CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Off Topic => Topic started by: JSD on September 06, 2018, 10:16:49 PM
-
The commercial itself was good, it’s just the messenger I have a problem with. Kap pushes a false narrative that he cannot even properly articulate, and he causes more harm than good by creating a disconnect between police and the community they’re trying their hardest to keep safe. This climate has also caused some officers to hesitate, and it’s cost them their life. Take what happened to Weymouth Officer Michael Chesna, just a few months ago, as an example. That said, Kap has every right to speak out on a subject despite his ignorance, while the NFL, a private company, has every right to disapprove and disassociate themselves from him and that message. That’s freedom. Also, Kap was not doing this when he was on top, he began this action after he was benched. So I find his “sacrifice” a little disingenuous.
As far as how I feel about Nike’s decision, I personally will not tear off my patches or burn my sneakers, but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions. Hell, I have LeBron kicks I’ll never wear or buy again because he went the the Lakers. I’m curious if it affects Nike’s business going forward. Alienating, say, half of half the population, and that’s modest, will result in lower revenues and stock prices. The marketing team took a chance with this and could pay dearly. My instincts tell me it was bad move. Just look at the ratings crash the NFL suffered after the kneeling, obviously there were other variables but the “disrespect” was definitely a factor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mreQsQrDF-A
-
Heck, maybe their business goes up? My instincts tell me it was bad move. Just look at the ratings crash the NFL suffered after the kneeling, obviously there were other variables but the “disrespect” was definitely a factor.
I'm staying away from too much personal back and forth on purpose in order to drive conversation, but do you think the dip in ratings had to do with the fact that the "protests" were happening or the fact that the NFL was trying to strongarm the protestors into silence/non-action? I tend to the latter.
Also, millenials be whatever they may be, but here's a direct consequence of Nike's actions: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nike-apos-controversial-kaepernick-ad-200800254.html
I tend to think that these 2 points put "momentum/support" on Nike's side. It's also telling that the NFL cam out with a psuedo-stance that supports Kap's choice/position here. They know they can't even compete with Nike. IMHO, anyway.
-
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/colin-kaepernick-socks-police-pigs-protest-49ers-national-anthem.jpg)
If this is what Nike thinks the consumer wants, more power to them.
-
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/r.lJ4X2QUfVThtD4G7gYnA--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjQwO2g9NTA5/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/thewrap.com/319ddd0fed9811413851da6530c47496)
Nike just lost about $3.75 billion in market cap after announcing free agent NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick as the new face of its “Just Do It” ad campaign. It’s the 30th anniversary of the iconic TV and print spots.
(https://www.redstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/nike-survey.jpg)
-
Heck, maybe their business goes up? My instincts tell me it was bad move. Just look at the ratings crash the NFL suffered after the kneeling, obviously there were other variables but the “disrespect” was definitely a factor.
I'm staying away from too much personal back and forth on purpose in order to drive conversation, but do you think the dip in ratings had to do with the fact that the "protests" were happening or the fact that the NFL was trying to strongarm the protestors into silence/non-action? I tend to the latter.
I think the anthem protest was a big factor, and so doesn't a league like the NBA, who saw what was happening in the NFL and proceeded to reinforce their own standing rule.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/09/29/nba-memo-makes-clear-players-and-coaches-must-stand-for-national-anthem/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4fb993685928
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
-
Thanks Roy. the rest of that article (https://morningconsult.com/form/nike-kaepernick-report/ (https://morningconsult.com/form/nike-kaepernick-report/)) is interesting too, with only 1/3 of responders having an opinion that that ad was "inappropriate" and 32% not seeing the ad as related to Kap support at all (publicity stunt/no opinion). IMO Nike is big enough to withstand these "hits" or dips....they've made back 1/3 of what they lost initially in 2 days and they are a brand that reaches beyond the NFL.
JSD: I think the NBA's response was made possible by their history of engaging with players and global cultures in the first place. I'm biased, but I think the NFL had some deposits in the emotional bank accounts of their players when they said: you'll stand. They also said "wear a tshirt, draw on your shoes, link arms during the anthem...do whatever you want, but please don't make this about standing because we are not the NFL. And they aren't.
IDreamCeltics: I also agree, espeiclaly considering how much else is ignored during the anthem. It's the narrative that I'm avoiding to try talking about leagues and corporations without personal politics clouding the convo, no matter how prevelent they are.
I'll leave it there for now. ;)
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
You’ve got 2 points here:
1. The nfl as an employer can do what they choose. I agree with you and am still disappointed that they chose how they did. Just like I was disappointed when Andre the Giant turned against hulk hogan, but real.
2. You seem to require evidence that systemic racism exists. A. Can you offer a basis for your belief here or are you putting burden of proof on the plaintiff (no judgement just looking for a starting point) and B. What news sources am I allowed to use (again, to save the trouble of bantering over what constitute facts).
Happy to discuss.
-
JSD: I think the NBA's response was made possible by their history of engaging with players and global cultures in the first place. I'm biased, but I think the NFL had some deposits in the emotional bank accounts of their players when they said: you'll stand. They also said "wear a tshirt, draw on your shoes, link arms during the anthem...do whatever you want, but please don't make this about standing because we are not the NFL. And they aren't.
I agree. The NBA and their players seem organized and have done a better job at coordinating efforts to make the league a global success. Today the dress code put in place a few years back would have been lambasted as racist by some on platforms like Twitter. How did the players react? They decided to become the best dressed people on earth. So I understand your point, there is better engagement in the NBA and everybody works together to make money. It is a good business.
But as you put it, the NBA drew a line at standing. The NBA recognized the importance of not alienating a good portion of their audience, after observing the NFL's problems, with not standing identified as a substantial factor in the dip. Respectfully, I actually think you helped make my case in a way. NBA to players: "Do whatever, just, just, for the love of money, just stand!" That's my takeaway.
-
JSD: I think the NBA's response was made possible by their history of engaging with players and global cultures in the first place. I'm biased, but I think the NFL had some deposits in the emotional bank accounts of their players when they said: you'll stand. They also said "wear a tshirt, draw on your shoes, link arms during the anthem...do whatever you want, but please don't make this about standing because we are not the NFL. And they aren't.
I agree. The NBA and their players seem organized and have done a better job at coordinating efforts to make the league a global success. Today the dress code put in place a few years back would have been lambasted as racist by some on platforms like Twitter. How did the players react? They decided to become the best dressed people on earth. So I understand your point, there is better engagement in the NBA and everybody works together to make money. It is a good business.
But as you put it, the NBA drew a line at standing. The NBA recognized the importance of not alienating a good portion of their audience, after observing the NFL's problems, with not standing identified as a substantial factor in the dip. Respectfully, I actually think you helped make my case in a way. NBA to players: "Do whatever, just, just, for the love of money, just stand!" That's my takeaway.
Respectfully disagree. The NFL didn’t say “do anything else but just stand,” they said “stand to show respect and honor the flag and the soldiers who fight to defend it.” It’s the opposite; nba devalued the act of standing by allowing other forms of expression during the anthem and on court activities while the nfl dictated exactly what the act of standing was supposed to mean while simultaneously removing the players’ voice and expression of that meaning.
I do agree with the nba dress code being problematic if it happened today. And cheers for the creativity the players and the league embraced with personal expression within that dress Code. A microcosm of the standing/kneeling issue imo.
-
but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions
I love when people vote with their wallets, best thing people can do. Wish more people did it.
But I always find it odd when it happens.
Nike has used sweatshop labor for years. You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
Nike avoids paying billions in US taxes. (https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-nike-just-did-it-again-moving-1-5-billion-offshore-last-year/) You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
-
but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions
I love when people vote with their wallets, best thing people can do. Wish more people did it.
But I always find it odd when it happens.
Nike has used sweatshop labor for years. You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
Nike avoids paying billions in US taxes. (https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-nike-just-did-it-again-moving-1-5-billion-offshore-last-year/) You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
The sweatshop one is the big one for me. Obviously it's really hard to avoid shoes, or clothing in general, that haven't been produced or at least been a part of some sort of exploitation of workers, but the way Nike handled that is pretty dodgy for me.
It also highlights a pretty funny hypocrisy. They're all for social justice and that sort of thing when it benefits them (or at least, they think it will benefit them) - however, they're just as willing to exploit workers. Reminds me of Beyonce utilising sweatshops (if I recall correctly)
-
but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions
I love when people vote with their wallets, best thing people can do. Wish more people did it.
But I always find it odd when it happens.
Nike has used sweatshop labor for years. You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
Nike avoids paying billions in US taxes. (https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-nike-just-did-it-again-moving-1-5-billion-offshore-last-year/) You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
I probably look at "sweatshops" a little differently than most, but I do agree that poverty in the developing world and some of the conditions people choose to work in is upsetting. People, even when making 3-7 times more, on average, than their fellow countrymen, should still be treated with dignity and respect. As far as taxes, the less the better. The corporate income tax rate, especially when people have to pay income tax, is way too high. So I think Nike has acted logically for a company trying to bring a good product to market, at an affordable price, while still turning a profit.
Just to be clear, I'm not over here calling for a boycott or anything like that. I'm just saying that when it's time for me to pick up a new pair of sneakers, I probably won't be buying Nike. To me they are supporting anti-police rhetoric that is getting people killed.
-
This reminds me of the Latrell Sprewell commercial that came out when he returned to the league after being suspended for a year for choking his coach. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6DYYh5f2sg)
I remember watching TV with my dad when that commercial came on. My dad was disgusted by it, he said, "I don't know what company that is, but I will never buy their products." While high school me thought that was one of the coolest commercials ever. Still think it's pretty cool. I'm pretty sure I have the full page print ad version of it that I pulled out of a magazine hanging on my old bedroom wall at my parents house.
I don't think Nike is taking a real stand here, they're just making a business decision. They may lose a customer or two, but hoping they'll gain even more. Worked for And1 almost 20 years ago with me. My dad never bought any And1 products to begin with, while I just thought the brand was even cooler now (though nothing helped as much as the Skip tape (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA04S4yOA_0)).
-
Yeah I disagree, I think this is Nike weighing in on a culture war that has really divided the country. Maybe that in itself is a business decision? I'm not sure, but I think it is a poor decision. I know plenty of those in law Enforcement, many of whom are athletes, who will no longer be buying their products. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it will manifest itself in real profit losses over the course of time as I can imagine many in the law enforcement community will be going elsewhere for their sneakers.
-
Can we go back to more basketball related topics?
-
Yeah I disagree, I think this is Nike weighing in on a culture war that has really divided the country. Maybe that in itself is a business decision? I'm not sure, but I think it is a poor decision. I know plenty of those in law Enforcement, many of whom are athletes, who will no longer be buying their products. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it will manifest itself in real profit losses over the course of time as I can imagine many in the law enforcement community will be going elsewhere for their sneakers.
Nike is playing the long game...law enforcement is but a minority of the market for Nike products. You must study the demographic changes in the country to understand Nike's move.
-
Can we go back to more basketball related topics?
Posters have the option to not see current events if they choose. Contact a Moderator
-
Yeah I disagree, I think this is Nike weighing in on a culture war that has really divided the country. Maybe that in itself is a business decision? I'm not sure, but I think it is a poor decision. I know plenty of those in law Enforcement, many of whom are athletes, who will no longer be buying their products. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it will manifest itself in real profit losses over the course of time as I can imagine many in the law enforcement community will be going elsewhere for their sneakers.
Nike is playing the long game...law enforcement is but a minority of the market for Nike products. You must study the demographic changes in the country to understand Nike's move.
I understand LE is small in the grand scheme. I just meant it as one of many segments of the population. Roy H. posted some interesting graphs, including much larger segments, which show Nike favorability after this.
America is becoming more diverse, so supporting someone who pushes anti police sentiment is good for future business?
-
If one peels off layers of the onion, Kapernick is not a good spokesperson. I support his stance on police brutality, there should be none. But he actually turned down, a contract offer to stay in NFL. So he willingfully, decided not to play, while he talks about how the NFL screwed him over. So fake.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2791321-john-elway-colin-kaepernick-had-his-chance-to-be-here-was-offered-contract
The left seems to love this move, I wonder if they forgot about all the sweatshops that Nike sacrifices human beings to make their shoes.
