Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[ObsidianJones]

*snips*

To be clear, no. Kaepernick was cancelled for daring to Protest the "dirty secret" that most people know but do not want to ever acknowledge. He was cancelled by the party that's so up in arms about the very idea of cancelling... as long as it has to do with conservatives. I mean, even the way you just quantify his removal having to do with his performance is semi-galling. It's already been stated that it wasn't his performance that affected his employment.

"No teams wanted to sign a player—even one as talented as Kaepernick—whom they saw as controversial, and, therefore, bad for business."

Kaepernick's protests have returned to the national spotlight after George Floyd, a black man, died Monday evening while being violently apprehended by Minneapolis police. Floyd's death has sparked many reactions from athletes, and protests have broken out in multiple cities across the nation.

Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem during the 2016 preseason. Dozens of other NFL players ultimately joined him, and the protests grew during the 2017 season after President Donald Trump criticized NFL players who chose to follow suit. Trump said owners should "fire" NFL players who protest the anthem and referred to them as "son of b------." Players responded by protesting en masse.

Kaepernick was not playing during the 2017 season and, according to Lockhart, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL executives tried to persuade teams to sign the QB. Lockhart said owners continued to worry about the financial impact, and one team executive told him that the club projected losing 20% of its season ticket holders if it brought on Kaepernick.

"That was a business risk no team was willing to take, whether the owner was a Trump supporter or a bleeding-heart liberal (yes, those do exist). As bad of an image problem it presented for the league and the game, no owner was willing to put the business at risk over this issue," said Lockhart, now a CNN legal analyst.

That is the essence of being cancelled as most of the right who constantly talk about this thing. Having an opinion. Expressing it.

This stuff

Nike shoes burn on social media as Colin Kaepernick features in ‘Just Do It’ campaign - National | Globalnews.ca

In featuring Kaepernick, Nike VP Gino Fisanotti called him "one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation."

globalnews.ca

It is no different than Dave Chappelle who you spoke in defense for when he wouldn't back down about his thoughts on Transgendered.

It is no different than Gina Carano who you spoke in defense for when she wouldn't back down about her thoughts on how governments use politics to divide and conquer using the Jews as a reference. And when you spoke in defense of her views on the Transgenders.

It is no different than Scott Cawthon who you spoke in defense for when it was found out that he was donating heavily to Republican Political Figures. To which you defended by saying he didn't have a magic ball to see the future that they would cause harm. Did he have the internet? Because it's really easy to see what figures like Mitch McConnell and Tulsi Gabbard has done in the past.

Mitch McConnell | GLAAD

Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate As Senator and Senate Majority Leader — Blocked a vote on an amendment that would have stopped the Trump Administration’s ban on transgender military personnel. — Co-sponsored both the 2004 and the 2006 versions of the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment...

www.glaad.org

Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy | CNN Politics

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in the early 2000s touted working for her father's anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against same-sex marriage in Hawaii and promoted controversial conversion therapy.

www.cnn.com

And it's super funny. Gabbard seems to be the only 'Democrat' Cawthon donated to, and she just happened to have an anti-gay past. Patterns seem to be emerging... or emerged about Cawthon's spending habits.

Is the line that Dave's the best comedian of our time that he gets a pass? If Disney came out and said they are dropping Carano because she was a bad actress, would you surmise it had anything to do with her outspoken and very Anti Disney's public image? Cawthon makes really bad games that hundreds of Youtube talking heads made famous by screaming over them. Was it the bad games that drew ire, or was it because he was donating to politicians that could hinder people who just so happened to be born a certain way?

Kaepernick used his fame/career to bring about a matter that he felt was important. He used his time to express it. He's exactly the same as Dave Chappelle. The only difference is really their opinions. You defend one, you lambast the other. All one is left with is to think it's not a matter of protecting speech, but protecting the speech that agrees with your sensibilities.

I mean, you're showing your bias/perception here. BLM isn't killed. It helped organized one of the most cohesive movements on this literal planet. As with most Black Movements, it was taken and redefined almost immediately from when it was founded. Fox News's obsession with them are well-documented. Going as far as calling them a hate group and never speaking about their principles, but what they in turn believed BLM to be.

How Fox News' Primetime Lineup Demonized Black Lives Matter In 2015

www.mediamatters.org

BILL O'REILLY: I think they're a hate group, they hate police officers ... they hate them, they want them dead.

