Jump to content

Weigh In: Nike and Kaepernick = Freedom of speech?


misteraven

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 6Pennies said:

Nike is all the buzz. The analytics are in:

 

"Nike received $43million worth of media exposure with a majority weighing in as neutral to positive."

 

https://hypebeast.com/2018/9/nike-colin-kaepernick-43-million-usd-media-exposure

The stock also set to take a 10% dip. Not sure 43 million in media exposure offsets that.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/news/nike-stock-could-drop-10-after-kaepernick-gamble/

Edited by Kults
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Kults the nike stock already back up. Hoping some people bought the dip.

 

Truth be told, the old white people probably don't make up much of Nike's target market.

At this point in time, Nike NEEDS to be making bold moves.

They have been losing tons of people to Adidas and other sneakers brands recently. 

Pureboost was a game changer for Adidas, and came right when the Jordan market was totally over-saturated.

Combine that with the success of Yeezy line and declining domestic sales and you have a bit of pressure.

 

Whether you like the police or not, you can't deny that the treatment for different races is the same across the board. 

I am a white dude and have been caught several times doing things that would have resulted in jail for my black friends. 

The problem is that people who don't experience this firsthand, do not really understand. 

Of course many of the people involved in these situations could have handled themselves better. But once you have established a precedent of violence, it is not surprising that people would be scared and irrational. Both cops and citizens. 

The people who sit comfortably in upper class are the ones who have the real sway w politics and have real influence. These people just think it is "thugs" or criminals. When you have a long term war on drugs, it is easy to dismiss the victims as criminals or the enemy. 

And while many times it is some crazy fuck who doesn't listen to the police, there are innocent people that get harassed because of the crazy fucks actions, or a bad actor cops actions, and the cycle perpetuates this paranoia. 

If everyone had experienced the police the same way, we would quickly be de-escalating the militarization of law enforcement.

 

I'm very caffeinated right now and rambling like a mothefucker. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

An argument could even be made that they have a contract, and nowhere in that contract  is making a statement, political or otherwise is forbidden.

 

I feel like taking that angle is counterproductive, using a minor technicality like that ignores the real issues at play here. I get it, because of the double standard our society has when it comes to white dudes commenting on black dudes. The reality of the situation is this has nothing to do with "He made a statement while on the clock" and both sides know it. This has everything to do with the statement itself, which there are very valid arguments against.

None of us are aware of the specifics of dude's contract, but considering how often these guys have gotten in trouble, you can rest assured there's going to be a lot of language in it regarding contact and haven seen a shit load of contracts, I'd also bet a lot has been inserted that's purposely vague so it can cover unforeseen events. I'm willing to bet that the NFL isn't happy with the situation, because its bad for business. Him being a contracted employee and on the clock makes any further discussion in that regard a moot point. The work place, while at work, isn't the time or place to bring your personal crusades. I'd see it as the same thing if a bible thumping christian decided to turn their cubicle into a shrine to promote their religious belief. I 100% support their freedom of religion, but if the boss says its not acceptable (whether it hurts business or not), then I'd understand and respect an option to terminate that employee if they didn't heed the warning.

 

Now to address the backlash... Indeed, the backlash doesn't stem from people unhappy about him chasing a personal issue on the clock. In fact, I do believe his reason to protest has genuine merit. My issue is that, his approach to it is all wrong and that if his intent is to sincerely help solve the situation he's protesting about, there are far more productive ways to do so. I do believe there's an agenda at play and I also believe that based on what I've seen these last years, that dividing the country further seems to either be at the core of it or desirable side affect. I also believe that marginalizing white people and especially white males as we've been seeing increasingly in these last years is having the exact opposite effect if your goal is equality or even helping address the injustice in minorities in this country. Personally, I do not at all believe that the average white male is a racist, privileged, misogynistic homophobe as the narrative seems intent on having us believe. But I do believe that like cornering everything from humans to animals that if you keep backing them up against a wall, you're unlikely to see a response indicative of their best behavior. A dog can both simultaneously not be a mean animal, yet be backed into a corner and become aggressive.