I lived in a slum on the outskirts of Jakarta, attempting to survive on the Nike workers wage at the time — $1.25 a day. I lost 25lbs in a month and heard the heart-wrenching stories of the human beings whose dignity is ground down as they grind out millions of pairs of Nikes a month.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/4/1793129/-Colin-Kaepernick-Nike-s-Sweatshops
The NFL did not do well after all the kneeing, though some will try to tell you it's the concussions but that is a lie. Nike is not doing well after this move.
Nike is playing the long game...law enforcement is but a minority of the market for Nike products. You must study the demographic changes in the country to understand Nike's move.
The sweatshops are part of their long game, too. Do you like that? I don't see tons of Hispanics sporting nikes, so that kind of blows up your theory.
I have not bought anything from them for years, nor will I ever. There were a ton of reasons to boycott prior to this move.
-
I'd rather this kind of discord. If someone is going to disagree with Kap, don't let it be because you think he's disrespecting the flag, let it be because you either don't agree with his actual message, or you feel as if he doesn't articulate it well enough for it be valid.
As far as the commercial goes, it's pretty vanilla. Nothing really controversial there, unless you just hate athletes. I don't view Nike any differently than before. They feel like they can turn a profit having Kap as a brand ambassador so they wrote him a check. I'm just glad Kap is getting paid. Get that bag Kaptain.
-
God Bless Colin Kaepernick. God Bless Nike.
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
You’ve got 2 points here:
1. The nfl as an employer can do what they choose. I agree with you and am still disappointed that they chose how they did. Just like I was disappointed when Andre the Giant turned against hulk hogan, but real.
2. You seem to require evidence that systemic racism exists. A. Can you offer a basis for your belief here or are you putting burden of proof on the plaintiff (no judgement just looking for a starting point) and B. What news sources am I allowed to use (again, to save the trouble of bantering over what constitute facts).
Happy to discuss.
Kaepernick cost the NFL a lot of money. At the end of the day it's a business. I dont blame them at all.
As for point 2, yes the burden of proof is on you. The laws state that minorities are equal to all other races, and as a privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits. Please point to me evidence of systemic racism in America. Not just that billy bob in Arkansas said the n word. I want proof that America as a country mistreats minorities. Cite any sources youd like as long as theyre backed by a credible study (preferably from an accredited university). As a minority myself, i dont believe that such a study exists but I'd like to know if im wrong.
-
I just had to laugh at all the triggered MAGAs burning & cutting up Nike gear.
That was golden & sad at the same time.
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
You’ve got 2 points here:
1. The nfl as an employer can do what they choose. I agree with you and am still disappointed that they chose how they did. Just like I was disappointed when Andre the Giant turned against hulk hogan, but real.
2. You seem to require evidence that systemic racism exists. A. Can you offer a basis for your belief here or are you putting burden of proof on the plaintiff (no judgement just looking for a starting point) and B. What news sources am I allowed to use (again, to save the trouble of bantering over what constitute facts).
Happy to discuss.
Kaepernick cost the NFL a lot of money. At the end of the day it's a business. I dont blame them at all.
As for point 2, yes the burden of proof is on you. The laws state that minorities are equal to all other races, and as a privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits. Please point to me evidence of systemic racism in America. Not just that billy bob in Arkansas said the n word. I want proof that America as a country mistreats minorities. Cite any sources youd like as long as theyre backed by a credible study (preferably from an accredited university). As a minority myself, i dont believe that such a study exists but I'd like to know if im wrong.
I may be reading this so I have to ask, are you saying that minorities are privileged and receive extra benefits?
-
but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions
I love when people vote with their wallets, best thing people can do. Wish more people did it.
But I always find it odd when it happens.
Nike has used sweatshop labor for years. You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
Nike avoids paying billions in US taxes. (https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-nike-just-did-it-again-moving-1-5-billion-offshore-last-year/) You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
I probably look at "sweatshops" a little differently than most, but I do agree that poverty in the developing world and some of the conditions people choose to work in is upsetting. People, even when making 3-7 times more, on average, than their fellow countrymen, should still be treated with dignity and respect. As far as taxes, the less the better. The corporate income tax rate, especially when people have to pay income tax, is way too high. So I think Nike has acted logically for a company trying to bring a good product to market, at an affordable price, while still turning a profit.
Just to be clear, I'm not over here calling for a boycott or anything like that. I'm just saying that when it's time for me to pick up a new pair of sneakers, I probably won't be buying Nike. To me they are supporting anti-police rhetoric that is getting people killed.
Interesting phrasing! Those silly sweatshop workers, working at sweatshops when they could simply find another less exploitative no-skills-no-training job in a third world country
-
Systemic racism and U.S. health care, from the journal of social science and medicine:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005121
-
Kaepernick cost the NFL a lot of money. At the end of the day it's a business. I dont blame them at all.
As for point 2, yes the burden of proof is on you. The laws state that minorities are equal to all other races, and as a privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits. Please point to me evidence of systemic racism in America. Not just that billy bob in Arkansas said the n word. I want proof that America as a country mistreats minorities. Cite any sources youd like as long as theyre backed by a credible study (preferably from an accredited university). As a minority myself, i dont believe that such a study exists but I'd like to know if im wrong.
Here's one study conducted by Harvard/Stanford/Census Bureau (couched in a NYT article) with some pretty compelling visual representations of the data: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html)
Some highlights:
"If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls."
"Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them."
- i.e. the "privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits" you mentioned exist largely to combat the systemic racism you feel doesn't exist.
This was just one study I found. Holler if you want to discuss or would like more. I'm curious in your response to this study.
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
You’ve got 2 points here:
1. The nfl as an employer can do what they choose. I agree with you and am still disappointed that they chose how they did. Just like I was disappointed when Andre the Giant turned against hulk hogan, but real.
2. You seem to require evidence that systemic racism exists. A. Can you offer a basis for your belief here or are you putting burden of proof on the plaintiff (no judgement just looking for a starting point) and B. What news sources am I allowed to use (again, to save the trouble of bantering over what constitute facts).
Happy to discuss.
Kaepernick cost the NFL a lot of money. At the end of the day it's a business. I dont blame them at all.
As for point 2, yes the burden of proof is on you. The laws state that minorities are equal to all other races, and as a privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits. Please point to me evidence of systemic racism in America. Not just that billy bob in Arkansas said the n word. I want proof that America as a country mistreats minorities. Cite any sources youd like as long as theyre backed by a credible study (preferably from an accredited university). As a minority myself, i dont believe that such a study exists but I'd like to know if im wrong.
I may be reading this so I have to ask, are you saying that minorities are privileged and receive extra benefits?
Legally, yes.
Minorities are a protected class so they receive additional legal protections and benefits. Work, education, lending, hate crimes, etc.
Here's one study conducted by Harvard/Stanford/Census Bureau (couched in a NYT article) with some pretty compelling visual representations of the data: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html)
Some highlights:
"If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls."
"Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them."
- i.e. the "privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits" you mentioned exist largely to combat the systemic racism you feel doesn't exist.
This was just one study I found. Holler if you want to discuss or would like more. I'm curious in your response to this study.
I'll sit down and read the full link tonight, but lets say even if the premise is true, doesn't the fact that America is protecting minorities prove that systemic racism doesnt exist?
I'd like to keep this dicussion focused on how the US government discriminates against minorities. I fully understand that there are hateful people (on both sides, frankly), but how is America systemically racist in 2018?
About the first paragraph, the article seems to be assuming that because blacks earn less than whites of similar parental background the cause has to be racism. There are numerous studies that show that asians make more than whites. Is there racism towards whites by asians? I believe that culture and upbrining has a lot to do with children's success. Just because your parents have the same income as your neighbors parents doesnt mean that you are being raised as well. Is there a study in which a black child is raised by white parents and vice versa to remove all cultural biases?
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
Sunday Night Football was once again the highest rated show on television. 37 of the top 50 individual shows last year were NFL games.
The NFL hasn't shown anthems on television for years.
The plethora of television programming as well as the competition of streaming services and ability to just go on your phone and get game and stat updates(especially stats for fantasy football) has become more prevalent.
Ratings for other sports are down as well.
Lastly, consumers have a very short attention span. Nike sells tons of products to basketball, soccer, baseball and running enthusiasts. The slight dip in their numbers will bounce back. Guaranteed.
-
Can we go back to more basketball related topics?
Posters have the option to not see current events if they choose. Contact a Moderator
Are you serious about that being an option? I would be interested in having CE hidden if so.
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
You’ve got 2 points here:
1. The nfl as an employer can do what they choose. I agree with you and am still disappointed that they chose how they did. Just like I was disappointed when Andre the Giant turned against hulk hogan, but real.
2. You seem to require evidence that systemic racism exists. A. Can you offer a basis for your belief here or are you putting burden of proof on the plaintiff (no judgement just looking for a starting point) and B. What news sources am I allowed to use (again, to save the trouble of bantering over what constitute facts).
Happy to discuss.
Kaepernick cost the NFL a lot of money. At the end of the day it's a business. I dont blame them at all.
As for point 2, yes the burden of proof is on you. The laws state that minorities are equal to all other races, and as a privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits. Please point to me evidence of systemic racism in America. Not just that billy bob in Arkansas said the n word. I want proof that America as a country mistreats minorities. Cite any sources youd like as long as theyre backed by a credible study (preferably from an accredited university). As a minority myself, i dont believe that such a study exists but I'd like to know if im wrong.
I may be reading this so I have to ask, are you saying that minorities are privileged and receive extra benefits?
Legally, yes.
Minorities are a protected class so they receive additional legal protections and benefits. Work, education, lending, hate crimes, etc.
Here's one study conducted by Harvard/Stanford/Census Bureau (couched in a NYT article) with some pretty compelling visual representations of the data: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html)
Some highlights:
"If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls."
"Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them."
- i.e. the "privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits" you mentioned exist largely to combat the systemic racism you feel doesn't exist.
This was just one study I found. Holler if you want to discuss or would like more. I'm curious in your response to this study.
I'll sit down and read the full link tonight, but lets say even if the premise is true, doesn't the fact that America is protecting minorities prove that systemic racism doesnt exist?
I'd like to keep this dicussion focused on how the US government discriminates against minorities. I fully understand that there are hateful people (on both sides, frankly), but how is America systemically racist in 2018?
About the first paragraph, the article seems to be assuming that because blacks earn less than whites of similar parental background the cause has to be racism. There are numerous studies that show that asians make more than whites. Is there racism towards whites by asians? I believe that culture and upbrining has a lot to do with children's success. Just because your parents have the same income as your neighbors parents doesnt mean that you are being raised as well. Is there a study in which a black child is raised by white parents and vice versa to remove all cultural biases?
No, in fact it seems to prove quite the opposite. Let me, ahem, construct a few strawmen to illustrate the point. Does the presence of blue whales on the endangered species list indicate that they aren't really suffering population decline? We have laws protecting the elderly and children, doesn't that mean they aren't vulnerable populations?
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
-
I have a hard time getting too upset over this one way or another. I don't think Nike goes this route without having a pretty good idea that this is gonna be a money maker for them long term, and from the most basic level possible I'm guessing older white people who are most likely to be offended by this arent their target demographic. Not saying there wont be backlash, but it will probably be net positive in the end. And as for the initial stock drop, several shoe brands saw that same initial drop the same day. It was just a down day. In any event, we will see.
As for the situtaion himself I don't think I will ever understand why some people choose to get so upset over a guy kneeling. I think first of all we all have to akcknowledge that police brutality/ shootings are a problem. If we can't at least get there I don't know what there is to talk about.
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-24817
Folks, the wonder of all the world's knowledge is at your fingertips. U S E I T
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-24817
Folks, the wonder of all the world's knowledge is at your fingertips. U S E I T
I'm sure the whole anthem controversy is a factor for some but I certainly don't agree with the idea that its THE driving force or anything for declining NFL ratings.