[...]

They're a hate group and I'm going to tell you right now I'm going to put them out of business. And any media person who supports them, I'm going to put them on this program and put their picture right up on the air.

And I assume you're talking about the Property Purchases the co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors did? Do you have direct proof that she siphoned donations to pay for those properties? You realize she's an author and signed deals with Warner Bros for her input on media, right? You have no proof. You have conjecture. And you have a movement you dislike. You're repeating other people's conjecture.

And let it be known. If she did do a malfeasance, let her be taken to the highest court in the land and have her pay restitutions while serving her time. I don't care that she supported a movement I'm for. But she's convicted of nothing. Nothing was proven. And you along side others didn't wait a second to actually substantiate anything because the soundbite is just too good to pass up. Isn't this literally what you and others got upset about CNN and/or the Left in this post?

Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Except that these people are spreading harmful lies that other people are accepting as gospel truth, making the problem worse, allowing a deadly disease to spread and placing my life in danger. So yes, despite your "no no, don't look at the man behind the curtain" spiel, I do have justification...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Well in part that's because the some of the American left just spreads it's claims via the news or at least prominent social media pundits more directly lol.

Did people ever find the Russians who hacked the US election voting machines like was claimed? How about the Trump Pee tape was there ever any evidence? How about when they claimed Boris Johnson becoming UK prime minister initially was unconstitutional in the UK and Treason? Trump is rushing the vaccine? How about the mostly peaceful riots? The Police shooting fireworks at protesters when the fireworks were coming from behind the front line or protestors? How about Trump stealing the boy hat?

In concordance of your own views, I await your proof on BLM's trespasses that you've mentioned. The smoking gun that they found that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people took donations to buy property. When you supply that, you have a point and I'm on your side.

And proof has the same burden of what would be needed in a court of law. Not some articles repeating the fact that Cullors bought property. But documents that show the tangible removal of funds from the donations that went into the purchase of these properties.

Look, I'll be honest. I'm really not understanding your point with the threads you post. I didn't get any sleep last night, and I might be more obtuse than normal. My apologies. Before I respond, I want to be sure I'm tackling what you're saying precisely. Is it that you feel when you express matters of importance to you, people use those expressions as a way to combat you instead of addressing your concerns?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

To be clear, no. Kaepernick was cancelled for daring to Protest the "dirty secret" that most people know but do not want to ever acknowledge. He was cancelled by the party that's so up in arms about the very idea of cancelling... as long as it has to do with conservatives. I mean, even the way you just quantify his removal having to do with his performance is semi-galling. It's already been stated that it wasn't his performance that affected his employment.

He was good from most accounts, he isn't as good anymore

Also

'He had his chance to be here': John Elway says the Broncos won't consider signing Colin Kaepernick because he turned down a contract 2 years ago

The Broncos offered Colin Kaepernick a contract in 2016, but it included a pay cut of at least $4.9 million. Kaepernick turned it down, and he has still not been signed by a team since then.

www.businessinsider.com

As said he previously turned down teams and was seeking $11.9 Million or more and refused a $7 Million offer.

Kaepernick also Opted out of his 49ers contract to become a free agent

Kaepernick to opt out of contract, source says

Colin Kaepernick will be a free agent for the first time in his career as the quarterback has informed NFL teams that he will opt out of his contract.

www.espn.com

He's also alleged to have turned down a $900,000 a year offer too from another club

There's more stuff about his GF now being his representation agent and her having called the head of a club a Slave owner just before he was set to interview and other stuff going on.

Basically if it really were the case with Kaepernick being cancelled there would be a number of other plays not just in the NFL but NBA too cancelled too but there isn't.

That is the essence of being cancelled as most of the right who constantly talk about this thing. Having an opinion. Expressing it.

This stuff

Nike shoes burn on social media as Colin Kaepernick features in ‘Just Do It’ campaign - National | Globalnews.ca

In featuring Kaepernick, Nike VP Gino Fisanotti called him "one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation."

globalnews.ca

Um the main guy who was passed round social media for burning his Nike shoes, an internet comedian.

Did a Man Injure Himself by Setting the Nike Shoes He Was Wearing on Fire?

An internet hoax involving Nike shoes, an internet protest, and an unrelated photograph of a burn victim fooled a number of viewers in September 2018.

www.snopes.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It is no different than Dave Chappelle who you spoke in defense for when he wouldn't back down about his thoughts on Transgendered.