 

What's happening with all this is not good for the cause being protested and not good for this country. I'm not at all saying that police violence shouldn't be addressed, but the way this is going about it is certainly not going to solve the issue and further to that, I think the entire thing is being leveraged to fan the flames of animosity and division and truly bringing out the worst in both sides.

 

Side note, in an ironic twist of fate, there's a lot of study that goes into the theory and evidence that a lot of reasons for all the bad behavior and incidents has to do with equality in the work force. That police are being forced to fill specific quotas, rather than hire the right person for the job and the consequences of that is we have a distribution of labor that looks great on paper, but is compromised in practice. The theory makes sense, but can't say I subscribe to it myself, as I've yet to put much time and effort into researching it so I can draw a fair conclusion. Just wanted to put that out there.

 

1 hour ago, +plus+ said:

Whether you like the police or not, you can't deny that the treatment for different races is the same across the board. 

I am a white dude and have been caught several times doing things that would have resulted in jail for my black friends. 

There's also lots of evidence that statistically more white people are killed by cops than black. We can curve for this by instead looking at per capita numbers so we get the result we want and ignore the fact that on average more white lives are ended by police than black, but I think this actually is the wrong line of thinking. More blacks, by far, take the lives of other blacks each year. That has been the case for decades. Literally more black lives are lost in a single holiday weekend in Chicago than what will be ended by cops justified or not. I'm not at all excusing the injustice of black lives lost to cops. It's hard for me to not see this as low hanging fruit. A very effective hot button issue to pull out when you want to get people riled up. If the goal is to save black lives and improve their chances for a successful life and the pursuit of happiness we all have a right to, my thought is you'd be looking at what's truly holding back most of that demographic. Again, hard to not see this as an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah... And I do believe Nike is playing a dangerous game here.

 

Getting preached at by celebrities and influencers has been a thing for a few years now. In fact, there was a ton of study and discussion about how this very strategy backfired in a huge way during the last presidential election for HRC. Reality is that all's it'll do is reinforce the echo chamber while repelling everyone else, including those that are on the fence. As we also saw from the last election, we're now living in an atmosphere where there's a large segment of the population that are weary, if not scared to state their true opinions. The opposition will call it racism / sexism / whateverism but what we will see is that they'll react in surprising ways (again, not all that different than backing an animal into a corner).

 

Regardless, (and again ironic), that often the loudest voices out there accusing others of privilege are coming from the most privileged amongst us. I couldn't care less about what a multi millionaire celebrity / athlete / *influencer* has to say about how I should be living my life. We all live in different realities, but there's could hardly be further from my own, so how can they possibly relate? Double that and times it by 1000 as far as a corporation p[reaching to me.

  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, misteraven said:

Oh yeah... And I do believe Nike is playing a dangerous game here.

 

Getting preached at by celebrities and influencers has been a thing for a few years now. In fact, there was a ton of study and discussion about how this very strategy backfired in a huge way during the last presidential election for HRC. Reality is that all's it'll do is reinforce the echo chamber while repelling everyone else, including those that are on the fence. As we also saw from the last election, we're now living in an atmosphere where there's a large segment of the population that are weary, if not scared to state their true opinions. The opposition will call it racism / sexism / whateverism but what we will see is that they'll react in surprising ways (again, not all that different than backing an animal into a corner).

 

Regardless, (and again ironic), that often the loudest voices out there accusing others of privilege are coming from the most privileged amongst us. I couldn't care less about what a multi millionaire celebrity / athlete / *influencer* has to say about how I should be living my life. We all live in different realities, but there's could hardly be further from my own, so how can they possibly relate? Double that and times it by 1000 as far as a corporation p[reaching to me.