I'm fairly confident that there is a multitude of factors at play here; shorter attention spans, over-saturation of the sport, the perception by some that the quality of play has declined, etc...
-
Yeah I disagree, I think this is Nike weighing in on a culture war that has really divided the country. Maybe that in itself is a business decision? I'm not sure, but I think it is a poor decision. I know plenty of those in law Enforcement, many of whom are athletes, who will no longer be buying their products. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it will manifest itself in real profit losses over the course of time as I can imagine many in the law enforcement community will be going elsewhere for their sneakers.
Nike is playing the long game...law enforcement is but a minority of the market for Nike products. You must study the demographic changes in the country to understand Nike's move.
As Michael Jordan may have once said, Republicans buy sneakers too.
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-24817
Folks, the wonder of all the world's knowledge is at your fingertips. U S E I T
I'm sure the whole anthem controversy is a factor for some but I certainly don't agree with the idea that its THE driving force or anything for declining NFL ratings.
I'm fairly confident that there is a multitude of factors at play here; shorter attention spans, over-saturation of play, the perception by some that the quality of play has declined, etc...
Agreed. I personally am repulsed by the sport because of the CTE thing. I can't stand watching people slowly kill themselves.
-
It's still strange to me that people who have no problem ignoring police brutality and systemic racism can't ignore someone quietly kneeling during the anthem.
Once again, you and all of the others who believe in systemic racism can kneel to the anthem and criticize America all you want in your own home or a public place. That’s your first amendment right. The moment you bring it to your work place and cost your employers money, don’t be surprised if they do something strange... like fire you. You have no first amendment right in someone else’s private property. The people who tune into the NFL games want to watch football not have politics shoved down their throats.
I’m also curious to read your evidence of systemic racism in America... in 2018. I’m hoping it’s more than “I see white cops shooting black people on CNN.” Systemic racism would show up resoundingly in the data.
You’ve got 2 points here:
1. The nfl as an employer can do what they choose. I agree with you and am still disappointed that they chose how they did. Just like I was disappointed when Andre the Giant turned against hulk hogan, but real.
2. You seem to require evidence that systemic racism exists. A. Can you offer a basis for your belief here or are you putting burden of proof on the plaintiff (no judgement just looking for a starting point) and B. What news sources am I allowed to use (again, to save the trouble of bantering over what constitute facts).
Happy to discuss.
Kaepernick cost the NFL a lot of money. At the end of the day it's a business. I dont blame them at all.
As for point 2, yes the burden of proof is on you. The laws state that minorities are equal to all other races, and as a privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits. Please point to me evidence of systemic racism in America. Not just that billy bob in Arkansas said the n word. I want proof that America as a country mistreats minorities. Cite any sources youd like as long as theyre backed by a credible study (preferably from an accredited university). As a minority myself, i dont believe that such a study exists but I'd like to know if im wrong.
I may be reading this so I have to ask, are you saying that minorities are privileged and receive extra benefits?
Legally, yes.
Minorities are a protected class so they receive additional legal protections and benefits. Work, education, lending, hate crimes, etc.
Here's one study conducted by Harvard/Stanford/Census Bureau (couched in a NYT article) with some pretty compelling visual representations of the data: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html)
Some highlights:
"If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls."
"Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them."
- i.e. the "privileged class of people, they are given additional benefits" you mentioned exist largely to combat the systemic racism you feel doesn't exist.
This was just one study I found. Holler if you want to discuss or would like more. I'm curious in your response to this study.
I'll sit down and read the full link tonight, but lets say even if the premise is true, doesn't the fact that America is protecting minorities prove that systemic racism doesnt exist?
I'd like to keep this dicussion focused on how the US government discriminates against minorities. I fully understand that there are hateful people (on both sides, frankly), but how is America systemically racist in 2018?
About the first paragraph, the article seems to be assuming that because blacks earn less than whites of similar parental background the cause has to be racism. There are numerous studies that show that asians make more than whites. Is there racism towards whites by asians? I believe that culture and upbrining has a lot to do with children's success. Just because your parents have the same income as your neighbors parents doesnt mean that you are being raised as well. Is there a study in which a black child is raised by white parents and vice versa to remove all cultural biases?
#1 Cool, I do encourage you to read more than the first paragraph as the data uncovers or illustrates what essentially are conversation starters to explore the reasons behind the data. I don't purport that the study places a definitive answer for anyone here but does a great job presenting solid facts from which we can explore more...I'm definitely no expert and 100% cherry pick instances to help me rationalize my own gut feelings and personal stances.
#2 I don't think I can keep my own conversation based on how the Government alone is responsible for systemic racism as the government alone is not the sole source of political, social, economic, or cultural influence that contribute to what I consider to be "systemic" about racism in america and beyond.
#3, what NCE said... you question "doesn't the fact that America is protecting minorities prove that systemic racism doesnt exist?" proves the opposite. Systemic racism exists and such, there are government programs in place to help counter this, while complicatedly reifying a lot of the conditions that fuel the racism in the first place by putting "OTHER" in bold letters.
Case in point by your reply to NCE earlier: "Minorities are a protected class so they receive additional legal protections and benefits. Work, education, lending, hate crimes, etc." You said hate crimes. Like....that's driven by racism, right? Or some sort of anti-other sentiment? Or are you just saying that categorizing them as such is evidence that they get special "protection and benefits?"
-
Yeah I disagree, I think this is Nike weighing in on a culture war that has really divided the country. Maybe that in itself is a business decision? I'm not sure, but I think it is a poor decision. I know plenty of those in law Enforcement, many of whom are athletes, who will no longer be buying their products. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it will manifest itself in real profit losses over the course of time as I can imagine many in the law enforcement community will be going elsewhere for their sneakers.
Nike is playing the long game...law enforcement is but a minority of the market for Nike products. You must study the demographic changes in the country to understand Nike's move.
No question Nike did this because it believes it will increase profits. The corporation isn't trying to weigh in on current culture, just trying to profit from it. Just like Harley Davidson moving production out of the US isn't because they do or don't like the current Administration. It is just a move with profits and shareholders in mind.
Whether the move does or does not help Nike increase profits is something that will remain to be seen over the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years. A couple days is way too early to know.
That said, anecdotally, it appears to be paying off:
https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2018/09/06/nikes-controversial-bet-on-kaepernick-has-millennial-investors-piling-into-the-stock-nke/23519376/
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ace-metrix-colin-kaepernicks-first-144832261.html
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-24817
Folks, the wonder of all the world's knowledge is at your fingertips. U S E I T
I'm sure the whole anthem controversy is a factor for some but I certainly don't agree with the idea that its THE driving force or anything for declining NFL ratings.
I'm fairly confident that there is a multitude of factors at play here; shorter attention spans, over-saturation of play, the perception by some that the quality of play has declined, etc...
Agreed. I personally am repulsed by the sport because of the CTE thing. I can't stand watching people slowly kill themselves.
Same.
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-24817
Folks, the wonder of all the world's knowledge is at your fingertips. U S E I T
I'm sure the whole anthem controversy is a factor for some but I certainly don't agree with the idea that its THE driving force or anything for declining NFL ratings.
I'm fairly confident that there is a multitude of factors at play here; shorter attention spans, over-saturation of play, the perception by some that the quality of play has declined, etc...
Agreed. I personally am repulsed by the sport because of the CTE thing. I can't stand watching people slowly kill themselves.
Same.
Yeah, the NFL needs to accept that CTE is a major issue and make significant changes to protect players. I mean, even the WWE quietly accepted that and totally toned down their in ring action after Chris Benoit’s CTE diagnosis even if they publicly question it.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
Man this thread is very sensitive. Why does everyone have to provide credible sources all of a sudden? Are we suddenly a bunch of reporters working for a newspaper or news outlet?
I remember hearing those reports on sports radio and reading them online. They may have been during his time when he worked out for Baltimore.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
Man this thread is very sensitive. Why does everyone have to provide credible sources all of a sudden? Are we suddenly a bunch of reporters working for a newspaper or news outlet?
I remember hearing those reports on sports radio and reading them online. They may have been during his time when he worked out for Baltimore.
i agree with the sentiment but people passing off information as fact bc they read a meme somewhere that said so has become an epidemic
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
Ya for what its worth that report does not actually cite Kaepernick, it cites someone unknown citing Kaepernick. And when the rumors went around in October of that year both Kaepernick and his GF denied it.
-
It is given that NIKE what they want a ton of publicity.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
Thankful for Colin Kaepernick and others willing to stand for what they believe in.
They are exhibiting what "I" served my country for - the RIGHT to do such things.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
Thankful for Colin Kaepernick and others willing to stand for what they believe in.
They are exhibiting what "I" served my country for - the RIGHT to do such things.
The RIGHT to kneel? I disagree. Many here have argued they should be thrown in jail and I’m with them. ;)
Thank you for serving.
-
I just had to laugh at all the triggered MAGAs burning & cutting up Nike gear.
That was golden & sad at the same time.
Triggered leftists have offered far more content to laugh at over the last few years, I hope you enjoy those moments just as much. I know I do.
-
but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions
I love when people vote with their wallets, best thing people can do. Wish more people did it.
But I always find it odd when it happens.
Nike has used sweatshop labor for years. You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
Nike avoids paying billions in US taxes. (https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-nike-just-did-it-again-moving-1-5-billion-offshore-last-year/) You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
I probably look at "sweatshops" a little differently than most, but I do agree that poverty in the developing world and some of the conditions people choose to work in is upsetting. People, even when making 3-7 times more, on average, than their fellow countrymen, should still be treated with dignity and respect. As far as taxes, the less the better. The corporate income tax rate, especially when people have to pay income tax, is way too high. So I think Nike has acted logically for a company trying to bring a good product to market, at an affordable price, while still turning a profit.
Just to be clear, I'm not over here calling for a boycott or anything like that. I'm just saying that when it's time for me to pick up a new pair of sneakers, I probably won't be buying Nike. To me they are supporting anti-police rhetoric that is getting people killed.
Interesting phrasing! Those silly sweatshop workers, working at sweatshops when they could simply find another less exploitative no-skills-no-training job in a third world country
Nike sneaker factories in the developing world benefit the people there. The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor. If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
Thankful for Colin Kaepernick and others willing to stand for what they believe in.
They are exhibiting what "I" served my country for - the RIGHT to do such things.
The RIGHT to kneel? I disagree. Many here have argued they should be thrown in jail and I’m with them. ;)
Thank you for serving.
Many? Who? Links?
Would you throw Army Vet Nate Boyer in jail?
(https://da4pli3l5vc0d.cloudfront.net/d6/f2/d6f24e1b740e1ca2c4e68985e41dc60ffee06b96/h=310,w=414,crop=top-20/?app=portal&sig=48add57365ba639191586c902db821d28579a8ebe483ba48027c34b5f221fa94)
He is the gentleman that actually PERSUADED Colin to start KNEELING vice sitting. Research it for yourself.
And would you throw THIS man in jail, as well?
(https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeopledotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F06%2Fbill-russell.jpg%3Fw%3D450&w=700&q=85)
https://people.com/sports/bill-russell-kneels-support-eagles/
Heck, let's throw Kareem, Ali AND Rusell in the Paddy Wagon, then.
(https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-243524-GettyImages-517262270.jpg?crop=900:600&width=440)
For THEIR stance on Social Issues.
-
GreenFaith1819, I was joking around, hence the wink. Nobody was making the argument you were refuting. Nobody said Kap didn’t have a right to do it.
-
Can we go back to more basketball related topics?
Posters have the option to not see current events if they choose. Contact a Moderator
Are you serious about that being an option? I would be interested in having CE hidden if so.
Yes, just message a MOD.
-
Not sure the ratings drop in NFL viewing is due to this controversy.
Overall ratings for television viewership is down 16%. NFL programming was only down 10%.
There you go with your counterfactuals again!
NBA ratings were up last season and continue to rise.
http://adage.com/article/media/nba-ratings/311486/
-
GreenFaith1819, I was joking around, hence the wink. Nobody was making the argument you were refuting. Nobody said Kap didn’t have a right to do it.
