ADVERTISEMENT

NFL player on racial injustice

BrunoMars420

HR Legend
Feb 14, 2016
14,102
16,791
113

Take a couple of minutes and read Matt Staffords opinion on this. I feel like he is spot on and a lot of people on here can relate to growing up in a bubble (aka Iowa) when it comes to racial injustice. Glad #myquarterback penned this piece and hope everyone is able to learn from it.
 

Take a couple of minutes and read Matt Staffords opinion on this. I feel like he is spot on and a lot of people on here can relate to growing up in a bubble (aka Iowa) when it comes to racial injustice. Glad #myquarterback penned this piece and hope everyone is able to learn from it.

Stafford is not considering all the emotionally fragile Trump supporters who need a Safe Space because they watch football to get away from politics. Did he ever consider their needs and feelings? Of course not! Football is so lame anyway. I refuse to watch it. It's just not entertaining. Such "loosers" and "morans." What a bunch of "dribble" he wrote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
So social justice needs to divert attention away from everything we care about due to its placement on the hierarchy of "importance."
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83
Oh god, the white privilege thing again. Yes, white people don't experience anti-black racism. (due to not being black) And... we're done.

It's such useless concept.
 
I couldn't care less. I can watch a game without focusing on whatever name they have on their helmets and can even mute the announcers talking. Also I rarely tuned in prior to kickoff and if I did I didn't really pay attention to who was kneeling, sitting or standing for the Anthem.

But here is the problem with them going down this road. Are they going to truly let players use the platform for any agenda they want to promote or are they going to control the specific approved platforms and specifically tell all players what side they must take on approved issue. So religious players can promote Christianity, Islam, Budhism or any other religion. What if a player wanted to promote a pro life stand while others wanted to promote pro choice? What if a player wants to call attention to a victim of a crime committed by another player? What guidelines are you going to put in place and should players be exempt from team punishment if the platform they choose to promote is controversial or has a financial impact on their team or the league?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83
Oh god, the white privilege thing again. Yes, white people don't experience anti-black racism. (due to not being black) And... we're done.

It's such useless concept.


I say that because most of what is referenced as white-privilege is simply black disadvantage.

But this isn't a zero sum situation. The "privilege" of being less suspected of crime by the police white people enjoy isn't a problem; the problem is black people being more suspected unnecessarily. We ought to care about fixing the problem black people face -- not pointing out where white people have it better. We want blacks to enjoy the same "privileges" as whites.
 

I say that because most of what is referenced as white-privilege is simply black disadvantage.

But this isn't a zero sum situation. The "privilege" of being less suspected of crime by the police white people enjoy isn't a problem; the problem is black people being more suspected unnecessarily. We ought to care about fixing the problem black people face -- not pointing out where white people have it better. We want blacks to enjoy the same "privileges" as whites.

And on the concept of privilege...

The usage of the world "privilege" in "white-privilege" runs contrary to the way most people think about the word. (this is also bolstered by webster's 1. definition)

A special right. White people don't have a special right. They're the majority in the America. (and functionality, Asians, many Hispanics, etc, are white where white privilege is concerned)

Can you really say you have a privilege if your privilege is what most everybody possesses? Are you privileged to have not been in a major car accident? Are you privileged not to have received food poisoning at Denny's when a few others did?

No, again, it's black's lack of "privilege" that's noteworthy here. Their "bad luck."
 

I say that because most of what is referenced as white-privilege is simply black disadvantage.

But this isn't a zero sum situation. The "privilege" of being less suspected of crime by the police white people enjoy isn't a problem; the problem is black people being more suspected unnecessarily. We ought to care about fixing the problem black people face -- not pointing out where white people have it better. We want blacks to enjoy the same "privileges" as whites.

I actually think this is a good perspective.
 
I couldn't care less. I can watch a game without focusing on whatever name they have on their helmets and can even mute the announcers talking. Also I rarely tuned in prior to kickoff and if I did I didn't really pay attention to who was kneeling, sitting or standing for the Anthem.

But here is the problem with them going down this road. Are they going to truly let players use the platform for any agenda they want to promote or are they going to control the specific approved platforms and specifically tell all players what side they must take on approved issue. So religious players can promote Christianity, Islam, Budhism or any other religion. What if a player wanted to promote a pro life stand while others wanted to promote pro choice? What if a player wants to call attention to a victim of a crime committed by another player? What guidelines are you going to put in place and should players be exempt from team punishment if the platform they choose to promote is controversial or has a financial impact on their team or the league?

You're right. It does become a slippery slope. But the fact remains the NFL and other pro leagues do champion causes unrelated to football, such as breast-cancer awareness. Some have done stay-in-school messages or have promoted the Boys N Girls Club as an alternative to gangs and street life. No one bitches. But highlight racism and all the sudden people need a Safe Space free of politics.

It honestly shouldn't be that big of a deal. Why people are making it one is beyond me.
 
And on the concept of privilege...