100% agree with all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that last post raven is well thought out. 

 

My problem is that all of these really reactionary people seem to think there is an army of SJW types out there with a huge agenda. 

I see way more people complaining and acting out against this than I see the SJW types.

Like no this isn't a new world order trying to kill white people, just perhaps you could not have a noose in your yard with a fuckin football in it.

I also live in Texas so maybe my exposure to the liberal stereo type everyone hates is limited. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kults said:

https://moneyandmarkets.com/levis-gun-control/

 

Levis now... When does it end

Yeah, I found that one to be particularly disturbing personally.

 

Suppose it makes sense with them bing based out of SF and all, but way to alienate the culture that built that brand and helped make them an American heritage company.

 

Now to burn my Levis! *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Kidding. I actually generally wear Japanese Selvedge denim. Not even sure I own a pair of Levi's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, +plus+ said:

If corporations are people, then don't they get a voice in politics. #trollface.jpg

Actually, that's a profound change that actually occurred under the Obama administration in 2010. (Go back and read previous rants about how as far as the bigger picture, there's little real difference between both parties if you tune out the rhetoric and analyze their actions). Note that the way legislation occurs is that its introduced in the lower chamber, goes on to a vote by the upper chamber and then gets signed into law by the president, so don't let the kool aid drinkers slack when they say it was a republican congress that steamrolled the president. They're all a part of this in order to make it law, which goes to show you how the checks and balances in our two party system have largely become meaningless at the end of the day.

 

Legally, corporations are people and thus allowed to contribute financially to politicians. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Yeah, I found that one to be particularly disturbing personally.

 

Suppose it makes sense with them bing based out of SF and all, but way to alienate the culture that built that brand and helped make them an American heritage company.

 

Now to burn my Levis! *

I like their cuts, I own about 4 pairs. The 512 Slim Tapers are just amazing. Its also nice to be able to buy em off the rack in the right length, hems never look right. What a clown move though. Shit on your bread and butter customers, pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raven-

 

There is a long standing tradition of performing the anthem at sporting events for the audience, for whom participation is optional. In the late aughts owners decided to mandate participation of players and in so doing hoisted upon them a very peculiar job requirement which many would view as objectionable. Requiring declarations of political unity as a condition of employment strikes me as deeply unamerican.

 

 I am a white working class american and have never felt marginalized along racial lines. I think it can be difficult to quantify but certainly racism is alive and well in America and I have met many average white men who were deeply racist. To assert that white americans are cornered animals and that backlash is a natural consequence seems unfounded to me. What are the offences being struck against the white race and what are the limits to a justified backlash are the natural questions of follow, is it okay for the police to kill a man for selling loose cigarettes because city hall has an affirmative action hiring program?

 

Which police hiring quotas are you referring to, I am skeptical of giving veterans a hands up in the hiring process because I feel that the militarization of the domestic police force is part of the problem. If the assertion is that police violence is on the rise because white men are getting edged out of the job by women and minorities I would be deeply skeptical.

 

Looking at per capita numbers a natural and perfectly honest approach, so would be the use of statistics; the rejection of established math is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

Black on black violence in the inner city is an american tragedy, to be sure, but it does not negate the right to life and liberty. A high murder rate in a city is a clear failing of the police department and of civil society as a whole but does not mitigate the reasonability of the police to act with appropriate restraint.

 

As for the police killing white people, they should not be killing people in general and one can only assume that looking for solutions to excessive use of violence and deadly force has the potential in improving outcomes across the board.

 

 

To the stated topic of the thread, I took a glance at the campaign itself and found it to be pretty bullshity, I hate that you can do anything if you are confident enough schtick, and I have not watched a football game all the way though since the Rams were in the superbowl back in the nineties, and that was a one off. The last time I wore Nike's I was in middle school  and in the general case I tend to think of myself as somewhat immune to marketing when it comes to shoes although I have to admit that the Salomon videos on youtube may have played a role in the last pair of running shoes I purchased.