My bad, then...sensitive issues these are, TP.
-
GreenFaith1819, I was joking around, hence the wink. Nobody was making the argument you were refuting. Nobody said Kap didn’t have a right to do it.
My bad, then...sensitive issues these are, TP.
Rigt back at you
-
I'll give President Trump credit for SOMETHING.
He actually stated yesterday that he wanted to take a hard look at the DIVISION in this country and the source(s) of it.
In my dream world President Trump would have a summit with Colin, Nate Boyer, Michael Bennett, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Steph Curry, Dwayne Wade, CP3, Carmelo and a few others on issues like these.
For him to be (IMO) such a charismatic figure you'd think he could figure out stuff like this.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
-
Courageous move by Nike.
Thankful for Colin Kaepernick and others willing to stand for what they believe in.
They are exhibiting what "I" served my country for - the RIGHT to do such things.
The RIGHT to kneel? I disagree. Many here have argued they should be thrown in jail and I’m with them. ;)
We don’t jail people for political statements or thought crimes. He’s free to protest and you’re free to say he’s wrong.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
They have never been lacking courage hence the use of sweatshops against the grain and they continue to pay people $1.25 an hour.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
They have never been lacking courage hence the use of sweatshops against the grain and they continue to pay people $1.25 an hour.
(https://www.britishsoccermom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/goalposts.jpg)
While I get what you are saying, for them to work with Colin on this is STILL courageous.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
Thankful for Colin Kaepernick and others willing to stand for what they believe in.
They are exhibiting what "I" served my country for - the RIGHT to do such things.
The RIGHT to kneel? I disagree. Many here have argued they should be thrown in jail and I’m with them. ;)
We don’t jail people for political statements or thought crimes. He’s free to protest and you’re free to say he’s wrong.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/fDzM81OYrNjJC/200.gif)
-
Courageous move by Nike.
They have never been lacking courage hence the use of sweatshops against the grain and they continue to pay people $1.25 an hour.
In an area where people typically get paid $.25 an hour. Don’t you think that’s relevant?
-
Courageous move by Nike.
They have never been lacking courage hence the use of sweatshops against the grain and they continue to pay people $1.25 an hour.
(https://www.britishsoccermom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/goalposts.jpg)
While I get what you are saying, for them to work with Colin on this is STILL courageous.
Courageous? Have you read about the Ferguson Effect and all the problems this fake “police are bloodthirsty racists” narrative is causing in the black community?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/20/the-ferguson-effect/?noredirect=on
-
#1 Cool, I do encourage you to read more than the first paragraph as the data uncovers or illustrates what essentially are conversation starters to explore the reasons behind the data. I don't purport that the study places a definitive answer for anyone here but does a great job presenting solid facts from which we can explore more...I'm definitely no expert and 100% cherry pick instances to help me rationalize my own gut feelings and personal stances.
#2 I don't think I can keep my own conversation based on how the Government alone is responsible for systemic racism as the government alone is not the sole source of political, social, economic, or cultural influence that contribute to what I consider to be "systemic" about racism in america and beyond.
#3, what NCE said... you question "doesn't the fact that America is protecting minorities prove that systemic racism doesnt exist?" proves the opposite. Systemic racism exists and such, there are government programs in place to help counter this, while complicatedly reifying a lot of the conditions that fuel the racism in the first place by putting "OTHER" in bold letters.
Case in point by your reply to NCE earlier: "Minorities are a protected class so they receive additional legal protections and benefits. Work, education, lending, hate crimes, etc." You said hate crimes. Like....that's driven by racism, right? Or some sort of anti-other sentiment? Or are you just saying that categorizing them as such is evidence that they get special "protection and benefits?"
You're correct, the article does nothing to conclude why there is a wealth gap between Americans of different races. I didn't need to be educated on the fact that such gap exists, it's pretty common knowledge. The point of our disagreement (and where I'm looking for evidence of systemic racism) is that the reason for this gap is due to racism. Please point to me the specific reason why you believe that the system is rigged against black people. I have already cited several advantages that blacks have.
I'l touch briefly on the major one: Affirmative Action. Black students are given additional points on standardized entrance exams compared to Asians and Whites. Blacks (and other minorities -- including women, for some reason) are also hired to fill quotas in the work place and are less easily fired due to the threat of lawsuit of dismissal due to racism. Let's see a White person go to court suing their former employer over racism.
Why is affirmative action bad? You can either have equal opportunity or equal outcomes. You can't have both. If America is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity, how are you supposed to explain to the Asian student that he isn't able to go into his school of choice because his spot was taking by a Black student who got 200 points less on the SAT? These sort of practices are not only driving a wedge between races due to the unfairness of it, they are teaching Blacks that they are inherently inferior, when they aren't.
If the policy that we are defining is contributing to racial tension, the government (as usual) is not working as efficiently as a free market. In a society where there is no laws to punish different races (apartheid, Jim Crow America, etc.), free market capitalism will dictate that racism is bad. Those previous examples are ACTUAL examples of systemic racism. In South Africa during apartheid, blacks couldn't hold certain positions, legally. We have no such restrictions here. It's actually quite the opposite due to affirmative action.
As far as your wealth gap study, as I had mentioned earlier, I have my own theories, you have your own theories on why that exists. I can't take an article seriously that automatically jumps to racism when there are other factors that haven't been discussed: culture. Have you ever heard someone be referred to as "not black enough" by other blacks? What exactly does that mean? Generally, it means that they don't speak in ebonics, have a good job, aren't violent, haven't been in jail, and are generally not a nuisance in society. How pathetic is that? I feel that instead of people like Kaepernick and other race baiters blaming the struggles (and they are actual struggles) of the Black community on White people, they should take a look at their own community: the disproportionate amount of blacks who are violent criminals, the rap culture of being a thug, the fact that 70% of black families have no father. These are ACTUAL problems that are contributing to the struggles instead of a fictional White man keeping everyone down. It doesn't matter if you grow up with parents in the same socioeconomic level as the white kid next door. Think about how much OTHER influences you have in life: your friends, other family members, media, music, TV, etc. If you think that your parents are the sole reason of who you are, that's a joke. I always like to look at the asian study. It's interesting to me that asians make more than whites. They typically have a no nonsense culture (study hard, don't get in trouble). In your study they also compared asian parents who weren't born here vs ones that were born here. For asian parents that were born here, their kids performed about as well as similar whites. That gives me even more proof that it's more cultural as they're still asian in the eyes of racial bias of others.
To sum up, while your article does a good job illustrating the problem, it offers no actual evidence that there is systemic racism. Please point to me the specific problem with America that is holding Blacks and other minorities back. There is a massive movement of Black conservatism underway in America and it's because more and more people are waking up to see that the ACTUAL racist policies are the social programs that America has created to enslave minorities to the state by keeping them poor and creating economic incentive (free Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.) to voting Democrat forever.
-
Courageous move by Nike.
They have never been lacking courage hence the use of sweatshops against the grain and they continue to pay people $1.25 an hour.
(https://www.britishsoccermom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/goalposts.jpg)
While I get what you are saying, for them to work with Colin on this is STILL courageous.
Courageous? Have you read about the Ferguson Effect and all the problems this fake “police are bloodthirsty racists” narrative is causing in the black community?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/20/the-ferguson-effect/?noredirect=on
I read part of the article, and understand.
But I'd like to think that most Black Folks in this country have a DEEP respect for Law Enforcement. I won't form any opinions based off of one article.
I know "I" do.
Ferguson should serve us ALL as a reminder of what can happen if there aren't checks and balances in place.
I know Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department uncovered a LOT of issues going on with Ferguson that led up to the fatal confrontation. Those images are too vivid for me to even want to recall.
I know that the VAST majority of Law Enforcement in this country do the RIGHT THING - daily. They do it without fanfare, praise or recognition.
It is when the ABUSE happens that it THEN places an unfair light / label on the FORCE entirely.
It is ALSO when the "Driving While Black", "Sleeping While Black", "Swimming while Black", etc, etc, etc - cases happen that cast a shadow on not only LAW ENFORCEMENT but this country that I "DO" love.
-
What happened in Ferguson was actually the epitome of falsehood reporting, as we saw in the case forensic evidence and Officer Wilson’s disposition. My point was about police no longer policing black communities the same way because of compliance issues and politics surrounding the current climate created by the major news networks. Nike has chose to support this distorted and unhealthy message that will lead to more innocent victims in every facet.
“Driving while black” do you have any actually data on that? You might find this study interesting: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/27/nj.speeding.study/index.html
-
but I would be lying if I said this will not influence my future sneaker purchasing decisions
I love when people vote with their wallets, best thing people can do. Wish more people did it.
But I always find it odd when it happens.
Nike has used sweatshop labor for years. You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
Nike avoids paying billions in US taxes. (https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-nike-just-did-it-again-moving-1-5-billion-offshore-last-year/) You're okay supporting them with that, but not this?
I probably look at "sweatshops" a little differently than most, but I do agree that poverty in the developing world and some of the conditions people choose to work in is upsetting. People, even when making 3-7 times more, on average, than their fellow countrymen, should still be treated with dignity and respect. As far as taxes, the less the better. The corporate income tax rate, especially when people have to pay income tax, is way too high. So I think Nike has acted logically for a company trying to bring a good product to market, at an affordable price, while still turning a profit.
Just to be clear, I'm not over here calling for a boycott or anything like that. I'm just saying that when it's time for me to pick up a new pair of sneakers, I probably won't be buying Nike. To me they are supporting anti-police rhetoric that is getting people killed.
Interesting phrasing! Those silly sweatshop workers, working at sweatshops when they could simply find another less exploitative no-skills-no-training job in a third world country
Nike sneaker factories in the developing world benefit the people there. The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor. If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I don't take an issue with Nike about its sweatshops, but what you wrote was both factually wrong and misleading. Most of these people spend their entire lives working under harsh and exhausting conditions, not to put money in the bank, but to survive.
The findings of factory investigations show that the supervisor often oversteps their duties. The laws protecting the workers are ignored in favor of cutting costs and lowering health standards. This is possibly because political leaders are paid off by factory supervisors in order to limit governmental interference. The leaders relayed messages to military and police units to overlook the conditions in factories so that the illegal environment could remain open and functioning. They also were warned to watch for signs of labor activism near the factories to prevent workers from aligning with one another for better conditions.
Women represent a large proportion of factory employees. Approximately 75 to 80% of workers are women and a majority of those are in their teens or early twenties.Factory jobs may require women to work long hours, ranging from nine to thirteen hours per day, six days a week. They are severely limited in the amount of time they can take off and are forced to work overtime on several occasions during the week. Although there are more women employed at the factories, they represent the minority in the higher paid supervisor positions.
Also,
. When laws in Indonesia were lifted in the late 1980s, factory workers and non-governmental organizations staged many strikes at Nike factories protesting the poor working conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_sweatshops
-
greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
-
What happened in Ferguson was actually the epitome of falsehood reporting, as we saw in the case forensic evidence and Officer Wilson’s disposition. My point was about police no longer policing black communities the same way because of compliance issues and politics surrounding the current climate created by the major news networks. Nike has chose to support this distorted and unhealthy message that will lead to more innocent victims in every facet.
“Driving while black” do you have any actually data on that? You might find this study interesting: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/27/nj.speeding.study/index.html
Interesting article - thanks for posting. A small sample size with the NJ Turnpike but noted nonetheless.
I found this article during a search
The most common reason for contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. In 2011, an estimated 42% of face-to-face contacts that U.S. residents had with police occurred for this reason. About half of all traffic stops that year resulted in a traffic ticket. Approximately 3% of all stopped drivers were searched by police during a traffic stop.
These findings are based on the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), a BJS survey that interviews U.S. residents about their contacts with police during the previous 12 months. Persons who reported more than one instance of face-to-face contact during the year are asked to describe the most recent occurrence. The PPCS has been conducted about every three years since 1996.