The usage of the world "privilege" in "white-privilege" runs contrary to the way most people think about the word. (this is also bolstered by webster's 1. definition)

A special right. White people don't have a special right. They're the majority in the America. (and functionality, Asians, many Hispanics, etc, are white where white privilege is concerned)

Can you really say you have a privilege if your privilege is what most everybody possesses? Are you privileged to have not been in a major car accident? Are you privileged not to have received food poisoning at Denny's when a few others did?

No, again, it's black's lack of "privilege" that's noteworthy here. Their "bad luck."

The functional implementation of white-privilege...

Well, given our problem with the usage of the word, and the fixation on white-people's seemingly problematic "privliges" -- which basically amounts to treatment all humans should enjoy -- of course you're going to have a bunch of blowback.

And of course you're going to get the confused people then that buy into it and go around berating whites for their privileges. (which can't be considered useful by anyone) The pro white-privilege crowd then has to try to clean up the mess and better define what they mean by privilege.

Which ends up being something along the lines of pointing out where whites don't face certain disadvantages. Which could've been clearly conveyed in the first place with a bit more thoughtfulness.

And this stupid side show that detracts from actually solving problems black American's face. You end up with a bunch of squabbling white people arguing over what privilege means.
 
The functional implementation of white-privilege...

Well, given our problem with the usage of the word, and the fixation on white-people's seemingly problematic "privliges" -- which basically amounts to treatment all humans should enjoy -- of course you're going to have a bunch of blowback.

And of course you're going to get the confused people then that buy into it and go around berating whites for their privileges. (which can't be considered useful by anyone) The pro white-privilege crowd then has to try to clean up the mess and better define what they mean by privilege.

Which ends up being something along the lines of pointing out where whites don't face certain disadvantages. Which could've been clearly conveyed in the first place with a bit more thoughtfulness.

And this stupid side show that detracts from actually solving problems black American's face. You end up with a bunch of squabbling white people arguing over what privilege means.

After making it through that discussion you're left with this: well, what do I do?

White privilege crowd, per what I've read in some of their literature, seems to offer a couple things:

1) Spread the word on white-privilege. (not so useful)
2) Empower black folk. Which, when pushed, looks something like affirmative action implemented by the individual. As in: turn down your promotion and offer it up to a person of color. A nice gesture with plenty of problems -- like affirmative action at the institutional level -- but that ain't gonna fix the problem.

The most useful take away from white privilege? That, as a group -- lived experience varies, remember -- blacks face certain hurdles whites don't. Maybe you were unaware of some of them.

So not useless, but not terribly useful either when it comes to actually solving the problems black America faces.
 
You're right. It does become a slippery slope. But the fact remains the NFL and other pro leagues do champion causes unrelated to football, such as breast-cancer awareness. Some have done stay-in-school messages or have promoted the Boys N Girls Club as an alternative to gangs and street life. No one bitches. But highlight racism and all the sudden people need a Safe Space free of politics.

It honestly shouldn't be that big of a deal. Why people are making it one is beyond me.
The things you listed don't really have another side in that anyone relevant would take. Who doesn't want a cure to cancer or would love for kids to drop out of school to join gangs? Those have little to no political sides drawn.

Does racial injustice or should it? No.
But the specific cases used as examples people do have a problem with. And the supposed discussion is not a discussion when specifically talking about police injustice because discussing behaviors that in many instances (not all) could have resulted in no one being killed can't be discussed because that is then looked at as justifying the police officer's bad actions in handling the situation. When in many of these cases while the police officer is more wrong than the victim, there are learning opportunities not discussed on not resisting and taking legal recourse if need be for an illegal arrest. But if someone was to try to mention that or discuss that, they would immediately be shouted down saying resisting arrest should not be a death sentence or that is justifying the police officers bad actions. And that isn't necessarily the case. The discussion can be what are different actions each party could have taken to have prevented the result of death. And yes the police officer in the valid examples are much more at fault and shouldn't have done what they did, but isn't the goal to prevent the death in the future in similar interactions?
 
Last edited:
I don't care what the NFL does or what its individuals do. I'm pretty libertarian that way. Is some of it role your eyes worthy? Sure. Mildly annoying? Sure. But that's about it. Not going to cause me to tune out.

But I do think they need to be cognizant of the audience; lest they find themselves without one.

We live in world oversaturated by divisive political speech. Unfortunately almost any sociopolitical issue of any interest gets rolled into the machine. Something like black lives matter exists in many different instantiations in many different minds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotelAlphaWilcoKilo
After making it through that discussion you're left with this: well, what do I do?

White privilege crowd, per what I've read in some of their literature, seems to offer a couple things:

1) Spread the word on white-privilege. (not so useful)
2) Empower black folk. Which, when pushed, looks something like affirmative action implemented by the individual. As in: turn down your promotion and offer it up to a person of color. A nice gesture with plenty of problems -- like affirmative action at the institutional level -- but that ain't gonna fix the problem.

The most useful take away from white privilege? That, as a group -- lived experience varies, remember -- blacks face certain hurdles whites don't. Maybe you were unaware of some of them.

