Burnwinter wrote:

Haven't really been following the Kaepernick story, but if it involves a black man in the US pointing out a good number of white cops are racists, and that the rate of black death by cop is an abomination … good?

It's a complicated story Burnwinter. He is/was in danger of getting released from his contract, and there's some that believe this was a desperation ploy to make him relevant and prevent the 49ers from releasing him.

To his credit, he is donating $1 million dollars to various organizations after these stories.

and those some people are full of shit and trying to distract from his point. his $12m salary for 2016 was fully guaranteed on Mar 31. if this was some ploy to protect his money he would have done so before that deadline.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000649266/article/colin-kaepernick-still-with-49ers-salary-guaranteed

Meatwad wrote:

i'll call him silly for the pig socks when these race soldiers stop walking around like this:

and this Philly pig's dog is named Rommel

The second picture doesn't surprise me, we have those even here where racism usually isn't as open as in the US. The first one though.. what the fuck is wrong with these people

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/russell-okung-colin-kaepernick-protest/

Really good piece from a player showing support for Kap and the issue, but also addressing the need for action rather than just a statement. That has been my concern with Kaepernick's protest - he hasn't been clear about what he has an issue with (though it should be obvious, it's not to some) and he hasn't identified what he and others should do to more directly influence change.

Sitting down during an anthem does little to make change, it just draws the eyes to an already identified issue but at the risk of disillusioning some.

Bryant wrote:

It's a complicated story Burnwinter. He is/was in danger of getting released from his contract, and there's some that believe this was a desperation ploy to make him relevant and prevent the 49ers from releasing him.

To his credit, he is donating $1 million dollars to various organizations after these stories.

Speaking as someone who barely gives a fuck about NFL (though I do recognise it's an impressive sport) if he's doing something relevant … he is relevant.

He's doing something, that's more than most. He's a football player he can't directly affect change. All he can do is use his profile to try raise awareness.

jones wrote:

Meatwad wrote:

i'll call him silly for the pig socks when these race soldiers stop walking around like this:

and this Philly pig's dog is named Rommel

The second picture doesn't surprise me, we have those even here where racism usually isn't as open as in the US. The first one though.. what the fuck is wrong with these people

Why was the 2nd picture posted?

Because he has a dog named Rommel and a tattoo which says 'Fatherland' on his forearm? May want to google both those before you reply.

How do we know he has a dog named Rommel?

Fatherland above an outstretched eagle, so I'm assuming he see's German Nazi as the fatherland...

No need to assume, Savz. That's the reichsadler emblem with a jackboot font above it. There are no other typographic elements or eagle designs quite like those due to the obvious connotations. You don't go into a tattoo parlor and end up with something like that by accident.

Given that his name is Lichtermann he probably has German roots.

Rex wrote:

Because he has a dog named Rommel and a tattoo which says 'Fatherland' on his forearm? May want to google both those before you reply.

so because a nazi got fed up in '44 or '45 and was supportive of a plot to kill hitler means he was a good one? nothing significant happened before he got fed up? he's scum whether he's viewed as a hero in germany or not. and he had jewish slaves or unpaid servants if that's more delicate when he was in north africa.

Still gotta assume.. I know nothing about this man.

He could have made a couple bad choices as a teenager only to realise his mistakes later on in life. He may look at the tattoo and hate it. Nobody knows, but we got a couple guys in here talking amongst themselves insinuating that he's definitely a Nazi, he should know a bit more before saying he's definitely one, right?

Motorhead use the jackboot font, and Lemmy has an extensive collection of Nazi uniforms and he even wears them now and again, he's spoken about his house looking like a fricking shrine to the Nazi's, but always says he collect the stuff, not the ideas.

If nobody knew a thing about Lemmy, we'd be sitting here calling him a Nazi too. Gotta know more about the person and try not to say he's this or that based off of a tattoo.

Nazi stuff is some of the most provocative imagery that you can brandish, and that's why people get tattoos or wear the stuff. This police officer could have some form of mental problem, again as a teenager for example, and wanted to stand out as he may have have been unable to do so in some of the ways most of us think are normal.

(Or he could just be a Nazi lover who isn't scared of the fact, and in that case he needs help and the Philidelphia police need to go public as to why they hired a Nazi.)

Savz wrote:

Motorhead use the jackboot font, and Lemmy has an extensive collection of Nazi uniforms and he even wears them now and again, he's spoken about his house looking like a fricking shrine to the Nazi's, but always says he collect the stuff, not the ideas.

Motörhead aren't public servants. Musicians and artists are known to incorporate brutalistic symbols of evil and oppression into their imagery - see the pentagrams and satanistic imagery in death metal for instance. It doesn't change the fact you can't be a cop with nazi symbols tattooed onto your body or public display. You wouldn't accept a swastika along the same line just because a similar sign with a completely different meaning exists in Indian culture.

I personally wouldn't accept it. But in America isn't is allowed under the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech? Tasteless but it's up to the person if they want it or not.

Now a public servant having a swastika? No, they shouldn't be hired on that alone. If they used to be a Nazi or they used to have ties with a Nazi group but have changed, then I'd suggest getting the tattoo removed before being hired.

Savz wrote:

I personally wouldn't accept it. But in America isn't is allowed under the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech? Tasteless but it's up to the person if they want it or not.

Freedom of speech (in this specific case: freedom of expression) doesn't work the way you think it works, is the short answer. It's not a carte blanche to do whatever you want in a society and it doesn't mean you're protected from the consequences. Freedom of speech and expression are limited even further when you represent juridical and governing institutions.

Perhaps he slipped and fell on a tattoo gun? And then it happened again on his other arm. Poor fella.

Daz wrote:

Perhaps he slipped and fell on a tattoo gun? And then it happened again on his other arm. Poor fella.