Summary findings
An estimated 26.4 million persons age 16 or older indicated that their most recent contact with the police in 2011 was as a driver pulled over in a traffic stop. These drivers represented 12% of the nation's 212 million drivers.
A greater percentage of male drivers (12%) than female drivers (8%) were stopped by police during 2011. A higher percentage of black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and Hispanic (10%) drivers were stopped by police during 2011.
Stopped drivers reported speeding as the most common reason for being pulled over in 2011.
Approximately 80% of drivers pulled over by police in 2011 felt they had been stopped for a legitimate reason. In 2011, about 68% of black drivers believed police had a legitimate reason for stopping them compared to 84% of white and 74% of Hispanic drivers.[/b]
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?tid=702&ty=tp
-
...Please point to me the specific reason why you believe that the system is rigged against black people. I have already cited several advantages that blacks have...I'l touch briefly on the major one: Affirmative Action.
We keep coming back to this, respectfully. Chicken and egg, right? Affirmative Action exists because somehow, somewhere along the way, minorities were at enough of a disadvantage when compared to white men that these policies and programs were created to attempt leveling the playing field. I'm not debating whether or not these work or not. I'm just saying that their existence in the first place establishes that the disadvantage existed/s.
...I can't take an article seriously that automatically jumps to racism when there are other factors that haven't been discussed: culture. Have you ever heard someone be referred to as "not black enough" by other blacks? What exactly does that mean?
Yes, and in this case I'd argue that "culture" is influenced by racism too, by reifying the stereotypes that different types of humans are"supposed" to strive towards. Yes, there are cultural and economic influences of course, but even the phrase "not black enough" is a racially driven statement that THEN influences cultural actions. Chicken or the egg, right?
...
In a society where there is no laws to punish different races (apartheid, Jim Crow America, etc.), free market capitalism will dictate that racism is bad. Those previous examples are ACTUAL examples of systemic racism. In South Africa during apartheid, blacks couldn't hold certain positions, legally. We have no such restrictions here. It's actually quite the opposite due to affirmative action.
I thought Affirmative Action doesn't work and is actually racist and creates enslaved minorities and keeps them poor (see your point below)...So maybe it's more alike than you think? Maybe Affirmative Action is actually a contributor to the systemic racism that you are arguing against the existence of?
...There is a massive movement of Black conservatism underway in America and it's because more and more people are waking up to see that the ACTUAL racist policies are the social programs that America has created to enslave minorities to the state by keeping them poor and creating economic incentive (free ****) to voting Democrat forever.
I don't disagree with that. I also don't think there is a level playing field (speaking as a white man) so I'm not a fan of abolishing these programs. Fixing them and readdressing factors such as we are discussion would go a long way in improving policies and programs.
-
This is purely a big, rebranding effort by Nike..their goal and target are Millennials and the next generation behind them..they are thinking big picture and long term with this. They know who this will resonate with and that is exactly what they are shooting for.
They could care less about the short term impact of the older generation who leans one way buying their product or not.
Big Picture at play here. Kudos for them for having the balls to make a big decision like this.
I dont buy Nike anything before and probably wont after. I use different brand for my running shoes.
-
I respect the heck out of Kap and Muhammad Ali and MLK and police and soldiers and I like what Nike did. I like the way Kap is sticking it to the man.
What I'm annoyed about is that when the NCAA clearly went after Christian students and said you couldn't do the Tebow thing any more and put Bible verses on your eye black or draw attention to yourself with praying nobody made a peep. It's just hypocrisy based on political correctness. They should both be able to express their beliefs and it shouldn't cost them their jobs.
And the hypocrisy runs deep on both sides. I was joking with one of my most liberal friends the other day what would conservative Christians do if a conservative Christian player took a knee to protest gay marriage and abortion. They'd be pretty conflicted, right? And he said "Depends. A white Christian athlete or a black one?" Gulp. Darn. I think he's got me there.
I try to be an optimist. I see this all as a good thing. Although I do wish Kap wouldn't wear the darn Che Guevara T shirt. I mean cmon man
-
This is a troubling discussion. To put anyone in the position— on a blog thread — to either prove or disprove the existence of systemic, or institutional, racism is a bit unfair. Disparate “opinions” on the current state of racism are thoroughly driven by ones own biases on the subject which are hatched by our own personal histories and reinforced by the company we keep, by our family’s/communty’s values and belief systems, and by the “news” outlets or reports we choose to believe. Also, we are driven by and, and have our biases confirmed by, the “data” we choose to accept and the anecdotes we select as evidence.
Here’s an anecdote: My best friend growing had a father who inherited 2 apartment buildings in downtown Boston. An unexpected and ridiculous bit of good fortune for a very middle class family (eventually sold the buildings for > $20 million). My friends dad became a landlord and my friend himself, after college and marriage, moved into one of the apartments and managed the properties for his father. My friend collected rents and rented apartments- getting calls regularly from prospective renters. My friend shared one rule, the only set rule, he had (was instructed to have) when screening possible renters on the phone: “If they sound Black, tell them there’s no vacancy”.
I found that to be pretty remarkable and pretty solid evidence of racist policy — note this is through the 80’s and 90’s. But truly an anecdote, only reinforced when I shared that story at 2 separate times with other friends who had become urban landlords. Their responses: “I do the same thing”.
I don’t bring up the above as proof of systemic racism — only proof of anecdotal racism. But this story, snd others that I’ve experienced, have contributed to shaping my opinon on the existence of institutional racism — and my belief that it plays a role in both white and black reactions — ESPECIALLY in times of stress.
But I can’t prove it is a present factor any more than someone here can prove it isn’t. What I’d implore, is openness to different points of view that are born of different life experiences. And also respect for fellow Americans when they say either that they have not experienced discrimination OR when they say they have.
-
greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.
The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.
Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries factories, I am very skeptical of this number you give.
If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I bolded the wrong parts.
Edit in strikethrough
-
This is a troubling discussion. To put anyone in the position— on a blog thread — to either prove or disprove the existence of systemic, or institutional, racism is a bit unfair. Disparate “opinions” on the current state of racism are thoroughly driven by ones own biases on the subject which are hatched by our own personal histories and reinforced by the company we keep, by our family’s/communty’s values and belief systems, and by the “news” outlets or reports we choose to believe. Also, we are driven by and, and have our biases confirmed by, the “data” we choose to accept and the anecdotes we select as evidence.
Here’s an anecdote: My best friend growing had a father who inherited 2 apartment buildings in downtown Boston. An unexpected and ridiculous bit of good fortune for a very middle class family (eventually sold the buildings for > $20 million). My friends dad became a landlord and my friend himself, after college and marriage, moved into one of the apartments and managed the properties for his father. My friend collected rents and rented apartments- getting calls regularly from prospective renters. My friend shared one rule, the only set rule, he had (was instructed to have) when screening possible renters on the phone: “If they sound Black, tell them there’s no vacancy”.
I found that to be pretty remarkable and pretty solid evidence of racist policy — note this is through the 80’s and 90’s. But truly an anecdote, only reinforced when I shared that story at 2 separate times with other friends who had become urban landlords. Their responses: “I do the same thing”.
I don’t bring up the above as proof of systemic racism — only proof of anecdotal racism. But this story, snd others that I’ve experienced, have contributed to shaping my opinon on the existence of institutional racism — and my belief that it plays a role in both white and black reactions — ESPECIALLY in times of stress.
But I can’t prove it is a present factor any more than someone here can prove it isn’t. What I’d implore, is openness to different points of view that are born of different life experiences. And also respect for fellow Americans when they say either that they have not experienced discrimination OR when they say they have.
Very thoughtful post. I like seeing these on CB.
-
This is a troubling discussion. To put anyone in the position— on a blog thread — to either prove or disprove the existence of systemic, or institutional, racism is a bit unfair. Disparate “opinions” on the current state of racism are thoroughly driven by ones own biases on the subject which are hatched by our own personal histories and reinforced by the company we keep, by our family’s/communty’s values and belief systems, and by the “news” outlets or reports we choose to believe. Also, we are driven by and, and have our biases confirmed by, the “data” we choose to accept and the anecdotes we select as evidence.
Here’s an anecdote: My best friend growing had a father who inherited 2 apartment buildings in downtown Boston. An unexpected and ridiculous bit of good fortune for a very middle class family (eventually sold the buildings for > $20 million). My friends dad became a landlord and my friend himself, after college and marriage, moved into one of the apartments and managed the properties for his father. My friend collected rents and rented apartments- getting calls regularly from prospective renters. My friend shared one rule, the only set rule, he had (was instructed to have) when screening possible renters on the phone: “If they sound Black, tell them there’s no vacancy”.
I found that to be pretty remarkable and pretty solid evidence of racist policy — note this is through the 80’s and 90’s. But truly an anecdote, only reinforced when I shared that story at 2 separate times with other friends who had become urban landlords. Their responses: “I do the same thing”.
I don’t bring up the above as proof of systemic racism — only proof of anecdotal racism. But this story, snd others that I’ve experienced, have contributed to shaping my opinon on the existence of institutional racism — and my belief that it plays a role in both white and black reactions — ESPECIALLY in times of stress.
But I can’t prove it is a present factor any more than someone here can prove it isn’t. What I’d implore, is openness to different points of view that are born of different life experiences. And also respect for fellow Americans when they say either that they have not experienced discrimination OR when they say they have.
Very thoughtful post. I like seeing these on CB.
Agreed.
-
This is a troubling discussion. To put anyone in the position— on a blog thread — to either prove or disprove the existence of systemic, or institutional, racism is a bit unfair. Disparate “opinions” on the current state of racism are thoroughly driven by ones own biases on the subject which are hatched by our own personal histories and reinforced by the company we keep, by our family’s/communty’s values and belief systems, and by the “news” outlets or reports we choose to believe. Also, we are driven by and, and have our biases confirmed by, the “data” we choose to accept and the anecdotes we select as evidence.
Here’s an anecdote: My best friend growing had a father who inherited 2 apartment buildings in downtown Boston. An unexpected and ridiculous bit of good fortune for a very middle class family (eventually sold the buildings for > $20 million). My friends dad became a landlord and my friend himself, after college and marriage, moved into one of the apartments and managed the properties for his father. My friend collected rents and rented apartments- getting calls regularly from prospective renters. My friend shared one rule, the only set rule, he had (was instructed to have) when screening possible renters on the phone: “If they sound Black, tell them there’s no vacancy”.
I found that to be pretty remarkable and pretty solid evidence of racist policy — note this is through the 80’s and 90’s. But truly an anecdote, only reinforced when I shared that story at 2 separate times with other friends who had become urban landlords. Their responses: “I do the same thing”.
I don’t bring up the above as proof of systemic racism — only proof of anecdotal racism. But this story, snd others that I’ve experienced, have contributed to shaping my opinon on the existence of institutional racism — and my belief that it plays a role in both white and black reactions — ESPECIALLY in times of stress.
But I can’t prove it is a present factor any more than someone here can prove it isn’t. What I’d implore, is openness to different points of view that are born of different life experiences. And also respect for fellow Americans when they say either that they have not experienced discrimination OR when they say they have.
Very thoughtful post. I like seeing these on CB.
Agreed.
Triple agreed. I feel strongly that the need for proof that is somehow qualified and validated by all sides to reach a common agreement is part of the machine that keeps dividing the world, especially with the proliferation and availability of biased news sources. I appreciate the conversations that encourage expansion and understanding. Your post is a good example. Thank you.
-
What happened in Ferguson was actually the epitome of falsehood reporting, as we saw in the case forensic evidence and Officer Wilson’s disposition. My point was about police no longer policing black communities the same way because of compliance issues and politics surrounding the current climate created by the major news networks. Nike has chose to support this distorted and unhealthy message that will lead to more innocent victims in every facet.
“Driving while black” do you have any actually data on that? You might find this study interesting: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/27/nj.speeding.study/index.html
Interesting article - thanks for posting. A small sample size with the NJ Turnpike but noted nonetheless.
I found this article during a search
The most common reason for contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. In 2011, an estimated 42% of face-to-face contacts that U.S. residents had with police occurred for this reason. About half of all traffic stops that year resulted in a traffic ticket. Approximately 3% of all stopped drivers were searched by police during a traffic stop.