Kaepernick can still say his stuff though. Hell Nike was probably happy having it's name talked about so much.


Part of the argument and issues is with what people go to places for. People would or should expect jokes from a comedian. That's his artform. With sport people expect people to play. There's plenty of time after games and many other places to talk politics if they really want to. Kaepernick wasn't being paid for his political views by the NFL he was being paid to play.

It is no different than Gina Carano who you spoke in defense for when she wouldn't back down about her thoughts on how governments use politics to divide and conquer using the Jews as a reference. And when you spoke in defense of her views on the Transgenders.

She did so on her own social media platform. She didn't suddenly turn to the camera and start doing an unscripted political discussion in the middle of The Mandalorian though. If Kaepernick had been doing it on his social media I'd have far more sympathy for him.

It is no different than Scott Cawthon who you spoke in defense for when it was found out that he was donating heavily to Republican Political Figures. To which you defended by saying he didn't have a magic ball to see the future that they would cause harm. Did he have the internet? Because it's really easy to see what figures like Mitch McConnell and Tulsi Gabbard has done in the past.

Mitch McConnell | GLAAD

Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate As Senator and Senate Majority Leader — Blocked a vote on an amendment that would have stopped the Trump Administration’s ban on transgender military personnel. — Co-sponsored both the 2004 and the 2006 versions of the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment...

www.glaad.org

Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy | CNN Politics

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in the early 2000s touted working for her father's anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against same-sex marriage in Hawaii and promoted controversial conversion therapy.

www.cnn.com

And it's super funny. Gabbard seems to be the only 'Democrat' Cawthon donated to, and she just happened to have an anti-gay past. Patterns seem to be emerging... or emerged about Cawthon's spending habits.

Because
1) The info on Scott was literally dug up and posted online. Scott wasn't espousing views he was just making his games and novels and the upcoming movie
2) People were going at him (and still are throwing jabs) to an insane level such that he was apparently getting a number of death threats targeting his wife and kids.

Is the line that Dave's the best comedian of our time that he gets a pass? If Disney came out and said they are dropping Carano because she was a bad actress, would you surmise it had anything to do with her outspoken and very Anti Disney's public image? Cawthon makes really bad games that hundreds of Youtube talking heads made famous by screaming over them. Was it the bad games that drew ire, or was it because he was donating to politicians that could hinder people who just so happened to be born a certain way?

Kaepernick used his fame/career to bring about a matter that he felt was important. He used his time to express it. He's exactly the same as Dave Chappelle. The only difference is really their opinions. You defend one, you lambast the other. All one is left with is to think it's not a matter of protecting speech, but protecting the speech that agrees with your sensibilities.

Is it worth pointing out I'm also defending Ruby Rose over her Batwoman claims?

With Kaepernick isn't he also literally in a lawsuit with the NFL now too where heads of NFL teams are having to come in and try to argue he wasn't colluded against. That probably isn't helping him.

I can defend his right to say what he likes when he's hired to do that or in his own time. If Carano went on a tirade these days about Disney I'd not really expect Disney to work with her again. I don't think the CW at least if not maybe it's owners will want to work with Ruby Rose again at least until stuff is settled between them.

I mean, you're showing your bias/perception here. BLM isn't killed. It helped organized one of the most cohesive movements on this literal planet. As with most Black Movements, it was taken and redefined almost immediately from when it was founded. Fox News's obsession with them are well-documented. Going as far as calling them a hate group and never speaking about their principles, but what they in turn believed BLM to be.

How Fox News' Primetime Lineup Demonized Black Lives Matter In 2015

www.mediamatters.org

And I assume you're talking about the Property Purchases the co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors did? Do you have direct proof that she siphoned donations to pay for those properties? You realize she's an author and signed deals with Warner Bros for her input on media, right? You have no proof. You have conjecture. And you have a movement you dislike. You're repeating other people's conjecture.

She not the only one who has seemingly misused funds.

An Atlanta-based activist 'posing' as a Black Lives Matter leader is facing federal charges for misusing $200,000 worth of donations, FBI says

The FBI arrested an Atlanta-based activist who spent over $200,000 designated for the BLM movement on personal items like clothing, guns, and a house.

www.insider.com

Other sources suggest that could be as high as $450,000

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And let it be known. If she did do a malfeasance, let her be taken to the highest court in the land and have her pay restitutions while serving her time. I don't care that she supported a movement I'm for. But she's convicted of nothing. Nothing was proven. And you along side others didn't wait a second to actually substantiate anything because the soundbite is just too good to pass up. Isn't this literally what you and others got upset about CNN and/or the Left in this post?

Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Except that these people are spreading harmful lies that other people are accepting as gospel truth, making the problem worse, allowing a deadly disease to spread and placing my life in danger. So yes, despite your "no no, don't look at the man behind the curtain" spiel, I do have justification...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Are you trying to suggest Goop has some validity to it's nonsense?

Also it's entirely possible everything she did is 100% above board because worryingly it can be done that way and can work that way. With Activist organisations people in positions of power in them can just pay themselves huge amounts of money as their salary. As long as there's no contract saying they can't it's fine. The non profit part is the organisations don't get to seek profit pretty much.

Legal and moral end up as two different things quite often. There's little reason being presented for the property empire either which makes things worse.

In concordance of your own views, I await your proof on BLM's trespasses that you've mentioned. The smoking gun that they found that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people took donations to buy property. When you supply that, you have a point and I'm on your side.

And proof has the same burden of what would be needed in a court of law. Not some articles repeating the fact that Cullors bought property. But documents that show the tangible removal of funds from the donations that went into the purchase of these properties.

Look, I'll be honest. I'm really not understanding your point with the threads you post. I didn't get any sleep last night, and I might be more obtuse than normal. My apologies. Before I respond, I want to be sure I'm tackling what you're saying precisely. Is it that you feel when you express matters of importance to you, people use those expressions as a way to combat you instead of addressing your concerns?

Do I need to prove specifically donation money was used or can I just use logic to ask how the hell she got ~$1.4 Million to buy 3 of the properties and and alledges $1.4M again to buy the 4th property?
What did she win the Lottery or something? That kind of purchasing spree isn't within the bounds of most normal peoples budgets.

She may not have "Taken" donation money but based on the organisation structure she just paid herself the money as her "wages" it wouldn't be the first time it's happened either with organisations.

 

[Agema]

In concordance of your own views, I await your proof on BLM's trespasses that you've mentioned.

They ain't coming.

Everyone here knows Dwarvenhobble's schtick by now. Profess some sort of belief in left-wing values, and then attack and traduce every left-leaning individual and organisation in existence, usually off the back of fake Twitter/Reddit/4-chan rumours. At best this could be described as "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" It could be extreme ideological purity and hyper-intolerance for error. But the most likely is that it is simply a boring situation of a right-wing stooge pretending to be lefty in the hope it makes more of the accusations stick. And maybe Dwarvenhobble was once left-wing: just the intensely social conservative sort of whom many, with a few prods, switch allegiance to the far right.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

They ain't coming.

Everyone here knows Dwarvenhobble's schtick by now. Profess some sort of belief in left-wing values, and then attack and traduce every left-leaning individual and organisation in existence, usually off the back of fake Twitter/Reddit/4-chan rumours. At best this could be described as "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" It could be extreme ideological purity and hyper-intolerance for error. But the most likely is that it is simply a boring situation of a right-wing stooge pretending to be lefty in the hope it makes more of the accusations stick. And maybe Dwarvenhobble was once left-wing: just the intensely social conservative sort of whom many, with a few prods, switch allegiance to the far right.

Ah yes how dare I try to hold some level of consistency or suggest maybe "Just doing it because it seems good" isn't the best of ways to do the thing especially doing it without looking.

I want to see actual change not false feel good change where DC sprays some Superman Logos rainbow coloured and sells them off to people who think they're doing some great thing not merely lining the pockets of a massive corporation and helping them shift left over or excess stock. It's the performativeness of it all that gets to me. It's me being bitter and jaded watching the same kind of things happen but people seemingly not learning from the past. It's not hyper-intolerance to go "This is going / will go south doing this, focus on the objective and get this step done and dealing with these problems to keep going"

 

[Seanchaidh]

It is no different than Dave Chappelle who you spoke in defense for when he wouldn't back down about his thoughts on Transgendered.

Now, now, it's a little different. Kaepernick actually lost his job.

 

[Hades]

Part of the argument and issues is with what people go to places for. People would or should expect jokes from a comedian. That's his artform. With sport people expect people to play. There's plenty of time after games and many other places to talk politics if they really want to. Kaepernick wasn't being paid for his political views by the NFL he was being paid to play.