 

 

 

Edited by morton
  • Like 1
  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the slow response. In laws in town this weekend and literally logged zero computer time.

 

On 9/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, morton said:

Raven-

 

There is a long standing tradition of performing the anthem at sporting events for the audience, for whom participation is optional. In the late aughts owners decided to mandate participation of players and in so doing hoisted upon them a very peculiar job requirement which many would view as objectionable. Requiring declarations of political unity as a condition of employment strikes me as deeply unamerican.

Not sure I agree with the opening statement. I happen to believe in a free market system. An employer should be free to decide the terms of employment and an employee should have the right to decide whether they care to be in their employ. There's obviously exceptions and some complexities, but so long as there's transparency and consistency to this, I believe that a free market and free society will ultimately find equilibrium. In this specific case, I think we can largely all agree that to be a professionally paid athlete is a privilege that few manage to attain, which makes me think that if a league makes the request to not only play the sport at the highest levels of performance, but goes on to demand a specific level of conduct both on and off the field, that it is well within the limits of reason to make that request considering what players are paid, as well as the impact on ancillary revenues outside just ticket sales to watch a game. (Imagine that merch probably brings in as much revenue or more than the game ticket sales and licensing royalties from broadcasts). Again, look at this using a different analogy... What if a stripper decides to start her dance by praying just before getting on stage? Freedom of religion and all that, but maybe that sets the wrong tone for the patrons that spent $30 at the door to go in and participate in an entirely different type of experience and are instead turned off by this. In either case, why should an employer be forced to accept a situation thats bad for business?

 

On 9/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, morton said:

I am a white working class american and have never felt marginalized along racial lines. I think it can be difficult to quantify but certainly racism is alive and well in America and I have met many average white men who were deeply racist. To assert that white americans are cornered animals and that backlash is a natural consequence seems unfounded to me. What are the offences being struck against the white race and what are the limits to a justified backlash are the natural questions of follow, is it okay for the police to kill a man for selling loose cigarettes because city hall has an affirmative action hiring program?

Because you have felt marginalized doesn't mean many others havent. I've heard plenty of minorities say they've never felt discriminated against. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen regularly to plenty of others. Obviously you can understand the danger in blanket statements, even if only implied.

 

What I'm saying is the "cornered" analogy is that if you back anyone up against a wall, you're likely to not see their best behavior in response. I've made no statement as to whether its wrong, right, justified or not. Only that if you simply observe, you're most likely to see a negative response from humans and animals when they feel cornered (threatened). Doesn't even need to be true, they just need to feel that way.

 

In regards to the guy selling cigarettes, I made no mention of him or anything similar. Personally I agree that entire situation was completely wrong and the verdict on it is only made it all worse. One thing to keep in mind (though yet another discussion altogether), is that is a classic example fo how the state carries out law. We all need to really think through if we truly need a new *rule* as that rule is ultimately carried out through the threat of violence. Warnings are carried out through the threat of fines. Fines are carried out through the threat of incarceration. Incarceration is carried out through the threat of violence.

 

On 9/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, morton said:

Which police hiring quotas are you referring to, I am skeptical of giving veterans a hands up in the hiring process because I feel that the militarization of the domestic police force is part of the problem. If the assertion is that police violence is on the rise because white men are getting edged out of the job by women and minorities I would be deeply skeptical.

Most law enforcement, and in fact most government jobs, include hiring quotas. Often times the best candidate is passed over because they need to fulfill the obligation of those quotas. Whether its being forced to hire a woman so that the genders in that work environment are somewhat balanced or hiring a minority or specific race for the same reason, you're hiring for a trait rather than quality. The trait being sought after is driven by a sense of political correctness rather than the best individual to do the job. You can see how that might lead to issues in jobs that are particularly demanding physically, mentally and emotionally like LEO and Fire Dept.