These findings are based on the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), a BJS survey that interviews U.S. residents about their contacts with police during the previous 12 months. Persons who reported more than one instance of face-to-face contact during the year are asked to describe the most recent occurrence. The PPCS has been conducted about every three years since 1996.
Summary findings
An estimated 26.4 million persons age 16 or older indicated that their most recent contact with the police in 2011 was as a driver pulled over in a traffic stop. These drivers represented 12% of the nation's 212 million drivers.
A greater percentage of male drivers (12%) than female drivers (8%) were stopped by police during 2011. A higher percentage of black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and Hispanic (10%) drivers were stopped by police during 2011.
Stopped drivers reported speeding as the most common reason for being pulled over in 2011.
Approximately 80% of drivers pulled over by police in 2011 felt they had been stopped for a legitimate reason. In 2011, about 68% of black drivers believed police had a legitimate reason for stopping them compared to 84% of white and 74% of Hispanic drivers.[/b]
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?tid=702&ty=tp
First highlighted part might be explained by what was found in the study I posted. Second study asks people how they feel, which I don’t put any stock in a study like that when it comes to police.
-
greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.
The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.
Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.
If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I bolded the wrong parts.
You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation
Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp
-
...Please point to me the specific reason why you believe that the system is rigged against black people. I have already cited several advantages that blacks have...I'l touch briefly on the major one: Affirmative Action.
We keep coming back to this, respectfully. Chicken and egg, right? Affirmative Action exists because somehow, somewhere along the way, minorities were at enough of a disadvantage when compared to white men that these policies and programs were created to attempt leveling the playing field. I'm not debating whether or not these work or not. I'm just saying that their existence in the first place establishes that the disadvantage existed/s.
...I can't take an article seriously that automatically jumps to racism when there are other factors that haven't been discussed: culture. Have you ever heard someone be referred to as "not black enough" by other blacks? What exactly does that mean?
Yes, and in this case I'd argue that "culture" is influenced by racism too, by reifying the stereotypes that different types of humans are"supposed" to strive towards. Yes, there are cultural and economic influences of course, but even the phrase "not black enough" is a racially driven statement that THEN influences cultural actions. Chicken or the egg, right?
...
In a society where there is no laws to punish different races (apartheid, Jim Crow America, etc.), free market capitalism will dictate that racism is bad. Those previous examples are ACTUAL examples of systemic racism. In South Africa during apartheid, blacks couldn't hold certain positions, legally. We have no such restrictions here. It's actually quite the opposite due to affirmative action.
I thought Affirmative Action doesn't work and is actually racist and creates enslaved minorities and keeps them poor (see your point below)...So maybe it's more alike than you think? Maybe Affirmative Action is actually a contributor to the systemic racism that you are arguing against the existence of?
...There is a massive movement of Black conservatism underway in America and it's because more and more people are waking up to see that the ACTUAL racist policies are the social programs that America has created to enslave minorities to the state by keeping them poor and creating economic incentive (free ****) to voting Democrat forever.
I don't disagree with that. I also don't think there is a level playing field (speaking as a white man) so I'm not a fan of abolishing these programs. Fixing them and readdressing factors such as we are discussion would go a long way in improving policies and programs.
This is a troubling discussion. To put anyone in the position— on a blog thread — to either prove or disprove the existence of systemic, or institutional, racism is a bit unfair. Disparate “opinions” on the current state of racism are thoroughly driven by ones own biases on the subject which are hatched by our own personal histories and reinforced by the company we keep, by our family’s/communty’s values and belief systems, and by the “news” outlets or reports we choose to believe. Also, we are driven by and, and have our biases confirmed by, the “data” we choose to accept and the anecdotes we select as evidence.
Here’s an anecdote: My best friend growing had a father who inherited 2 apartment buildings in downtown Boston. An unexpected and ridiculous bit of good fortune for a very middle class family (eventually sold the buildings for > $20 million). My friends dad became a landlord and my friend himself, after college and marriage, moved into one of the apartments and managed the properties for his father. My friend collected rents and rented apartments- getting calls regularly from prospective renters. My friend shared one rule, the only set rule, he had (was instructed to have) when screening possible renters on the phone: “If they sound Black, tell them there’s no vacancy”.
I found that to be pretty remarkable and pretty solid evidence of racist policy — note this is through the 80’s and 90’s. But truly an anecdote, only reinforced when I shared that story at 2 separate times with other friends who had become urban landlords. Their responses: “I do the same thing”.
I don’t bring up the above as proof of systemic racism — only proof of anecdotal racism. But this story, snd others that I’ve experienced, have contributed to shaping my opinon on the existence of institutional racism — and my belief that it plays a role in both white and black reactions — ESPECIALLY in times of stress.
But I can’t prove it is a present factor any more than someone here can prove it isn’t. What I’d implore, is openness to different points of view that are born of different life experiences. And also respect for fellow Americans when they say either that they have not experienced discrimination OR when they say they have.
Very thoughtful post. I like seeing these on CB.
Agreed.
Triple agreed. I feel strongly that the need for proof that is somehow qualified and validated by all sides to reach a common agreement is part of the machine that keeps dividing the world, especially with the proliferation and availability of biased news sources. I appreciate the conversations that encourage expansion and understanding. Your post is a good example. Thank you.
You don't seem to want to agree or disagree with anything other than systemic racism existing in US being a fact. The problem that you face is that you're taking a theory with no actual evidence and calling it fact. In your first post you and IDreamCeltics (by agreeing with him) state that it's unfortunate that people ignore systemic racism as if it's fact. I asked you for evidence of systemic racism and you immediately balked at the idea of having to give proof of such existence followed up by a study that shows that black people are more poor than white and asian people without giving any actual evidence on it being due to racism of any kind. There are so many factors to what contributes to a person's income level that to blindly state that "it's got to be racism" is disingenuous. In a truly capitalist society with equal opportunity, racist corporations, racist landlords like in Neurotic's example go out of business over time. You can't completely dismiss well qualified minorities just because they're minorities. Your competition will take them. There is nothing stopping a hard working minority in this country from achieving whatever he or she wants. You can literally be the president. I just about thought that this point was hammered in after Obama was elected (was a side hope of mine when I voted for him), but things just seemed to get even worse. The problem with affirmative action is that it inefficiently solves what capitalism already solves. You're forcing people to interact with minorities when capitalism ALREADY DOES IT. A capitalist creates a great idea by incorporating the best minds (regardless of skin color) and sells it to as many people as they can.
If you'd like to argue that the Black culture is the "systemic racism" that leads to Blacks earning less income than their White and Asian counterparts, I will agree with you because I have ACTUAL data to support it:
- single parent households: 70% of black children are born to single mothers (national average is 40% which is ridiculously high as well in my opinion -- thank you social programs).
- violent crime statistics: 13% of the population (blacks) commit 52.5% of the murders in the country
- high school dropout rate: 60% graduation rate in Blacks vs 80% in Whites
Fixing these three things would, in my opinion, all but guarantee that this income inequality is corrected.
In conclusion, you should not get to call people racist without proof. It's a pretty serious allegation. I suggest that in the future if you are prepared to use "the R word" that you are adequately prepared to defend your position.
-
greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.
The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.
Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.
If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I bolded the wrong parts.
You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation
Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp (https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp)
Thanks again for the reply JSD.
I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Again, where's the evidence that they make 5 times more?
Second, Adam Smith is a libertarian/neoliberal think tank and anything but a neutral source.
-
Erik - A response to your assumption related to my example. None of the people I spoke of went out of business. All, in fact, thrived financially. As did, I think, the POTUS after his episode with discriminatory real estate practices early in his career.
I think your argument is that racism, while it existed in post-slavery America, is no longer a factor in 2018. No doubt you believe we’ve erased race as an impeding factor to success and that we have a very solid meritocracy operating here in America.... and I think there is plenty of anecdotal support (eg our previous POTUS) for that viewpoint.
The question really is: is race still a variable? if race could be isolated from other clearly relevant variables (e.g, work ethic, work history, attitude, skills, intelligence...) does it still have some influence on the actions/reactions/behaviors/decisions of people (especially those with power) in America today? And then... if we think it does, is that influence something that continues, perhaps more subtlety and subconsciously than in years past, to effect the meritocracy in negative ways for people of color...generally. All the while with acknowledgement that the meritocracy affords far more opportunity for minority racial groups than ever before in our history.
Either way, “proof” is a nasty word in this conversation— my opinion of course. Because while the more subtle, and sometimes not so subtle (if you believe race influences impulses in stressful police encounters) impacts of prejudice and bias may (or may not) exist, requiring proof is disingenuous if the purpose is meaningful conversation. Neither side accepts the other’s data as valid or convincing. Requiring proof (in conversation) is an exercise in futility. Better, in my opinion, to accept that our views are born of different life experiences that shape the different ways we interpret what is presented to us (including data).
My opinion is based on my experiences (many more than the anecdotes from my previous post), and my experience tells me that race has an embedded influence on me, and I believe does in others as well. And this influence is exacerbated, sometimes dramatically and impulsively,, in times of high stress — and DOES continue to have a broad, systemic impact on the great meritocracy that we strive for in America. It’s clear to me that merit has become a much more critical variable than race or gender than was the case years ago. But we can disagree as to whether this evolving meritocracy is all the way there. I am dubious of us having acheived the ultimate evolution of that meritocracy, which, for the purposes of conversation, I think is a viewpoint worthy of consideration.
-
Erik - A response to your assumption related to my example. None of the people I spoke of went out of business. All, in fact, thrived financially. As did, I think, the POTUS after his episode with discriminatory real estate practices early in his career.
I think your argument is that racism, while it existed in post-slavery America, is no longer a factor in 2018. No doubt you believe we’ve erased race as an impeding factor to success and that we have a very solid meritocracy operating here in America.... and I think there is plenty of anecdotal support (eg our previous POTUS) for that viewpoint.
The question really is: is race still a variable? if race could be isolated from other clearly relevant variables (e.g, work ethic, work history, attitude, skills, intelligence...) does it still have some influence on the actions/reactions/behaviors/decisions of people (especially those with power) in America today? And then... if we think it does, is that influence something that continues, perhaps more subtlety and subconsciously than in years past, to effect the meritocracy in negative ways for people of color...generally. All the while with acknowledgement that the meritocracy affords far more opportunity for minority racial groups than ever before in our history.
Either way, “proof” is a nasty word in this conversation— my opinion of course. Because while the more subtle, and sometimes not so subtle (if you believe race influences impulses in stressful police encounters) impacts of prejudice and bias may (or may not) exist, requiring proof is disingenuous if the purpose is meaningful conversation. Neither side accepts the other’s data as valid or convincing. Requiring proof (in conversation) is an exercise in futility. Better, in my opinion, to accept that our views are born of different life experiences that shape the different ways we interpret what is presented to us (including data).
My opinion is based on my experiences (many more than the anecdotes from my previous post), and my experience tells me that race has an embedded influence on me, and I believe does in others as well. And this influence is exacerbated, sometimes dramatically and impulsively,, in times of high stress — and DOES continue to have a broad, systemic impact on the great meritocracy that we strive for in America. It’s clear to me that merit has become a much more critical variable than race or gender than was the case years ago. But we can disagree as to whether this evolving meritocracy is all the way there. I am dubious of us having acheived the ultimate evolution of that meritocracy, which, for the purposes of conversation, I think is a viewpoint worthy of consideration.
There's no doubt in my mind that racism still exists. I still occassionally encounter racism (towards myself, towards others). It's infrequent, but that's because most people don't say things in public. There will never be a society in which people aren't hateful to others. If it's not race, it will be gender, sexuality, how much they weigh, etc. It's just how some humans operate. I don't want to mistake my logical though process with being a racism apologist. Racism clearly exists. My point is that we're in a point in society where it shouldn't affect your overall performance in life.
