DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Baker Mayfield

We played the National Anthem before our football, basketball, and baseball games when I was in high school. I always loved that moment. I always felt so proud and grateful for the opportunities this country provided. Later, I felt the same way when I was coaching.

However, times change. We don't protest gang violence. We don't protest the crazy amount of murders in places like Chicago. We don't protest the amount of domestic violence in many communities. We don't protest looting or rioting. Our athletes instead to choose to protest against the country in which they make millions.

Anyway...........I agree w/you. I think maybe it is best to just not even play the National Anthem. I am already dreading all the focus on the kneeling and the heated debates that come w/it and not hearing more about the actual contests and player performances. Man, if I want to talk politics, sports would not be venue of choice. I have a feeling there are more people who feel the same way I do on that last comment than some realize.

"we don't protest....."

Is a crap argument... because that's what taking the knee is also about. Go look around where the charities go to. Go look around for how many "stop the violence" rallies that are funded.

They're not protesting against the country. They're saying that the country is hurt.

You take a knee when your teammate gets hurt on the field.

That's all it is. THis country is hurt.

It's only a "crap argument" because you don't agree w/what I'm saying. That's fine. I won't question your opinion. I am of the mind-set that we all have a right to express our opinions w/out ridicule.

We will see. I told folks last year before the season started he would suck, and i nailed it on the head because he didn't put in the work.

The beginning of the end started for Mayfield last year when he "blamed" the Refs for losing.

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2019/10...b-it-sucks.html

We lost that game against the Seahawks because Mayfield sucked, he threw 3 INTS, with his God Awful 69 QBR

Never heard Mayfield take responsibility for sucking, instead he blames the referees.

I don't see Mayfield keeping Keenum on the bench...the guy has a 91 and a 98 QBR in 2 of the last 3 seasons...at this point he is obviously better than Mayfield and can atleast read a D..we win 11 games with this roster with Keenam...we will be lucky to win 6 with Mayfield. I'll stand by it.

One difference here. I simply asked who was actually responsible for the fact they were given permission and could kneel. I didn't attack or question you stance on kneeling. I didn't try to convince you whether you were right or wrong on your opinion about kneeling.

It seems to be you leading the crusade here.

If Baker plays the way he did in 2018 then Case should stay on the bench because Baker would be our future. However, if Baker plays the way he did in "19 then I would really consider putting Case in. To me, it all depends on Baker. It's that simple. Baker should be given every chance to succeed.

...where did you get the impression I was a cop?

Walking up and punching someone in the face is a way to get their attention. It will stimulate a "conversation." The outcome is usually more violence than change.

Or you could, you know, just walk up to someone and have a conversation.

Conversations are hard, though. People would rather have something simple that's easy to do. Kneel, raise a fist, turn around. No actual conversation required. The conversation is "implied".

People don't come to the same conclusions when they are coming from different places if it's not spelled out. Heck, people come to different conclusions when it is all laid out.

What seems simple and obvious to one person, frequently isn't simple and obvious to someone else. All the arguing on here seems to illustrate that quite succinctly.

You don't need the divisive gesture to start the conversation. It's the "easy way out" and it actually seems to exacerbate issues. Violence crops up and it has to be addressed. However, you don't need the violence. It's part of the problem.

It seems apparent that we're incapable of just having conversations.

That's part of the problem.

People don't seem to understand the peaceful part of peaceful protest.

With gestures, it's easy to unite behind them, but it's also easy to unite against them. People bring their own paradigms to what the gestures mean. You can say what it means to you a million times, but that won't change what it means to them.

We could use fewer gestures. Definitely fewer divisive gestures.

We could use a President who could shape the conversation in a positive direction. Unfortunately, we've got one that uses divisive gestures and symbols.

They say imitation is a form of flattery. Using his tactics seems an odd choice.

We need more conversations. Not more gesticulation.

Every major change in our social culture has came about through protest and civil unrest. Through actions and not conversation. I understand the desire and conception of what you're saying. However, it's proven to fall on deaf ears and be used as a stall tactic rather than bring about any real change.

I'll give you an example. People have been talking about police reform for decades now. More has happened over the past three weeks in cities across America than has happened to bring about those changes in decades.

Actions bring results where conversations have failed.