But does something like kneeling at the anthem stop them from playing? It doesn't right? Since the anthem starts before the match begins in earnest. A NFL player making a BLM gesture doesn't affect his playstyle.

And its also somewhat hypocritical since athletes wearing a ribbon indicating support or sympathy for certain causes is very often condoned. Had Trump or even Obama died of covid and American athletes had worn black ribbons to indicate grief of a president dying then most people who'd normally say ''take that *** off the field!'' would suddenly get really supportive of it.

And when a professional does pick the right moment to voice support for progressive causes it often meets the same opposition. I recall many right wing grifters still seething over Brie Larson having voiced her support at exactly the sort of moment they say the athletes should have revealed their opinions. So they can't voice support for those causes on the ''wrong'' time but also....not at the right time?

 

[Agema]

But does something like kneeling at the anthem stop them from playing? It doesn't right?

I don't think you get it. The view being advanced is that when you're on your employer's dime, they own you body, heart and soul.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Now, now, it's a little different. Kaepernick actually lost his job.

He quit his job. He wasn't actually fired. He then managed to for a number of reason not get positions with other teams and allegedly turned down a $900,000 contract because he felt he was worth more than that.

You're not seeing Dave Chappelle turning down Netflix going "Nah I'm done here I'll get some-one else to pay me and host this stuff" then turning round claiming he was cancelled.

But does something like kneeling at the anthem stop them from playing? It doesn't right? Since the anthem starts before the match begins in earnest. A NFL player making a BLM gesture doesn't affect his playstyle.

No but it does try to change the conversation away from the game itself. Part of the objections I've heard was coverage on sports networks shifting towards talking about the politics rather than the game. A "Here's whey they're doing it lets talk about these social issues" segment cropping up more often. It's the kind of reason Ex-Gawker property Deadspin died off because the writers wanted to write about politics and were told to stick to sport and why Deadspin lost out quite badly to the up and comer Barstool Sports.

And its also somewhat hypocritical since athletes wearing a ribbon indicating support or sympathy for certain causes is very often condoned. Had Trump or even Obama died of covid and American athletes had worn black ribbons to indicate grief of a president dying then most people who'd normally say ''take that *** off the field!'' would suddenly get really supportive of it.

Oddly in Uefa that's banned. As in clubs that do it can get fines and the England team did once get in trouble and fined for wearing Poppy arm bands when playing on Remembrance Day one year. Political gestures etc are also banned in the Olympics. With the arm band thing you could argue it comes off more as "We too remember them" and it's temporary while Kneeling is to try and force the issue as such by making it front and centre and hard to avoid as though people don't know about it. But arm bands are less obvious things so don't have the level of impact.

And when a professional does pick the right moment to voice support for progressive causes it often meets the same opposition. I recall many right wing grifters still seething over Brie Larson having voiced her support at exactly the sort of moment they say the athletes should have revealed their opinions. So they can't voice support for those causes on the ''wrong'' time but also....not at the right time?

The thing with Brie is man did she horribly fumble that point so badly. People kind of don't like being kind of lectured to and while Brie's speech had a point it was so badly delivered. Her point came off as a "Your views don't matter" rather than what it was likely intended as which I'd say would be "Different critics from different backgrounds can highlight different things that may be something more common among people from certain cultural or ethnic backgrounds so different films may speak to them in different ways." Like for example how a Japanese critic may pick up on more nuances and subtle stuff in Japanese films relating to elements of Japenese culture than a Western critic who may not be as familiar with very specific cultural things in Japan that aren't as well known about in the West.

It's often about how you present it because presenting something as "Yeh you can fuck off you're pointless" won't exactly get people on side unless they already hate said people. But "Hey this can improve things for everyone" tends to be more of a thing about building things up better.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I don't think you get it. The view being advanced is that when you're on your employer's dime, they own you body, heart and soul.

And the opposite view seems to be Employers are obliged to pay you to do activism rather than the job you were hired for.

 

[Gergar12]

In my world(in theory), any UN bureaucrat who begs billionaires on Twitter for handouts to their favorite charity would be arrested for attempted bribery.

Modern charities at the UN are extremely sus, literally, UN officials flying on first-class trips. I am against private jets, and I am against rent-seeking UN bureaucrats wasting money to get billionaires' tax write-offs.

