Honoring servicemembers at sporting events

[Hank]

Like many other board members, I've never understood why we do this. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know when or how it started. As a retired soldier, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable being out there on the ice/field and politely decline the invitation when offered to me. But to care enough to have a negative feeling about it? I don't understand that either. Personally, if you're someone who feels "uncomfortable" when someone is being honored I think it speaks volumes about your lack of character as a man. At least you are self aware enough to know you're an inferior man and you feel accordingly. Perhaps it's better to keep those feelings to yourself and not expose yourself as the weak, pathetic inferior man that you are. 

[SwampD]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

Like many other board members, I've never understood why we do this. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know when or how it started. As a retired soldier, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable being out there on the ice/field and politely decline the invitation when offered to me. But to care enough to have a negative feeling about it? I don't understand that either. Personally, if you're someone who feels "uncomfortable" when someone is being honored I think it speaks volumes about your lack of character as a man. At least you are self aware enough to know you're an inferior man and you feel accordingly. Perhaps it's better to keep those feelings to yourself and not expose yourself as the weak, pathetic inferior man that you are.  

I don't like them because they aren't genuine. They are paid advertisements.

The last time I went to a Bills game, I couldn't believe how far they have taken it. It wasn't just before the game and the anthem. They carted someone out every other commercial break. So instead of enjoying a fun afternoon in the fall with my friends, that I had paid a ton of money for, we kept getting interrupted and had to stand all somber like, being reminded just how sh!tty the world is. I won't be going to another NFL game. Ever.

Edited September 8, 2018 by SwampD

[Randall Flagg]

I fall sorta in the middle here - I don't get a single vibe of true patriotism from paid-for anthem/dedication services 5000 times per year at a game. There are other settings where I am far more likely to be in a reflective, contemplative, patriotic mindset. I cannot connect what guys like Kaepernick do to a disrespect of "troops" because his intentions have literally nothing to do with the armed forces of the United States. However, I don't think his freedom of speech is in question, and I have zero qualms with the NFL doing what they wish in regards to maintaining a view consistent with what their consumers want, and so I don't mind the NFL fining players and banning it or whatever. 

I can't really picture feeling so angry towards Kaepernick, even if I were to fundamentally disagree with his premise and his methods, that I'd buy a shirt with his profile in gun crosshairs, like I saw all over the place when we played the 9ers a couple years ago. This is sickening to me.

At the same time, I think the people who are offended by what Kaepernick does have a point when they think that the side yelling at them (I see this whole thing as two sides yelling back and forth at each other) is missing out on something that a guy like Hank or nfreeman or Neo would probably be able to much more eloquently describe/understand than I could. On a more general level than a song during a game. 

I think they should play the anthem on 9/11 and for the Super Bowl. It'd be epic and meaningful then, IMO. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Weave]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

Like many other board members, I've never understood why we do this. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know when or how it started. As a retired soldier, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable being out there on the ice/field and politely decline the invitation when offered to me. But to care enough to have a negative feeling about it? I don't understand that either. Personally, if you're someone who feels "uncomfortable" when someone is being honored I think it speaks volumes about your lack of character as a man. At least you are self aware enough to know you're an inferior man and you feel accordingly. Perhaps it's better to keep those feelings to yourself and not expose yourself as the weak, pathetic inferior man that you are. 

 

I feel the same way about the folks that get ruffled up at the anthem protestors. 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

 

I feel the same way about the folks that get ruffled up at the anthem protestors. 

I don't get ruffled up at all. As I said, I just don't understand it. But I do have an opinion on what type of a man would be made to feel"uncomfortable" in the presence of a servicemember being honored. If you're that type of man it might benefit you to do some deep reflecting on who and what type of man you are. I don't understand why we do it either, but it's become an acceptable norm in our society. No man should feel uncomfortable being in the presence of it during a sporting event. 