So the bigger question: Is race still a factor in determining success? I haven't seen any evidence that proves or disproves it, although there are some obvious trends that disprove it (the three main factors I listed in my previous post). The problem that I have with your side, in general, is that you don't require proof to make a factual assertion. In this case, it's a fairly massive assertion: America is inherently racist. I believe that a statement that "consequential" requires significant proof.
Here is my opinion:
I believe that if you drop in a white baby into a black cultural situation, he will score (in life) similarly as other similar black people.
I believe that if you drop a black baby into an asian cultural situation, he will score similarly as other similar asian people.
It's the upbringing that makes us who we are, not what people perceive you to be due to your skin color. I can't call this fact because I have yet to see a study on transracial adoptions or even interracial marriages with a single mother different than your registered/perceived race (like Obama). A study like this would shed a lot of light into removing basically everything else from the equation *except* race.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.
https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw
EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.
https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw
EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.
I saw that news as well. Nike is probably happy with its decision so far.
I wonder how much Colin K is earning from Nike. Frankly, starring in ads is much better work than risking concussion on the football field.
-
greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.
The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.
Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.
If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I bolded the wrong parts.
You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation
Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp (https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp)
Thanks again for the reply JSD.
I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Again, where's the evidence that they make 5 times more?
Second, Adam Smith is a libertarian/neoliberal think tank and anything but a neutral source.
What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article? What are neutral sources? I literally do not even know anymore. You want a peer reviewed article or something?
To me this is common sense anyway. What exactly are you disagreeing with? You think people in these locations have no other options? If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.
https://www.marketw (https://www.marketw) atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw
EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.
(https://i.gyazo.com/9a9fda5089afcd8a9357e97ff6f3c00d.jpg)
-
greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.
The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.
Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.
If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I bolded the wrong parts.
You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation
Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp (https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp)
Thanks again for the reply JSD.
I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Again, where's the evidence that they make 5 times more?
Second, Adam Smith is a libertarian/neoliberal think tank and anything but a neutral source.
What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article? What are neutral sources? I literally do not even know anymore. You want a peer reviewed article or something?
To me this is common sense anyway. What exactly are you disagreeing with? You think people in these locations have no other options? If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?
What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article?
They made generalizations based on very thin evidence.
What are neutral sources?
Not the Adam Smith Institute for sure.
You want a peer reviewed article or something?
Here you go (https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001869?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=sweatshop&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dsweatshop&refreqid=search%3A4abb1172b3b4745246782d853c053c96&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). A peer reviewed article arguing that sweatshops are harmful to the people who work there.
To me this is common sense anyway.
If so, why do so many ppl protest sweatshops and have the exact opposite opinion than you?
You think people in these locations have no other options?
Even if I grant you this (that they have other options), this is irrelevant when assessing the moral status of sweatshops. To illustrate how options are irrelevant, consider that prostitutes quite often have alternative employment options, this however does not change the fact that being a pimp is immoral. The same argument can be made about loan sharks too.
If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?
Again this is irrelevant.
Also, although I'm sure you yourself do not defend such opinions, similar arguments were used to justify slavery, colonialism and all kinds of other evils. (Africans were poor anyway, western civilization was good for non Europeans, if they didn't become slaves they would probably laze around etc)
At the very least you have to concede that the position that sweatshops are bad for the workers and immoral is a defensible one - you obviously don't have to agree with it, and I'm aware that good arguments can be made for the opposite case, but claiming that sweatshops are evidently and commonsensically good for the employees is IMHO not a defensible position.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.
https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw
EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.
I saw that news as well. Nike is probably happy with its decision so far.
I wonder how much Colin K is earning from Nike. Frankly, starring in ads is much better work than risking concussion on the football field.
You can bank on the fact that Nike did some serious cost/benefit analysis of this campaign before rolling it out. Its apparent that they felt the gain that would come out of this would exceed the detriment and fallout from angry MAGAs & the such. It certainly appears to be a long term play here.
-
Greece666
Here is a video by Professor Matt Zwolinski (University of San Diego) that pretty much captures my understanding. I appreciate the back and forth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo
The Times article he refferences
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?_r=3&scp=1&am
-
Greece666
Here is a video by Professor Matt Zwolinski (University of San Diego) that pretty much captures my understanding. I appreciate the back and forth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo)
The Times article he refferences
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?_r=3&scp=1&am (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?_r=3&scp=1&am)
I enjoy it too. I had a glance at the vid and the article and they look promising.
Do you think we should start a new thread? We are clearly not discussing Kaepernick anymore.
There are various possible titles depending on whether we prefer focusing on sweatshops or more general questions. Just on top of my head: Tackling poverty in the developing world, Sweatshops: pros and cons, Best ways to deal with poverty (not just in the developing world but in general).
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.
why would you assume it would damage their brand
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
It's not "false" so much as it is misleading.
But, you make a great point about what happened last year at this time. So, if last year is a guage, then the "counterfactual" is a 17% jump, to be compared to the 31% jump.
Frankly, I wish more of us on here took counterfactuals into consideration.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.
why would you assume it would damage their brand
As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the kneeling, among other variables, hurt the NFL, so by extension Nike using Kap could hurt their business.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.
why would you assume it would damage their brand
As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the kneeling, among other variables, hurt the NFL, so by extension Nike using Kap could hurt their business.
No it wont.. Nike will be fine.
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
That is false anyways. If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year. So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.
I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.
why would you assume it would damage their brand
As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the kneeling, among other variables, hurt the NFL, so by extension Nike using Kap could hurt their business.
even if kneeling had an effect on ratings (and I'm not sure it does) that is a vastly different audience then a typical Nike purchaser. There is almost no correlation to the conservatives throwing a tizzy over the anthem and how little that group actually purchases Nike products
-
Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.
After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.
https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw
EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.
I saw that news as well. Nike is probably happy with its decision so far.
I wonder how much Colin K is earning from Nike. Frankly, starring in ads is much better work than risking concussion on the football field.
You can say that again.
The qualifier that it was "online" sales and thinking about Nike's demo makes me wonder if this wasn't based on some information Nike has about what the youth thinks about Kapernick, versus older/middle aged people.
-
You don't seem to want to agree or disagree with anything other than systemic racism existing in US being a fact. The problem that you face is that you're taking a theory with no actual evidence and calling it fact. In your first post you and IDreamCeltics (by agreeing with him) state that it's unfortunate that people ignore systemic racism as if it's fact. I asked you for evidence of systemic racism and you immediately balked at the idea of having to give proof of such existence followed up by a study that shows that black people are more poor than white and asian people without giving any actual evidence on it being due to racism of any kind. There are so many factors to what contributes to a person's income level that to blindly state that "it's got to be racism" is disingenuous. In a truly capitalist society with equal opportunity, racist corporations, racist landlords like in Neurotic's example go out of business over time. You can't completely dismiss well qualified minorities just because they're minorities. Your competition will take them. There is nothing stopping a hard working minority in this country from achieving whatever he or she wants. You can literally be the president. I just about thought that this point was hammered in after Obama was elected (was a side hope of mine when I voted for him), but things just seemed to get even worse. The problem with affirmative action is that it inefficiently solves what capitalism already solves. You're forcing people to interact with minorities when capitalism ALREADY DOES IT. A capitalist creates a great idea by incorporating the best minds (regardless of skin color) and sells it to as many people as they can.
If you'd like to argue that the Black culture is the "systemic racism" that leads to Blacks earning less income than their White and Asian counterparts, I will agree with you because I have ACTUAL data to support it:
- single parent households: 70% of black children are born to single mothers (national average is 40% which is ridiculously high as well in my opinion -- thank you social programs).
- violent crime statistics: 13% of the population (blacks) commit 52.5% of the murders in the country
- high school dropout rate: 60% graduation rate in Blacks vs 80% in Whites
Fixing these three things would, in my opinion, all but guarantee that this income inequality is corrected.
In conclusion, you should not get to call people racist without proof. It's a pretty serious allegation. I suggest that in the future if you are prepared to use "the R word" that you are adequately prepared to defend your position.
Hi Erik. I think we both misrepresented our positions when we began. I stated that systemic racism exists instead of framing it as my opinion. You also changed the conversation by asking for how the government specifically creates that systemic racism. It has taken us a few conversations to start hearing what each other is saying, which is part of the benefit of conversations like these.
I also think I'm leaning pretty clearly on the chicken or the egg fence, not saying one is right and the other is wrong but that they both influence each other. I.e. your data highlights a disparity between White and Black on the 3 topics you identified as the most important. Why do you think those numbers are so imbalanced? I'm curious about how you suggest fixing these issues without addressing race.
Yes, I balked when you asked for proof of my opinion that systemic racism exists. I also balk at the data you provided being wholly divorced from racially-driven factors. The article I provided was meant to be a conversation starter, not a debate-winner.
I respectfully stand by my opinion that there are behaviors that affect every individual's daily life that are influenced by race, including the benefits and advantages given specifically to white men.
Happy to keep discussing, truly.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
As already noted in this thread, that particular article cites anonymous "sources" that were subsequently refuted by Kaepernick.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
As already noted in this thread, that particular article cites anonymous "sources" that were subsequently refuted by Kaepernick.
It kind of amazes me how people keep citing this idea that he was gonna stop kneeling, or that he turned down a contract offer from the Broncos when trying to pick apart Kaepernick. The first has been refuted by Kaepernick, the second was a contract offer that included a 5 million dollar pay cut for him and so of course he turned it down. As a board full of people many f whom I assume are familiar with the misrepresentation of facts surrounding deflate-gate I would think people would try a little harder to get their facts straight.
Not that Kaepernick if perfect, his poor choice of socks prove that, but maybe we can just acknowledge he is sincere in his beliefs and take the discussion from there.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
As already noted in this thread, that particular article cites anonymous "sources" that were subsequently refuted by Kaepernick.
It kind of amazes me how people keep citing this idea that he was gonna stop kneeling, or that he turned down a contract offer from the Broncos when trying to pick apart Kaepernick. The first has been refuted by Kaepernick, the second was a contract offer that included a 5 million dollar pay cut for him and so of course he turned it down. As a board full of people many f whom I assume are familiar with the misrepresentation of facts surrounding deflate-gate I would think people would try a little harder to get their facts straight.
Not that Kaepernick if perfect, his poor choice of socks prove that, but maybe we can just acknowledge he is sincere in his beliefs and take the discussion from there.
He was either going to be traded or cut, so that pay cut argument is nonsense.
-
NFL teams unanimously agreed Monday to implement a local matching funds component of the league's social justice initiative, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported, citing a league source.
The news comes during the Annual League Meeting in Orlando as Monday's focus for owners and executives was on implementing the league's social justice platform. Owners discussed the actions taken in support of the platform during the 2017 season, per Rapoport.
The NFL is committing $90 million to a new social justice initiative that supports efforts and programs to combat social inequality. In a memo sent to all 32 teams in early December, the league said it plans to work closely with players, teams and other groups in the new and expanded community improvement program. The NFL Foundation contributed $3 million in initial funding for the program.
Rapoport added there will be continued discussion of a game day policy for the national anthem, but no rule changes were proposed and no votes were taken Monday. The league current has no mandate that players must stand for the anthem.
This will likely be a subject of ongoing discussion, according to Rapoport, including at the Spring League Meeting in May.
Why isn't this getting more coverage. This is the perfect compromise. The league expands it program to address the issue that the players feel so strongly about.
I read or heard that the issue is that while everyone agrees that breast cancer (for example) is a problem, not everyone believes that there is a social justice problem. I also think that some people view anything pro-social justice to be anti-law enforcement somehow.
-
Here’s my thing: I think it’s crazy to get upset about players taking a knee to protest police brutality and racial inequality given how many much bigger problems there are. If we lived in a better world (because it wouldn’t be close to a perfect world if people still had to protest police brutality and racial injustice) where the government didn’t send off thousands of soldiers to die in largely pointless and ineffective wars and then didn’t neglect them when they got back, then fine, get upset about kneeling if you’re really that upset. But until those same people actually start protesting those far more serious problems, those people need to stop pretending they care about the troops.
