major positive role, in modern World history, as you correctly pointed out.  However, with your generation, being the last bastion, of what was the American republic, the future, of what you loved, will be the current US imperial Power Okole served by today's younger brainwashed subject-citizens, as I often refer, to a particular hi-tech someone, on this forum.

You are one, of the most knowledgeable members, here.  Hence, understand that I sometimes need, to joust words with you, in order, to keep my sword, as sharp as yours.      

I appreciate the sentiment. 

Yes,. the US has changed these past few decades.  The radicals of the 60s grew up and got government jobs.  Their successors became lawyers and journalists.  We find ourselves with the script flipped. 

"The man" used to be the fat cats in Washington running the country as corporations dictated.  Now, the Liberals are in charge, running the country for the Liberal corporations like Big Tech.

It's the same people, only one group has seized power from the previous group.  Not talking Dems vs. GOP as much as Liberal-Progressive-Communist-Leftist vs. Conservatives & moderates.  We have extreme forces pulling us in the direction of where the USSR was trying to go"  a collectivist society where the needs of the individual no longer exist outside of how those who contribute to the state get rewarded.

I see your arguments about the Republic vs. Empire.  I just don't agree that the US is doing it any differently than any other 1st world contemporary nation.  The rules and playing field have changed, and so have the tactics needed to win. 

I think this giant debt hole the nation's leaders are digging will soon come back to bite us.  Economic strength will replace military strength as the measure of a Super Power.  If we continue to be irresponsible fiscally, we will need 12 more years of Trump-quality business acumen to pull us out of this nose dive.

I haven't written the country off, but I do see us having another Great Depression soon.  Can't keep borrowing money to cover up incompetent or willfully destructive policies.

Learn something new everyday.
“commonly known by its scissoring position,”

Tribadism. Gonna try use that in my next scrabble game. Hope somebody challenges and looks it up.
Can imagine if it slipped into a spelling bee.
Can you provide the definition?
Can you use it in a sentence ?

^^^^^He googled it. Hahahahahhaa

"but I consider you and most on this forum, as the last generation, of old-school American patriots, that truly loved and served, what they thought was the American republic."

Very well stated.
As a father,  a grandfather, uncle, and
Mentor,  I've done my best, but nobody gets out of here
alive and the kids will carry on as they see fit.
Frankly if they fuck it up, they suffer, I'm dead,
At that point, I don't care about anything anymore.
 

You say that now.  Just wait until you're reincarnated. 
They say you come back as a "lesser being."
That should include "Democrat."   

There's a "herd mentality" experiment where people were asked to identify which length of string or something was shorter than the other one.

Everyone in the room was in on the setup except for the "subject."

Everyone picked the longer string and said it was the shorter one.  The subject could plainly see that this was the longer of the two.  However, instead of picking the one he knew to be correct, which would imply all the others got it wrong, he picked the longer string as well.

This is a phenomenon observed almost 2 centuries ago, and it was incorporated in the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes."  All the adults pretended to see what they were told was reality.  It took an innocent child to tell the truth.

It's much easier to travel the same direction as the herd, school, or whatever group than it is to go against the flow. 

By the way, after one of the people in on the string experiment chose the right string, the subject was 30% more likely to pick the right one, too.  Sometimes it only takes one other person to confirm your beliefs for you to act on them.  If no one is brave enough to trust their own eyes, society will follow the crowd off the nearest cliff.

Now do vaccines, "consensus," and "majority."