Is there any need for these sarcastic remarks? I put a point across, as stupid as it sounds it was simply to show nobody knows what this man has gone through and what he's doing with his life now.

Yes there is. As Rex says, embrace the sarcasm.

Stop saying that, I'm not advocating for innocent people to be put into a detention center. If they have reason to believe somebody is being radicalised or is a certified fanatic, to which they have solid proof, then I am for that person being placed in a detention center and re-educated, hopefully it'll bring that person back to fucking reality.

Your first and second sentences seem to directly contradict each other to my eyes.

You're advocating for ordinary people who've committed no recognised offence (beyond perhaps a newly invented "susceptibility to radicalisation") to be placed in a special facility. Meanwhile every extenuating circumstance should be considered in the case of a working police officer covered in white supremacist tattoos.

This is honestly not antagonistic, but you tell me, because that's what I'm reading.

Meatwad wrote:

Rex wrote:

Because he has a dog named Rommel and a tattoo which says 'Fatherland' on his forearm? May want to google both those before you reply.

so because a nazi got fed up in '44 or '45 and was supportive of a plot to kill hitler means he was a good one? nothing significant happened before he got fed up? he's scum whether he's viewed as a hero in germany or not. and he had jewish slaves or unpaid servants if that's more delicate when he was in north africa.

I was definitely not disagreeing with you.

Burnwinter wrote:

Your first and second sentences seem to directly contradict each other to my eyes.

You're advocating for ordinary people who've committed no recognised offence (beyond perhaps a newly invented "susceptibility to radicalisation") to be placed in a special facility. Meanwhile every extenuating circumstance should be considered in the case of a working police officer covered in white supremacist tattoos.

This is honestly not antagonistic, but you tell me, because that's what I'm reading.

Lets keep the discussion of France to its own thread please.

Aye aye, no prob, it was a compare and contrast exercise.

Rex wrote:

Meatwad wrote:

so because a nazi got fed up in '44 or '45 and was supportive of a plot to kill hitler means he was a good one? nothing significant happened before he got fed up? he's scum whether he's viewed as a hero in germany or not. and he had jewish slaves or unpaid servants if that's more delicate when he was in north africa.

I was definitely not disagreeing with you.

oh ok my bad. it's just that when this was making the rounds last week people were making excuses for this copper talking about how rommel was admired by the allies and how he was involved in a plot to kill hitler and he's one of the few people from that time that's still respected in germany. a bunch of plea copping.

The picture of the cop is a disgrace and judging by his tats his motive as to naming his dog Rommel seems pretty clear.

Rommel was not a Nazi however, but a member of the German officer core and a veteran from WW1, and those jewish slaves you're talking about Hitler had ordered killed, but Rommel refused to obey the order, which could have gotten him killed if Hitler found out.

Again I'm not defending the copper in the least, there are other parts of Rommels story that put him in a less favorable light and I could discuss that in depth but this has come a long way from the 49'ers back up QB.

Rommel wasn't a staunch Nazi but he was a dedicated follower of Hitler (possibly not even as admiring of him as the other way round), a committed man of war. Saying he's "respected" in Germany however is completely wrong, outside of extreme far right circles nobody in their right mind would ever have anything positive to say about him, not even here, and rightly so.

my only knowledge him came from the history channel and according to them:

http://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-erwin-rommel

Unlike other prominent World War II-era Germans, Rommel has escaped mass vilification. In fact, his name still graces two military bases and several streets in Germany, and a monument in his hometown praises him as “chivalrous,” “brave” and a “victim of tyranny.”

His hometown is a village in the middle of nowhere. Local glorification of tyrants happens everywhere, it's usually not exactly relevant to their overall assessment in society, even if that itself is more often than not grossly distorted. In Rommel's case it's not, he's not listed in the same category of Nazis as Göring, Goebbels or Heß but for what it's worth I don't think most Germans even know that he wasn't a "real" Nazi.

Fuck him anyways, he was a war criminal regardless of his personal ideology

jones wrote:

Fuck him anyways, he was a war criminal regardless of his personal ideology

Agreed, fuck him and all "noble Nazis", and Churchill too to be quite honest.

Burnwinter wrote:

jones wrote:

Fuck him anyways, he was a war criminal regardless of his personal ideology

Agreed, fuck him and all "noble Nazis", and Churchill too to be quite honest.

That's quite a black and white way to view the world. You are fine with putting Stauffenberg in with Himmler and Göring? 

I'm not saying everyone's the same, but I am saying one shouldn't erase the complicity of a violent system's senior officials in that system's violence.

At some stage we'll all have to start giving people a social and material penalty for extracting value from that sort of role in our own time—doing so with respect to the historical record is a preparatory discipline.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

figures you would post that. that's why i got my own guns. i've never called the racist pigs asking for help and never will.

Jens wrote:

Burnwinter wrote:

Agreed, fuck him and all "noble Nazis", and Churchill too to be quite honest.

That's quite a black and white way to view the world. You are fine with putting Stauffenberg in with Himmler and Göring? 

Stauffenberg was a staunch national socialist, racist and fascist for most of his career in the NSDAP and probably wouldn't have turned against Hitler if it weren't for him losing the war - fuck him indeed, even if he wasn't as bad as Himmler and Göring. If there's any prominent ex-Nazi I'd class differently it'd be the real mastermind behind Operation Valkyrie, Henning von Tresckow, but even his motives weren't exactly pure

Bold Tone wrote:

You do have a point as the police are your fellow Americans.

BTW, i thought Kel posted that for an entirely different reason ...

so it wasn't the typical beta libertarian (real libertarians can protect themselves and their property) bullshit you get from trey and matt and all these other ayn rand fanboys?