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

I don't get ruffled up at all. As I said, I just don't understand it. But I do have an opinion on what type of a man would be made to feel"uncomfortable" in the presence of a servicemember being honored. If you're that type of man it might benefit you to do some deep reflecting on who and what type of man you are. I don't understand why we do it either, but it's become an acceptable norm in our society. No man should feel uncomfortable being in the presence of it during a sporting event. 

Try looking at it from another viewpoint.  Noone is uncomfortable with a service man being honored.  The discomfort is from the coerced patriotism.  It's like a devout Christian being felt pressured to participate in a pagan ritual because someone is being honored.  The discomfort isn't with the honor, it's with the effort of being a part of something you genuinely feel is fake.

I find it mildly entertaining that everything you don't understand gets labeled as somehow less manly, whateverthehell that is.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Try looking at it from another viewpoint.  Noone is uncomfortable with a service man being honored.  The discomfort is from the coerced patriotism.  It's like a devout Christian being felt pressured to participate in a pagan ritual because someone is being honored.  The discomfort isn't with the honor, it's with the effort of being a part of something you genuinely feel is fake.

I find it mildly entertaining that everything you don't understand gets labeled as somehow less manly, whateverthehell that is.

When we start seeing religious ceremonies at sporting events than you might have a point worth considering. 

 

To my recollection this is the one subject where I've expressed such an opinion. More bluntly, you're full of schit, and you know it. 

 

It's my opinion. Not right or wrong, just mine. I felt like sharing. 

[SwampD]

15 minutes ago, Hank said:

When we start seeing religious ceremonies at sporting events than you might have a point worth considering. 

 

To my recollection this is the one subject where I've expressed such an opinion. More bluntly, you're full of schit, and you know it. 

 

It's my opinion. Not right or wrong, just mine. I felt like sharing. 

You've obviously never been to a NASCAR race.

To your second line. Apparently you never read this.

About This Club

Respectful discussion on all areas of politics both in the United States and the World.

 

Although, I'm guessing you did.

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, Hank said:

When we start seeing religious ceremonies at sporting events than you might have a point worth considering. 

 

To my recollection this is the one subject where I've expressed such an opinion. More bluntly, you're full of schit, and you know it. 

 

It's my opinion. Not right or wrong, just mine. I felt like sharing. 

To my recollection it’s a pattern.  

[Hank]

15 minutes ago, SwampD said:

You've obviously never been to a NASCAR race.

To your second line. Apparently you never read this.

About This Club

Respectful discussion on all areas of politics both in the United States and the World.

 

Although, I'm guessing you did.

You're correct, I've never been to a Nascar race. 

 

It's not meant to be offensive, I'm just sharing my opinion on a current and relevant topic. This is where a mod asked me to do it. I've attacked no one personally. Feel free to disagree with my opinion, but your disagreement doesn't mean I violated the rules of the forum. 

19 minutes ago, Weave said:

To my recollection it’s a pattern.  

There is no pattern, you're being intentionally obtuse. 

[Weave]

46 minutes ago, Hank said:

There is no pattern, you're being intentionally obtuse.

With every post you make my point for me.

[SwampD]

50 minutes ago, Hank said:

You're correct, I've never been to a Nascar race.

They pump a church service through the PA the morning of the race and have a preacher pray before the race. There is just something hilarious about hearing a preacher amidst all of his other givings of thankses, shouting "…and we thank you for THIS SMOKING HOT NEW RACETRACK!!!!!!" (they had just resurfaced Pocono).

 

They also basically have a military parade before the race as well.

[Hank]

15 minutes ago, SwampD said:

They pump a church service through the PA the morning of the race and have a preacher pray before the race. There is just something hilarious about hearing a preacher amidst all of his other givings of thankses, shouting "…and we thank you for THIS SMOKING HOT NEW RACETRACK!!!!!!" (they had just resurfaced Pocono).

 

They also basically have a military parade before the race as well.

Huh! I had no idea. I am quite ignorant about Nascar apparently. 

[Weave]

11 hours ago, Hank said:

When we start seeing religious ceremonies at sporting events than you might have a point worth considering. 