So not useless, but not terribly useful either when it comes to actually solving the problems black America faces.
This is where "equity" arose. For some, equality isn't enough. There are many who do not outright state it (and some who do), but believe that justice is tearing down some to build up others. This is obviously something that happens constantly in the world and has forever. For some proponents of "equity," equality is not justice. Justice will not be achieved until they see the script flipped.
 
This is where "equity" arose. For some, equality isn't enough. There are many who do not outright state it (and some who do), but believe that justice is tearing down some to build up others. This is obviously something that happens constantly in the world and has forever. For some proponents of "equity," equality is not justice. Justice will not be achieved until they see the script flipped.

Yeah, that's definitely true. They exist. And it's such an intellectually immature and repulsive position. But it is an undercurrent.

It's like the kids in high-school hating on the rich kids for no other reason than being rich. I get it, to an extent, but you're supposed to move past that. It's laughable to see this attitude anywhere near actual thought considered to be of any intellectual value. Especially in an institutional setting.
 
The things you listed don't really have another side in that anyone relevant would take. Who doesn't want a cure to cancer or would love for kids to drop out of school to join gangs? Those have little to no political sides drawn.

Does racial injustice or should it? No.
But the specific cases used as examples people do have a problem with. And the supposed discussion is not a discussion when specifically talking about police injustice because discussing behaviors that in many instances (not all) could have resulted in no one being killed can't be discussed because that is then looked at as justifying the police officer's bad actions in handling the situation. When in many of these cases while the police officer is more wrong than the victim, there are learning opportunities not discussed on not resisting and taking legal recourse if need be for an illegal arrest. But if someone was to try to mention that or discuss that, they would immediately be shouted down saying resisting arrest should not be a death sentence or that is justifying the police officers bad actions. And that isn't necessarily the case. The discussion can be what are different actions each party could have taken to have prevented the result of death. And yes the police officer in the valid examples are much more at fault and shouldn't have done what they did, but isn't the goal to prevent the death in the future in similar interactions?

I don't disagree with the premise of your argument, but I think it's overly analytical. The bottom line is the issue of race is still sensitive in America. Hence the visceral reaction to it. The expression "Black Lives Matter" should not engender such a visceral response from people, but obviously it does. And it's not for the principled reasons people like to think. It's because people don't like to face things that make them uncomfortable.

Breast cancer awareness has no history of prejudice, culturally or institutionally, so that's why you won't hear anyone say, "All cancers matter," or any dude say, "What, my testicles aren't important?" during pink ribbon month. The same as you won't hear people say, "Yeah, but the NEA is a Marxist organization and there are some pervy high school teachers," when the NBA promotes high school graduation.

Discussing racism makes people uncomfortable for a reason. For many, it's as simple as they are being asked to confront their own biases and prejudices, whether they be implicit or pronounced. Supporting law enforcement and believing black lives should be regarded equally do not have to be opposing values anymore than someone has to agree with teachers unions or accept sexual exploitation in high schools to value public education. For some reason, though, because our society is so tribal and polarizing now, many have developed this attitude that everything "political" has to be an either/or proposition, and that is just not the case. I can support that racism is wrong while also believing law enforcement is good and that suspects should comply with police officers putting them under arrest. The same as I can support that no person placed under arrest, regardless of sins, should have a knee to their throat for almost nine minutes while also believing that a police officer can and should use lethal force when warranted.

It's really not that complicated. Racism is wrong. If that's controversial or too traumatizing to some, then they need to indeed change the channel and find a new hobby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
Stafford is not considering all the emotionally fragile Trump supporters who need a Safe Space because they watch football to get away from politics. Did he ever consider their needs and feelings? Of course not! Football is so lame anyway. I refuse to watch it. It's just not entertaining. Such "loosers" and "morans." What a bunch of "dribble" he wrote.

I am not a Trump supporter by any means...and I hate the politics in football. Now going to an Iowa game you are forced into a political act during the national anthem. F that. Not worth the trouble.
 
I am not a Trump supporter by any means...and I hate the politics in football. Now going to an Iowa game you are forced into a political act during the national anthem. F that. Not worth the trouble.

No, you aren't forced into anything, boomer. No one is telling you to stand, kneel, or sit. It's as big of a deal as you want to make it.
 
I thought it was moving, heartfelt, and honest. Good on Matthew.
I grew up in the South, and as a child saw discrimination. DWB is still a thing to this day,sadly. I do think it's nationwide, though.
Matthew grew up in one of this country's wealthiest neighborhoods, came up in privilege, and I can assure you if there were even five kids of color in his HS that would have been a big number. (Highland Park, Dallas)
His parents went to FSU and as undergrads were friends of the Georgia coach Mark Richt. Richt was at the time an assistant coach at FSU. Stafford's parents friendship with Richt meant he ended up at UGA.
I bet his parents are proud of him. I would be, too.
 
No, you aren't forced into anything, boomer. No one is telling you to stand, kneel, or sit. It's as big of a deal as you want to make it.

A) I am an Xer.

B) No one is telling you, but you are making a political statement now by what you do during the anthem. Its just a fact. A sorry fact.
 
ADVERTISEMENT