I agree w/your takes on these issues. I don't want to start our football talks again, but you make a lot of good points and I admire that you are promoting actual discussion instead of violence and hate. While you may get shouted down on this board, I can assure you that there are many folks who are more reasonable in this world than what we see on this board.

The crazy thing is that some folks think that these "new found friends" are really friends and they are turning their backs on folks who have been long-term supporters of equality. It's as if they don't realize the new people are only doing it because it's trending. Good luck w/the long-term results w/those folks. Meanwhile, they are alienating their long-term supporters. Good luck w/that, too.

I can see why promoting equality and constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceful protests would turn people away.

Hey as long as it doesn't delay kickoff... who gives a rats arse?

Frankly, if you are still grousing about the "need to bring awareness".. "voices aren't being heard".. "nothing has changed in (whatever number of years is en vogue that day)"...

you're being played and you've allowed it to happen because you've failed to accept responsibility. For just over a DECADE now black folks and all others who are voicing the above complaints have been in exactly the positions you need to be in order to bring about the change being called for. We had a black President for 8 years who had 2 black DOJ AG's who were racially motivated. Just watch the news and you'll see that most of the law enforcement agencies in most of the largest cities in the U.S. have black police chiefs and administrators. Most of the incidents that are held up as examples for the need for change occur in cities that have had Democratic control for several decades.

You already have the political positioning AND the political power.

So, why are you guys worried about whether or not someone likes or dislikes the kneeling? How does mob shaming Drew Brees move things forward again? Why are you wasting time trying to force people to either fall in line or be silent? You don't need their approval, consent, or compliance.

Why do you guys keep complaining about an oppressive, racist system when you are in control of the system?

But whatever. Again I'm not going to dog Kaep or anyone else for kneeling. I don't have the head space to waste time on being offended.

Every token policy change that did little to actually address the underlying issues causing protests was brought about by violence (not necessarily physical violence.)

We don't take the time to actually talk and fix problems because we're forced to throw a bandaid on the bullet wound to stop the bleeding/"violent" protests. Unfortunately, we keep bleeding internally, while the protesters think they were heard and the problem is now solved. Nothing's been solved. You're spraying paint on the outside of a termite infested house. Sure, the paint looks nice, but the underlying problem didn't go away.

Actions cause conversations to fail. Actions should come out of conversations, not the other way around. Sometimes they have to, but then it is crisis management and people are looking for any answer rather than the best answer. It's frequently decided that a bad answer is better than no answer. Unfortunately, like picking between two horrible political candidates, a bad answer is still a bad answer.

It's difficult (practically impossible) to have meaningful conversations when battle lines are drawn and there is chaos in the streets. When emotions are involved, it is hard (perhaps impossible, again) for people to be rational. Emotions seem to supersede/shut off rational thought. Using a gesture that elicits emotional responses to solicit a rational conversation would therefore appear to be an exercise in futility.

I'm as guilty as anyone. I try to be rational, but once someone does something that gets an emotional response, its easy to go off the rails. To get back on track, it seems to me, you have to get less emotional, not stew in emotions and feed off the emotions of others. Emotional responses are rarely (never) well thought out, and they are most often counterproductive.

People claim that the "protests" aren't violent, and there is some merit to that argument. However, they are almost always emotionally charged, and high emotions draw violence.

I don't want to say that people are too emotional. There's nothing wrong with having/showing emotions. However, the ways they are expressed are frequently problematic. People often seem to be lacking an awareness of the effects of their emotions.

With all the police brutality incidences, I think the emotions sometimes get overlooked. Emotional people upset at what happened see the police as having committed their acts in a state of cold rationality. Unfortunately, most of them happen in high stress, emotionally charged situations where it is practically impossible to think rationally. The brain is chemically altered under stress. Fight or flight instinct can kick in and police are trained not to run from danger. There's not a wait and do nothing instinct.

That's not to excuse the things that happen. They are horrible, regrettable, awful, etc.

New rules sound great, but bad things are still going to happen in bad situations.

How do we end up with fewer bad situations?

Can we find a way to "protest" that draws from and draws out different (positive) emotions and, in that way, benefit from the power of emotional responses?

j/c...

