SecondJon @SecondJon@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo @4of92000
If constructive, useful, change was desired, I think a better approach would have been to embrace the flag and call people to the ideals even they believe it represents, but instead we just have virtue signaling and mutual taking offense.

But I'm not a public figure making millions to entertain people in one of the few venues where they've always been able to reach across to others from all sides of issues and connect as one community over sports. So destroying that environment and turning it into a polarizing event hasn't ever been an option for me to consider. I'm also not the president who took the opportunity to amplify the polarization. I'm just a non sports fan who is sad to see the sports fans lose that reach across environment.

@freemo
It may be, it may not be. A lot of people have served, fought, and had friends and family die for what they believe the flag represents, so an entertainer communicating that everything that flag represents is offensive is offensive to them. I think that offending them must have been the point, it was just done for a reaction, then people are offended by the reaction and everyone involved becomes a self righteous victim. I think football is silly, politicizing it is silly, reacting at the reactions of others reactions to it is silly, none of it productive.
@4of92000

@freemo
Yes, that's what I mean. If people actually thought about it, we'd see that some see the flag as representing the principles of America's founding as they understand them: all created equal, with inalienable rights, etc., that we continue to work toward.

Others would say it symbolizes the status quo which shows we have a long way to go to reach those ideals.

Then we could agree that we all seek the same ideals and understand that we may think the other is "wrong" about what they think the flag symbolizes, but could agree on the pursuit of truth, justice, and the American Way as it is supposed to be.

But posturing and virtue signaling seems to be what we're limited to.
@4of92000

@4of92000 @freemo
It also seems inconsistent with how we react to others, say a rainbow or German national socialist sky fabric.

I think symbols can be meaningful, but should lead to meaningful interaction rather than than frantic mutual condemnations.

@4of92000
, and we're believing in something even if it means risking everything.

If you disagree, then you should know your disagreement is over nothing. There's no meaning, no significance there. Why are you even talking?

I'd like to be consistent. Either it's not meaningful and both the protesters and those protesting the protesters are all doing nothing, just doing it loudly, or else it is significant and both sides should be heard out.

I suspect the reality is more nuanced : it's not the fabric of the flag that's meaningful, it's what it stands for as a symbol of the country, and what standing for the anthem means of doesn't. But this would lead to meaningful conversations, which the public seems adverse to.
@freemo

Overthrow the democratic process if you think we should protect the democratic process. #doublethink?

Non-government-run schools, from the earliest grades through universities can't be given tax dollars or will actively reject tax dollars because of all the strings attached. Government funding has, to date, meant government control.

It seems to be built into the nature of the centralized power to exercise it's power - it's the scorpion that rides the frog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

@ocdtrekkie Best part: Companies will be punished for contracting with or hiring an employee on public assistance, but it will be illegal for them to know if they're doing it.

What could go wrong with punishing people for something they're banned from knowing if they're doing?

@ocdtrekkie

"...corporations pay their employees poverty
wages, causing workers to rely on government assistance..."

Or is it that the government assistance programs create an artificially low "livable wage" because they can live on the combination of their wages and the government assistance programs?

Perhaps Sanders will think they should introduce lower limits to the government programs? Nope:

"Large companies, not taxpayers, should be required to pay for federal public assistance programs that their employees are eligible
to receive."

Because companies will never ever pass on their expenses to taxpayers. Their expenses are paid by magic money from nowhere.