And before anyone says, but Bernie, I am not fond of his private jet renting either, but Hillary Clinton pan-handling for money(given most of the criticism for his private jet renting comes from Neoliberals) for her "speeches" is worse, and it's not Bernie's fault she was a trash candidate who Bernie had to prop up with reactive reaction speeches.

Elon Musk offers to sell Tesla stock 'right now' if UN can show how $6 billion would solve world hunger | CNN Business

Elon Musk has offered to sell some of his Tesla stock "right now" if the UN can prove that $6 billion will solve world hunger.

www.cnn.com

Also, Elon Musk should be taxed vs donating his money to some the non-public-disclosing WFP so he can writeoff taxes

 

[Trunkage]

And the opposite view seems to be Employers are obliged to pay you to do activism rather than the job you were hired for.

Did... he not play football that day?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Did... he not play football that day?

Obviously his job is to sacrifice his health, mental and physical, for our amusement.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Did... he not play football that day?

He did. After.

Obviously his job is to sacrifice his health, mental and physical, for our amusement.

Is that opposed to the people who do that for 1/20 th of his salary even at the top of their field just because they're told they're helping advance society?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Something actually correct was said at a climate summit:

 

[ObsidianJones]

*snips*

... Ok, three posts. That's a lot. I'm going to condense a lot of this down.

To the Kaepernick point, In terms of being a professional athlete, you're paid what you asked for. If the job and the pay was all that mattered to him, I'm probably sure he wouldn't have continued to stick up for his morals and he would have did what's best for his pocket book. Which would have been shutting up and getting paid really stupid amounts of money for throwing around a ball.

Look at it this way. There are a lot of people who are going to miss out of work because they don't believe in Vaccines. Or at least the Covid one. If they were concerned about just having a job, they would get the jab and continued to work. They aren't doing that. They are standing by their prinicples. You get them doing that, right?

So say another place offers them the same job, but for a hell of a lot less pay. I'm sure everyone wants to work, but they don't want to work for less than they think they are worth. I feel you would support them for sticking to their guns and just not working their regular jobs. Same thing with Kaepernick.

To the guy who was passed around social media for burning his shoes being an internet comedian... ok... And the rest are as well? I'm not sure what your point is.

To your point of there being a time and place about where to make his protest, while you are right in a matter of factuality, you make a protest to be seen. If I had a protest right now in my bedroom against oil companies furthering their stranglehold over the world, who cares? No one will see it.

And if there was some part of his contract that stipulated playing of football actually encompasses standing for the flag, he's a poor negotiator. All of them will be. He, in fact, did play the games during game time. He didn't interrupt the game and sat there on the field to strengthen his protest. Like you said, he was paid to play. And if you can supply when he didn't play because of BLM, then you have a point. But if you can't, by your own logic he fulfilled the duties of his contract by playing.

To your Gina point... So you judge the acceptability of protests on how innocuous its impact is on your daily life? Like, the more unobtrusive it is, the more you accept it?

That's... not how protests work. Because if it was able to be solved by being polite, people wouldn't go to the uncomfortable.

To your Cawthon point, because he hid it and it was discovered, I can't help but to give you a resounding "... and?". If it was discovered that John Stewart (the paragon of Liberal thoughts and do-goodery) gave to a fringe group of socialist who were hellbent on getting more secular candidates in office to erode religion, would it really matter to you that his privacy was violated? Or that he was in cahoots to undermine things you believe will harm people's freedom to religious pursuits?

And if your answer is something as simple as "I'd give it equal footing", then you must understand that we can just point to this case that you have not given equal footing to Cawthon. You talked about him donating without knowing, and that it's a shame that his private life was exposed, but not that he seemingly had a predisposition for funding anti-gay movements. Even going as far as giving to the one out democrat who has had anti-gay dealings. Waiting for the condemnation to make it equal.

I'm not a hundred percent sure what you mean about Ruby Rose.

I had to compose myself to that "She isn't the only one that seemingly misused funds". You have no proof that she did. And you're still speaking about it like there's any substance to the claims. The woman is retained by a media giant. That's not 5 figures money. That most likely isn't 6 figures money. You have no proof other than "I don't know where she got the money to do that".