I can see how much the fight for equality bothers you. You certainly haven't been paying any attention. Wasting my time with someone who is tone deaf accomplishes nothing.

Framing it as a fight is part of the problem. Fights have a winner and a loser. Fights have sides.

I'm not tone deaf. I "hear" the tone from both sides. You don't seem to hear anything that doesn't align with your "tone". I'm trying to figure out how to take the "tone" out of it.

I'm trying to work with others towards equality. You seem to keep trying to turn it into a fight. I'm susceptible to falling for it and letting you goad me into a fight. You think you're fighting for equality, but really it seems like it's just fighting.

If it didn't bother me, I wouldn't keep trying.

I study history. Women's right to vote was a fight. Civil right was a fight. Integration was a fight. All fights that had to be fought to invoke change.

I'm stating how things are and history proves that point. I'm not going to deny what history has taught me. You go right ahead if you so choose.

People have been trying to "discuss it and debate it" for decades. But only until people take a firm stand has anything really changed.

Or you could say that history shows change is inevitable and people often fight.

Causation isn't as direct as it is often painted. That's one of the problems with people "taking lessons" from history: they aren't always the right lessons.

There's also a difference between a firm stand and a fight. You can do one without the other. I'll take it a step further and go so far as to say that people should stand firm without fighting. Violence begets more violence.

Yet none of these changes came about UNTIL social unrest dictated it. So no, once again word salad doesn't change history.

If you are trying to indicate that crimes being committed in a riot situation are wrong then we agree on that part of the issue. But we both know that was the vast minority of the people involved in the protests. It only serves to deflect from the message and give people ammunition to try and undermine the message. For the most part I don't believe those engaging in such behavior care about the message at all. Only about what they stood to gain. And as we've earned for anyone willing to listen, some of them came from the other side of the political spectrum.

It wasn't the protestors in the civil rights movement that was turning fire hoses and attacking people with police dogs in the 60's. It wasn't those protestors hanging people in trees or bombing their cars.

It wasn't protestors at Kent state firing military rifles and killing the National Guard. It was the other way around.

It wasn't peaceful protestors outside The White House gassing the authorities for a photo op.

Yet the Vietnam War ended in large part because America saw those students slaughtered. The Civil rights Act passed not long after this nation saw what was being done to peaceful protestors.

I don't really disagree that violence begets violence. Sadly however, until this nation actually sees this on a screen in their own living room, the message doesn't sink in.

Baker needs to worry about improving his football skills or lack there of and stop seeking the spotlight.

...I don't really follow your logic. I know its not what you intend, but it's almost like you're arguing that the government should go out and kill protesters because that's what it took for change to happen in the past in your "it wasn't section".

As for your closing sentence, unfortunately, different messages are sinking in with different people. We need to figure out how to craft the message so that it gets through to everyone.

I don't think violence, or turning a blind eye toward violence, should be part of the message. I also don't think it should be crafted in such a way that it is likely to provoke violent responses.

How to craft a message that fits those criteria for everyone is what I'm trying to figure out.

If your satisfied with current/past methods, that's your prerogative. I'd like to figure out a method that doesn't rely on or lead to people dying.

I don't really have a problem with kneeling for the anthem, especially if it is expressed up front as to why. This adds so much more to the act when people are seeing it, and understanding it as it takes place.

This is where I think Cap made a mistake when he was sitting on the bench without explanation. By the time he explained the act and why he did it, the majority of people had already formed their opinions. It wasn't even the kneeling that started the issue, that was the compromise to sitting.

Sitting is more of a passive act. The visual also lends itself more to "disrespectful, lazy bum", imo. Kneeling is more intentional, and the visual is much better as far as saying that you have a message you're trying to give.

j/c...

The visual is weird. Kneeling was a sign of submission/making yourself vulnerable to your liege. There could be an element of respect involved but not necessarily. The gesture just seems to send mixed messages, even without the upsetting people due to the veteran sacrifice angle. They're not submitting to authority. They're not trying to show respect. "Fighting" for equality by using a gesture that frequently indicated the one being knelt to was of a higher class or caste (or order in the case of God) just doesn't seem like it was very well thought out. Tear down statues because they are symbols of white patriarchy, but use a gesture that White patriarchs required of those "beneath them."