 

Circling back around to this.  My point was either not seen or ignored.  I'll assume I didn't communicate it well enough.  I'll try to expand without the aggressive tone.

The religion comparison was a metaphor, and by definition not to be a literal comparison.   I'm trying to get you to see that the folks that are uncomfortable with these ceremonies are uncomfortable because they don't see them as sincere.  We see them as Wizard of Oz trickery.  I don't think that these ceremonies are about honoring vets at all, except in the most superficial manner.  It is a very well coordinated PR campaign, and nothing more IMO.  The DOD has chosen to use these ceremonies, and use the vets as pawns, to distract the country from the waste of life and dollars that is occurring with our overseas military actions.  Keep the people focused on the individuals returning and they are less likely to be outspoken of the continuing military action as whole.  Your reaction here is exactly the reaction that these things are designed to inspire.  Make it about the vets because noone will want to disrespect the vets.  You guys were pawns when you served, and you are still being used as pawns today.  Again, my opinion.

It's been interesting to watch the whole thing play out over the last 18 years or so.  What started out as a sincere, organic, public driven reaction to guys coming home from the first Gulf War, where the population as a whole wanted to make sure that returning vets weren't treated like they were after Vietnam, has turned into an orchestrated, government funded PR campaign designed to continue recruitment and keep the focus off the waste of lives and dollars.

If anything, our discomfort is based on character.  We think you (collective you, the honored vets) are being used in a game to deceive us all.  And don't accept the deception.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Circling back around to this.  My point was either not seen or ignored.  I'll assume I didn't communicate it well enough.  I'll try to expand without the aggressive tone.

The religion comparison was a metaphor, and by definition not to be a literal comparison.   I'm trying to get you to see that the folks that are uncomfortable with these ceremonies are uncomfortable because they don't see them as sincere.  We see them as Wizard of Oz trickery.  I don't think that these ceremonies are about honoring vets at all, except in the most superficial manner.  It is a very well coordinated PR campaign, and nothing more IMO.  The DOD has chosen to use these ceremonies, and use the vets as pawns, to distract the country from the waste of life and dollars that is occurring with our overseas military actions.  Keep the people focused on the individuals returning and they are less likely to be outspoken of the continuing military action as whole.  Your reaction here is exactly the reaction that these things are designed to inspire.  Make it about the vets because noone will want to disrespect the vets.  You guys were pawns when you served, and you are still being used as pawns today.  Again, my opinion.

It's been interesting to watch the whole thing play out over the last 18 years or so.  What started out as a sincere, organic, public driven reaction to guys coming home from the first Gulf War, where the population as a whole wanted to make sure that returning vets weren't treated like they were after Vietnam, has turned into an orchestrated, government funded PR campaign designed to continue recruitment and keep the focus off the waste of lives and dollars.

If anything, our discomfort is based on character.  We think you (collective you, the honored vets) are being used in a game to deceive us all.  And don't accept the deception.

I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from, thank you for explaining that too me. I've never felt like a pawn. I think that's a bigger topic for a different thread. I'd love to discuss it with you if you're willing. I can't today, I'm getting the grandkids today. But soon?

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Circling back around to this.  My point was either not seen or ignored.  I'll assume I didn't communicate it well enough.  I'll try to expand without the aggressive tone.

The religion comparison was a metaphor, and by definition not to be a literal comparison.   I'm trying to get you to see that the folks that are uncomfortable with these ceremonies are uncomfortable because they don't see them as sincere.  We see them as Wizard of Oz trickery.  I don't think that these ceremonies are about honoring vets at all, except in the most superficial manner.  It is a very well coordinated PR campaign, and nothing more IMO.  The DOD has chosen to use these ceremonies, and use the vets as pawns, to distract the country from the waste of life and dollars that is occurring with our overseas military actions.  Keep the people focused on the individuals returning and they are less likely to be outspoken of the continuing military action as whole.  Your reaction here is exactly the reaction that these things are designed to inspire.  Make it about the vets because noone will want to disrespect the vets.  You guys were pawns when you served, and you are still being used as pawns today.  Again, my opinion.