 

I never suggested we staff cops with veterans. And militarization of the police has little to do with a persons background and almost everything to do with the equipment, protocols and rules of engagement. Problem we see now is that we've made entirely too many rules, then have people enforcing them that aren't necessarily the best qualified to be doing so. Then somewhere along the lines, we thought it would be smart to provide military grade hardware, while also not providing specific rules of engagement or proper training.

 

On 9/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, morton said:

Black on black violence in the inner city is an american tragedy, to be sure, but it does not negate the right to life and liberty. A high murder rate in a city is a clear failing of the police department and of civil society as a whole but does not mitigate the reasonability of the police to act with appropriate restraint.

Never negated the right to life in liberty. In fact, I most often speak to the importance of this as the driving force in how we need to look at most aspects of government and governing. I merely brought that up as my point of view on how I felt it discredits the argument. If your concern is the welfare of a segment of society, I'd think you'd focus on what the largest thing affecting them is. Of course anyone can concern themselves with any issue big or small that they want, but the fact that I keep seeing mainstream media and spotlight going to very directional issues consistently rather than the underlying root, makes me skeptical. Likewise, when the issues homogenize to the point that it becomes about the welfare of the greater good, then it would only make sense we look at what affects the greater many.

 

On 9/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, morton said:

As for the police killing white people, they should not be killing people in general and one can only assume that looking for solutions to excessive use of violence and deadly force has the potential in improving outcomes across the board.

No doubt, but that's the world we've created. Obviously (at least again in my opinion), you have to factor in the human condition, which includes the human potential for evil and violence, which in turn can exist on both sides of that *thin blue line*, but when we've created hundreds of thousands of laws, while continually crying out for more of them, then hire more and more police, that in turn are often poorly trained (again, another topic in itself) and not always the best selection to begin with... Then civilians being killed, intentionally or not and justified or not, is the result.

 

Maybe we need to rethink a lot of the laws, as well as rethink how we go about enforcing them if the issue is police misconduct. 

 

Again, I do not see this as the heart of the issue. Rather I see this as a hot button topic that the mainstream media (and whoever pulls their strings) is relishing in. Maybe convincing people that there might be a greater conspiracy at play is a stretch for some, but people would have to have their heads deep in the sand to not recognize the click bait stickyness to these stories and how they're being manipulated and amplified to keep people engaged. Meanwhile how that argument is steadily dividing people or at the very least keeping their focus (standing for the pledge of allegiance) while lots of larger issues go virtually ignored (crime in our inner cities and low income neighborhoods, which most often seem to be populated by blacks and minorities).

 

On 9/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, morton said:

To the stated topic of the thread, I took a glance at the campaign itself and found it to be pretty bullshity, I hate that you can do anything if you are confident enough schtick, and I have not watched a football game all the way though since the Rams were in the superbowl back in the nineties, and that was a one off. The last time I wore Nike's I was in middle school  and in the general case I tend to think of myself as somewhat immune to marketing when it comes to shoes although I have to admit that the Salomon videos on youtube may have played a role in the last pair of running shoes I purchased.

I agree. I believe it was very poorly thought out and at best, very short sighted. I'd have a very tough time believing that by now, Nike isn't regretting their decision with it. Besides having been parodied to death, which in turn sort of trivializes the subject that was being addressed by CK in many ways, it also presents poorly to those that you can easily argue have actually sacrificed everything.

 

Personally, I'm unsure what CK actually has sacrificed. Seems to me he willingly traded one opportunity for another. I haven't heard of him losing his mansion, his millions or anything any of us might recognize as sacrifice. Meanwhile, in most circles, especially after almost 3 decades of straight war, when you speak of sacrificing everything, it typically refers to coming home in a box draped in the American flag.

 

-----------

 

On a final note, I'm not looking to say I'm right and you're wrong. We each have the right to our own opinions. I'm merely explaining how I got to mine.

  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...