I have trouble following the logic of why so many people think it makes sense.

Raise awareness. Make noise. It just seems an odd choice that was bound to be misconstrued.

It seems like it was a poorly thought out, hasty response to a poorly thought out, hasty response. We're a nation (and a board, myself included at times) filled with poorly thought out, hasty responses and we hurry others into poorly thought out, hasty responses. Then we wonder why we still have related problems.

We're in too much of a hurry. Yes, you can get a message to a million people practically instantly through technology. But, if the message isn't crafted carefully, it will be interpreted a million different ways.

People claim that action is required as impetus because people don't respond to words. Do people actually not respond to words or is it that we haven't found the right words?

Action may be required, but I think great attention still has to be paid to words, especially those trying to be associated with the actions.

You sound like a person who doesn’t want anything to change.

Swing and a miss! It was the violence brought against MLK and his protestors that brought about change. And the fact so many stood up for change. Sort of like people standing up for change now because black men are being murdered.

You're really on your soap box aren't you? Did you read the post? Here ya go. Just trying to help you out...



Context is helpful.

And you lack the ability to see without protests and the strength in numbers nothing ever changes. I'm not the one denying history and trying to rewrite it. I think we're done. Get back to me when you get a grasp of what has brought about social change in this country.

So the person who wants methods to change is the person who wants nothing to change.

And, the people that are unwilling to consider changing methods are the ones that expect there actions to cause change.

Why do people see asking for reasoned action as wanting no action?

So you're telling minorities to be reasonable?

Who gave you the authority on what is reasonable?

I hope you understand how this comes across to others.

Not discussing the conversation you and bull are having.

Just quoting this for the irony in it in relation to you.

Did I ever use the word reasonable?

I never said the actions were without reason. I suggested reason should be used to consider the actions (and reactions to those actions) and see if they could be improved.

What's wrong with a mindset of seeking continuous improvement? It helps promote change.

How does refusing to consider change help to promote change?

If you won't consider others thoughts on change, why should they consider yours?

I'm not saying that I haven't considered yours. "Obviously", I've spent an inordinate amount of time considering the subject. However, what's my incentive ((and the incentive to people similar to me) to keep doing it? Personal attacks and comparisons to hate-spewing racists? ...That's really going to win people over to your view of things....

I come across that way because of your emotions. You see me as on the other side, so you approach expecting hostility. You reply to me claiming I used words that I never did. You twist things into terrible lights with little to no factual basis. What you seem to miss is that I'm not on the other side. I want the same thing you do. I want to get rid of racism. We disagree on the details of how to go about it, but we both want the same thing.

The pervasive with us or against us paradigm is so damaging. We're both trying to get to the same destination. We just see different paths of getting there. I'm not trying to hold you back. Sometimes it looks to me like your path meanders and backtracks and I try to politely point out that there are other options. I get responses that seem like attacks and then I respond aggressively because my fight or flight response kicks in. We're wasting time fighting each other for "thoughtless"/"emotional" reasons.

I certainly didn't. But it seems as though people like you need a reminder.



I see. So are you trying to dismiss that black men being killed on our streets isn't a travesty? The travesties are what's being protested.



It sounds like you're taking footnotes from Trump. So it's the leaders of the movement and not the outliers? Who is training them to be Marxists?

Since when is expecting accountability from the police that they be held to the same standard as the rest of us become a Marxist idea?

So you're another one of "those" that thinks taking down statues of the men who led a traitorous army in the killing of what some estimate being as high as 360,000 Union troops will "wipe out our history and country".

How many statues of Hitler do we have in America? Has that wiped out the history of WW2? No, it hasn't. Using some weak excuse like that to promote keeping the statues of those who fought and killed our own troops to promote the continuation of slavery is terrible. It holds zero merit.

"If we take down monuments dedicated to traitors who killed American troops and promoted the continuation of slavery, we will wipe out our history and our country!"

Read that real slow and see just how stupid that sounds.

....why do we have to read slow to notice that something you wrote was stupid?

Because when you read it slowly you can see it isn't stupid.

Or do you support racist symbols of the confederacy in our town squares? Do you think removing them erase our history? If so, do you think we need statues of Hitler so we don't erase the history of WW2?

I didn't think so...