They made 6 statements, each ending with “that’s protected speech”, referred to a “legal basis” and “legal status”, and mentioned that the SuperbOwl was a private event, as if someone was implying otherwise. Not sure how else you interpret that but please share if you have another perspective.
E: LOL you people are literally delusional. Zero objectivity.
And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung
Oh look, another strawman.
Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article before I even knew it took place.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.
Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up as to why maga doesn’t care about legality. You missed the plot it’s okay.
The larger context of why anyone is talking about what is sung at the Super Bowl should have been enough of a set up, but apparently not.
This entire stunt is predicated on the right’s frustration that they couldn’t do anything about black athletes and allies being disrespectful during the National Anthem (a legally defined song with etiquette spelled out in the US legal code), which is protected speech.
Now, in my opinion, they have a Super Bowl to posture about eight months before a presidential election. They want sound bites and over-the-top reactions so that they can paint themselves the victims of a hypocritical, leftist, anti-freedom conspiratorial media machine. This part of that “projection” plank in the modern GOP.
My original post was simply outlining that no matter how you slice it, there is nothing to be mad about them “protesting” the Black National Anthem. I added in a rhetorical refrain to drive home the point while beating a dead horse for effect.
Your statement presupposes that MAGAs are mad because this is somehow illegal. How did you come to such a conclusion?
They didn’t, at least not in what I read.
They’re just outlining how stupid the argument is.
They made 6 statements, each ending with “that’s protected speech”, referred to a “legal basis” and “legal status”, and mentioned that the SuperbOwl was a private event, as if someone was implying otherwise. Not sure how else you interpret that but please share if you have another perspective.
E: LOL you people are literally delusional. Zero objectivity.
All of those six statements were predicated with “This is such a non-thing that it hurts to even consider how stupid it is.“
Ergo, let’s not make it a thing…
And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
Yes. They did.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
Oh look, another strawman.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article before I even knew it took place.
Oh look, someone trying to stir up a dumb argument on the internet because they need attention.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
You don’t know what a straw man argument is do you?
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.
You missed statement 0.
No. I didn’t.
Oh okay so you chose to ignore it and draw your own conclusions at what point they were making, got it.
Once again, no, I did not.
Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up as to why maga doesn’t care about legality. You missed the plot it’s okay.
I did not write “a whole write up”, dog. It was 2 sentences. All of their reasons were legal, which is what I addressed.
🤦♂️ No. Wrong again. My point was that it’s not a legal issue.
In this context “that’s protected speech” means roughly, “STFU maga, nothing you can do about it, and you have no basis for your tantum.”
Removed by mod
No I did.
Removed by mod
No I really did
Yes. It is. All the time.
Removed by mod
Except it’s not.
The larger context of why anyone is talking about what is sung at the Super Bowl should have been enough of a set up, but apparently not.
This entire stunt is predicated on the right’s frustration that they couldn’t do anything about black athletes and allies being disrespectful during the National Anthem (a legally defined song with etiquette spelled out in the US legal code), which is protected speech.
Now, in my opinion, they have a Super Bowl to posture about eight months before a presidential election. They want sound bites and over-the-top reactions so that they can paint themselves the victims of a hypocritical, leftist, anti-freedom conspiratorial media machine. This part of that “projection” plank in the modern GOP.
My original post was simply outlining that no matter how you slice it, there is nothing to be mad about them “protesting” the Black National Anthem. I added in a rhetorical refrain to drive home the point while beating a dead horse for effect.
Removed by mod
Thank you
Ah yes “known troll” = someone who disagrees with me. LOL sure bud
Good thing you blocked me.