Moreover, anyone who supports a man for President who 1) dodged military service because of “bone spurs,” 2) could send thousands of more young men and women to die because of his intemperate nature, and 3) doesn’t even know the words to the National Anthem, should be forbidden from ever complaining about some football players kneeling down during the song. 45 disgraces the flag and this country before breakfast most days than every kneeling football player has done collectively up to this point. And football players should not be held to higher standards than the President (though the official GOP position now seems to be that everyone should be held to a higher standard than the President).
-
It's a small sample size, but it appears the campaign has had a positive or neutral effect on sales so far. Nike must see this as a win.
https://twitter.com/maximlott/status/1038497330046095360
-
Why isn't this getting more coverage. This is the perfect compromise.
Because the media seeks to divide not unite. Controversy makes for a better story.
-
This ad campaign is focused on "sacrifice" and I think they are missing a key point. When you sacrifice something you are willingly giving it up for the sake of making a statement about something you feel is of higher value. Kap is not actually sacrificing anything as he is suing the NFL for the thing that he supposedly is willingly giving up. He wants both things. He thinks he should be able to break the rules and not suffer the consequences of his actions. If you make your stand and then demand that you get the thing that you were giving up anyway you aren't sacrificing anything at all. This is a key theme in today's young generation. They want freedom of choice, but no consequences to their actions. While I think that there is definitely a need to make changes to how the police in many areas deal with criminals, I also think it is important to understand that the large majority of police are not this way. Disrespecting something a majority of this country hold dear and then screaming racism when they are upset about it is not a way to obtain meaningful change. It just creates further divide. Unfortunately the puppets above are getting exactly what they want. Control of the masses through division and hatred.
-
Here’s my thing: I think it’s crazy to get upset about players taking a knee to protest police brutality and racial inequality given how many much bigger problems there are. If we lived in a better world (because it wouldn’t be close to a perfect world if people still had to protest police brutality and racial injustice) where the government didn’t send off thousands of soldiers to die in largely pointless and ineffective wars and then didn’t neglect them when they got back, then fine, get upset about kneeling if you’re really that upset. But until those same people actually start protesting those far more serious problems, those people need to stop pretending they care about the troops.
Moreover, anyone who supports a man for President who 1) dodged military service because of “bone spurs,” 2) could send thousands of more young men and women to die because of his intemperate nature, and 3) doesn’t even know the words to the National Anthem, should be forbidden from ever complaining about some football players kneeling down during the song. 45 disgraces the flag and this country before breakfast most days than every kneeling football player has done collectively up to this point. And football players should not be held to higher standards than the President (though the official GOP position now seems to be that everyone should be held to a higher standard than the President).
TP. Well said.
My late father, who fought with distinction in the Pacific in World War II, told me this during the flag-burning days of the 1960s: "I didn't fight to protect a piece of cloth. I fought to protect the freedoms it represents."
Too bad more people don't get that.
-
This ad campaign is focused on "sacrifice" and I think they are missing a key point. When you sacrifice something you are willingly giving it up for the sake of making a statement about something you feel is of higher value. Kap is not actually sacrificing anything as he is suing the NFL for the thing that he supposedly is willingly giving up. He wants both things. He thinks he should be able to break the rules and not suffer the consequences of his actions. If you make your stand and then demand that you get the thing that you were giving up anyway you aren't sacrificing anything at all.
"Willing to sacrifice" is not the same as "throwing away unnecessarily".
Do you honestly think Kaepernick doesn't understand that he very well may NOT win his collusion lawsuit? No win in court is guaranteed and he's almost certainly been warned by his attorneys to accept that a loss is possible.
Being willing to give that up doesn't mean he should throw it away by not following through with the suit if his case is credible. If anything, he has a responsibility to his fellows in the NFLPA to fight any attempts at collusion.
-
This ad campaign is focused on "sacrifice" and I think they are missing a key point. When you sacrifice something you are willingly giving it up for the sake of making a statement about something you feel is of higher value. Kap is not actually sacrificing anything as he is suing the NFL for the thing that he supposedly is willingly giving up. He wants both things. He thinks he should be able to break the rules and not suffer the consequences of his actions. If you make your stand and then demand that you get the thing that you were giving up anyway you aren't sacrificing anything at all. This is a key theme in today's young generation. They want freedom of choice, but no consequences to their actions. While I think that there is definitely a need to make changes to how the police in many areas deal with criminals, I also think it is important to understand that the large majority of police are not this way. Disrespecting something a majority of this country hold dear and then screaming racism when they are upset about it is not a way to obtain meaningful change. It just creates further divide. Unfortunately the puppets above are getting exactly what they want. Control of the masses through division and hatred.
What? His protest came first. In doing so, he was willing to give up his career, and guess what? No team wanted him after that so his sacrifice was real.
Anybody who sacrifices their career should have a right to try and get it back. Now if you say he should give up his Nike deal if lands back in the NFL, then okay, I would agree with that. But until then, the theme of sacrifice in the commercial is perfectly appropriate.
-
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Is it just me, or does the slogan not make sense if you have even just a vague understanding of Kaepernick’s situation? Yes, he kneeled during the anthem to protest against cops harassing/killing black men. However, in no way, shape or form did he ever imagine that his protest would lead him to not playing in the NFL again. There were also reports of him promising to not kneel during the anthem if he came back. I’m starting to get the impression that he would rather win his lawsuit against the NFL for monetary purposes, than to actually just play again.
What reports were those?
Do you have anything credible behind that? Otherwise these sort of comments just end up as unsupported aspersions that aren't really fair to the target.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18805744/colin-kaepernick-stand-national-anthem-next-season
As already noted in this thread, that particular article cites anonymous "sources" that were subsequently refuted by Kaepernick.
It kind of amazes me how people keep citing this idea that he was gonna stop kneeling, or that he turned down a contract offer from the Broncos when trying to pick apart Kaepernick. The first has been refuted by Kaepernick, the second was a contract offer that included a 5 million dollar pay cut for him and so of course he turned it down. As a board full of people many f whom I assume are familiar with the misrepresentation of facts surrounding deflate-gate I would think people would try a little harder to get their facts straight.
Not that Kaepernick if perfect, his poor choice of socks prove that, but maybe we can just acknowledge he is sincere in his beliefs and take the discussion from there.
He was either going to be traded or cut, so that pay cut argument is nonsense.
Well except for the little detail that he did end up getting that full slaary, and was not in fact cut. Its also worth noting that this was a full six months before he ever even kneeled, so I have no idea why it matters in the context of Kaepernicks kneelins anyway.
Anyway my larger point is this. I wish we could have the conversatins without attacking the messenger. Fox news does this all the time. They see a protest, and immediatey attempt to attack the sincereity or integrity of those protestors either my calling them criminals or saying they were paid. Same thing with Kaeprnck. People insisitng he desnt believe in his on cause by pointing oout the incorrect report that he would stop kneeling, or that hes just in it for money (the nike add), or that he's just doing to impress his girlfriend. Even if all those are true, and I don't think they are at all, it doenst mena the message isn't something worth debating.
-
This ad campaign is focused on "sacrifice" and I think they are missing a key point. When you sacrifice something you are willingly giving it up for the sake of making a statement about something you feel is of higher value. Kap is not actually sacrificing anything as he is suing the NFL for the thing that he supposedly is willingly giving up. He wants both things. He thinks he should be able to break the rules and not suffer the consequences of his actions. If you make your stand and then demand that you get the thing that you were giving up anyway you aren't sacrificing anything at all. This is a key theme in today's young generation. They want freedom of choice, but no consequences to their actions. While I think that there is definitely a need to make changes to how the police in many areas deal with criminals, I also think it is important to understand that the large majority of police are not this way. Disrespecting something a majority of this country hold dear and then screaming racism when they are upset about it is not a way to obtain meaningful change. It just creates further divide. Unfortunately the puppets above are getting exactly what they want. Control of the masses through division and hatred.
If he didn't want both things, giving one of them up wouldn't be a sacrifice, would it?
-
FWIW
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nike-stock-closes-time-high-aftermath-colin-kaepernick-ad-campaign-225007582.html
-
FWIW
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nike-stock-closes-time-high-aftermath-colin-kaepernick-ad-campaign-225007582.html
So far this year, Nike is up about 30% and the SP500 about 7%.
Analysts are expecting an earnings boost to Nike in a couple days, due to Kap ad:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/look-for-a-kaepernick-sales-bump-in-nikes-earnings-next-week.html
(Note, the contrarian in me thinks it might be a "sell" before the news oppty).
-
FWIW
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nike-stock-closes-time-high-aftermath-colin-kaepernick-ad-campaign-225007582.html
Wasn’t their previous ATH just a few weeks ago (before any of this came out)?
So sounds like they were trending up and this had no actual effect. But I’m sure people will assume a correlation.
-
FWIW
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nike-stock-closes-time-high-aftermath-colin-kaepernick-ad-campaign-225007582.html
Wasn’t their previous ATH just a few weeks ago (before any of this came out)?
So sounds like they were trending up and this had no actual effect. But I’m sure people will assume a correlation.
Of course if the ad was such a bad business move, the stock wouldn't still be trending upward.
-
apparently, the Kaep ad has boosted Nike stock by about $6B.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/24/17895704/nike-colin-kaepernick-boycott-6-billion
If true, here's hoping Kaep got some of that, and not just a measling few 100Gs.....
-
FWIW
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nike-stock-closes-time-high-aftermath-colin-kaepernick-ad-campaign-225007582.html
Wasn’t their previous ATH just a few weeks ago (before any of this came out)?
So sounds like they were trending up and this had no actual effect. But I’m sure people will assume a correlation.
Sort of like Trump and basically every single statistic on the economy....
-
Kaepernick, and Eric Reid, just settled their collusion suits against the NFL for an undisclosed amount:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/colin-kaepernick-reaches-settlement-in-collusion-case-against-nfl-lawyer-says.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/colin-kaepernick-reaches-settlement-in-collusion-case-against-nfl-lawyer-says.html)
-
Kaepernick, and Eric Reid, just settled their collusion suits against the NFL for an undisclosed amount:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/colin-kaepernick-reaches-settlement-in-collusion-case-against-nfl-lawyer-says.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/colin-kaepernick-reaches-settlement-in-collusion-case-against-nfl-lawyer-says.html)
So either this is an admittance of collusion by the owners who are trying to minimize the damage done by their collusion or a payoff by the owners to just end the entire matter or both.
-
Reid & Kap must've made out like bandits.
Oh yeah, how's that Nike boycott going these days?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/02/14/he-stopped-selling-nike-products-because-colin-kaepernick-now-his-store-is-closing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f2de066e4e1
-
Reid & Kap must've made out like bandits.
Oh yeah, how's that Nike boycott going these days?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/02/14/he-stopped-selling-nike-products-because-colin-kaepernick-now-his-store-is-closing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f2de066e4e1
Idiot.
Now maybe things were getting tough with Dick's Sporting Goods taking some of his business and because his location was in a dying mall, so maybe the business would have died a year or two from now, but putting your business in a position to go under over someone taking a knee at a football game is just really idiotic from a business standpoint.
I mean, come on. You have hundreds of thousands of dollars in Nike inventory. That inventory, and it's not clear if that inventory number is based on retail value or purchased from Nike value, is your lifeblood in a business. He gave half the retail sales value of the inventory away for nothing. That's just plain stupid.
-
After the Colin Kaepernick-Nike movement went viral, Adidas (shoes) suddenly became popular again. I have never seen so many people wearing Adidas shoes in the past year. Where were they before 2018 lol. Either way, I hate Adidas shoes. Sticking with Nike.
Also, I find it funny how NFL teams support women beaters like Kareem Hunt, but they don't support kneelers like Kaepernick.
-
It's being reported the settlement amount on the NFL collusion could be somewhere between $60-80 million for Kaepernick.
That's a huge chunk of change for basically being told for two years, we don't want you working for us
-
It's being reported the settlement amount on the NFL collusion could be somewhere between $60-80 million for Kaepernick.
That's a huge chunk of change for basically being told for two years, we don't want you working for us
$80M that's almost as much as Philip Rivers makes in 4 years lol.