It's been interesting to watch the whole thing play out over the last 18 years or so.  What started out as a sincere, organic, public driven reaction to guys coming home from the first Gulf War, where the population as a whole wanted to make sure that returning vets weren't treated like they were after Vietnam, has turned into an orchestrated, government funded PR campaign designed to continue recruitment and keep the focus off the waste of lives and dollars.

If anything, our discomfort is based on character.  We think you (collective you, the honored vets) are being used in a game to deceive us all.  And don't accept the deception.

 

9 minutes ago, Hank said:

I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from, thank you for explaining that too me. I've never felt like a pawn. I think that's a bigger topic for a different thread. I'd love to discuss it with you if you're willing. I can't today, I'm getting the grandkids today. But soon?

I had this very discussion with my brother-in-law (who is a vet) just last week.

It was a great exchange on both sides and we both came away having learned something.

[LTS]

On 9/7/2018 at 2:56 PM, Hank said:

Like many other board members, I've never understood why we do this. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know when or how it started. As a retired soldier, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable being out there on the ice/field and politely decline the invitation when offered to me. But to care enough to have a negative feeling about it? I don't understand that either. Personally, if you're someone who feels "uncomfortable" when someone is being honored I think it speaks volumes about your lack of character as a man. At least you are self aware enough to know you're an inferior man and you feel accordingly. Perhaps it's better to keep those feelings to yourself and not expose yourself as the weak, pathetic inferior man that you are. 

 

20 hours ago, Hank said:

I don't get ruffled up at all. As I said, I just don't understand it. But I do have an opinion on what type of a man would be made to feel"uncomfortable" in the presence of a servicemember being honored. If you're that type of man it might benefit you to do some deep reflecting on who and what type of man you are. I don't understand why we do it either, but it's become an acceptable norm in our society. No man should feel uncomfortable being in the presence of it during a sporting event. 

Your opinion is certainly one thing.  What I am not quite following is why you are singling out "men" in your post and some idea of what a "man" should or should not be.

"Men" are all kinds of things... 

The discussion has progressed and I am glad for that, but the bolded statement just doesn't have a place in it. 

[Weave]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-real-problem-the-militarization-of-the-nfl/

Quote

 

Before 2009, Colin Kaepernick would have had to find some other way to protest racism against African Americans.  That’s because until the height of the Iraq War, NFL football players weren’t even required to leave the locker room for the national anthem, much less stand for it. That’s not to say that the national anthem didn’t take place before every game. The singing of “The Star Spangled Banner” was mandated during another war, World War II, when the NFL commissioner at the time mandated it for the league. The players were told to stand for it about the same time that the Department of Defense was ramping up massive recruitment and media operations around the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began paying sports teams millions in U.S. tax dollars for what amounted to “paid patriotism,” or mega-military spectacles on the playing field before the games.

 

Quote

What McCain and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) found was that between 2012 and 2015, the DOD shelled out $53 million to professional sports—including $10 million to the NFL—on “marketing and advertising” for military recruitment. To be sure, some of that was bona fide advertising. But many of those heart-tugging ceremonies honoring heroes and recreating drills and marches and flyovers are what the report denounced as propaganda.

 

Quote

Consider the display put on at Super Bowl 50: A flyover by the Blue Angels fighter jets, and 50 representatives of all military branches singing “America the Beautiful” against a backdrop of a giant flag. During the game, a Northop Grumman advertisement  proudly announced America’s conceptual sixth-generation fighter jet “of the future” to an unsuspecting audience, a year after it presented its new long-range bomber during Super Bowl XLIX. How much that ad time cost the company is anyone’s guess, but it is no surprise that defense contractors are hawking their billion-dollar war wares between game play these days.

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Weave

[Huckleberry]

Well most international football games or most sports for that matter play the national anthems of both sides.

But always did find it weird to be doing it in a normal competition, Also when me and friend were seeing that in some American schools they salute the flag each morning before classes start.    We both had only one thing on our mind, looks a bit like Hitler Jugend.