And your other link literally spelled it out in the title. He was kicked out, and then he posed as a leader or something to collect funds. He was found out and then brought to justice. But guess what? Even if he was an ardent believer that wanted to line his pockets, he's no different than other people who run similar scams. Like the Tierney Brothers who foundd out what that hot buttons issues were for Republicans, and soaked them for 23 Million

Do we call to question every Republican PAC now? The Republican movement itself because of this one guy? Or others like him? No. We realize that there's oppurntists everywhere. And to call good and honest Republicans into doubt because of the actions of these scammers is an insult to logic.

To your Goop comment. I'm attempting to take this seriously. I don't really mess around with redirections any more. I've banned Tstorm, Houseman, and others because of it. I really know nothing about Goop. I'm talking about how you took the stance. Goop itself is immaterial.

I quoted the part that I meant and you excluded it. You asked about people who made claims and did anyone find the evidence. The Pee tapes and what not. You have a person who signed a deal with a media group buying houses, and a guy who was ousted from the movement who contacted people directly to get a payday. You have no evidence for Culler, and yet you still speak of her like your doubt is damn near fact. Something you supposedly dislike.

And yes, you do have to prove with evidence that specifically that donation money was used. Because this isn't a game. This is someone's life that you're slandering. Because we live in a society where laws and fairness of how it's governed matters. You can't just make up accusations and go "What, all of a sudden I need proof?". Because once again, I can logic up a response.

She teaches at two different Colleges.

She's an author of a Book When They Call You Terrorist.

She has a multi-year deal with Warner Brothers as a developer of programming.

She has another book that will drop October 5th of this year.

So, we don't know how long she's been saving up to purchase these properties, but she has income from two college teaching jobs, not to mention her possible Advance for the first book, money from the sales, and the Advance of her second book, and whatever payment she worked out with Warner Brothers. For all you know, she's this short from 'rolling in it'. And instead of looking at these reasonable conclusions of how she can afford to buy properties, you stick to corrupt instead of looking at a hard working woman and thinking she might have been using some of that hard work to fund her life.

Do you get why people might question your motives for wanting to believe the worst of this lady that you don't even know when presented with all of that?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So I hear congratulations are in order to Virginia for their new white lieutenant Governor according to a Daily Beast blogger


cue curb you enthusiasm music

 

[Hawki]

Snip

Whiteness hasn't been defeated. She's just enacting it and being white-adjacent.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

... Ok, three posts. That's a lot. I'm going to condense a lot of this down.

To the Kaepernick point, In terms of being a professional athlete, you're paid what you asked for. If the job and the pay was all that mattered to him, I'm probably sure he wouldn't have continued to stick up for his morals and he would have did what's best for his pocket book. Which would have been shutting up and getting paid really stupid amounts of money for throwing around a ball.

Yet he chose to exit his contract, he wasn't removed from it. The thing he gets to do now is play at being a Martyr. He's still claiming the league colluded to keep him out while in theory that $900K offer still stands. He's trying to get back into the league while claiming it's like slavery

Colin Kaepernick compares NFL to slavery in new Netflix show

Show is latest high-profile critique from former NFL quarterback, who became famous for kneeling during national anthem

www.independent.co.uk

When his lawsuit against the NFL ends there might even be a concrete legal verdict one way or another as to is he definitely was deemed to be been colluded against too.

Look at it this way. There are a lot of people who are going to miss out of work because they don't believe in Vaccines. Or at least the Covid one. If they were concerned about just having a job, they would get the jab and continued to work. They aren't doing that. They are standing by their prinicples. You get them doing that, right?

So why's he still trying to work in the NFL again and his lawsuit is over the idea the NFL won't give him a job if he truly didn't want it?

So say another place offers them the same job, but for a hell of a lot less pay. I'm sure everyone wants to work, but they don't want to work for less than they think they are worth. I feel you would support them for sticking to their guns and just not working their regular jobs. Same thing with Kaepernick.

Dude left an $11M a year contract because he thought he was worth $24 Million a year. Sure I could get turning down the $7 Million and the $900,000 when you're on $11M but quitting that to try for more without any offers on the table that's rather different. Hell if you're being offered what is over 10 times a regular persons yearly salary I'd still take that but I wouldn't have quit the $11M a year contract either to begin with.

To the guy who was passed around social media for burning his shoes being an internet comedian... ok... And the rest are as well? I'm not sure what your point is.

Based on recognising a few of them from other stuff, they're mostly Trolls and comedians I think a few of them are actual idiots doing it but mostly yeh it was people being played.