Might be wrong, but I also believe that its become so commercial at these events, that it really isn't any more about honouring the people that served in the military.

[JujuFish]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Also when me and friend were seeing that in some American schools they salute the flag each morning before classes start.

Yeah, we had the pledge of allegiance every morning before classes all throughout school.  We weren't forced to participate (and I had a Jehovah's Witness friend who didn't).

[Scottysabres]

I tend to not discuss politics very often, if at all. But I saw the conversation about service members in one of the Aid threads so mosied over here to just say I'm an older veteran, and I tend to agree with those on thanking me for my service. I just thank them for their support and move along. I don't think I've ever taken a veteran or service discount, at least, not to my recollection anyways.

Every individual served(s) for their own reasons in my opinion anyways. When I joined in 88, there wasn't a lot going on job wise in the area and I was interested in the G.I. Bill for school. Just so happens I got swept up in the Gulf war. I served, I got out in 92, and moved forward in life from there. Then got ready reserved in 2002 after 9/11. I didn't then and still don't expect others to look at me differently, it wasn't like I went running to the base gates screaming YAHOO! while waving an American flag in the air.

I served, went about my business, came home and live my life. As so many others have.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Scottysabres

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Well most international football games or most sports for that matter play the national anthems of both sides.

But always did find it weird to be doing it in a normal competition, Also when me and friend were seeing that in some American schools they salute the flag each morning before classes start.    We both had only one thing on our mind, looks a bit like Hitler Jugend.

Might be wrong, but I also believe that its become so commercial at these events, that it really isn't any more about honouring the people that served in the military.

To my knowledge, this happens in every public school in the country.  I thought it was completely normal.  Then I went to a Jesuit high school, where we prayed before classes instead.  And ever since, I've found the pledge of allegiance to be completely weird and somewhat fascist.  It does have some great stuff in it, "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," though.

And when I think of the first few words--who the hell pledges allegiance to a piece of fabric?  Pledging allegiance to the "Republic for which it stands" is one thing.  But the flag, not the Republic, is front and center.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Eleven

[ubkev]

4 hours ago, Eleven said:

  It does have some great stuff in it, "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," though.

"Must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions apply"

[Hank]

On 9/8/2018 at 3:20 PM, LTS said:

 

Your opinion is certainly one thing.  What I am not quite following is why you are singling out "men" in your post and some idea of what a "man" should or should not be.

"Men" are all kinds of things... 

The discussion has progressed and I am glad for that, but the bolded statement just doesn't have a place in it. 

I'm singling out men because men and their uncomfortableness are the subject of my post. I don't understand your question. Are you asking me why I didn't include women?

 

I'm sure you would agree that we all have our own thoughts and ideas on what a man is and what a man should be. These thoughts and ideas are ingrained in us through upbringing, family, environment, education and personal experience. I'm thankful to we've for explaining his views on the subject. We have been posting here together for well over a decade and I believe him to be sincere. I also believe he is in the minority. A very small minority. I believe most men feel uncomfortable for the reasons I stated above. 

 

As to your reference of the bolded: your flat out wrong. It does have a place. Those type of men should be too embarrassed to make thier feelings public. I don't care if it's not nice. I don't care if it's not politically correct. I don't care if you don't like it. 

[LTS]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I'm singling out men because men and their uncomfortableness are the subject of my post. I don't understand your question. Are you asking me why I didn't include women?

 

I'm sure you would agree that we all have our own thoughts and ideas on what a man is and what a man should be. These thoughts and ideas are ingrained in us through upbringing, family, environment, education and personal experience. I'm thankful to we've for explaining his views on the subject. We have been posting here together for well over a decade and I believe him to be sincere. I also believe he is in the minority. A very small minority. I believe most men feel uncomfortable for the reasons I stated above. 

 

As to your reference of the bolded: your flat out wrong. It does have a place. Those type of men should be too embarrassed to make thier feelings public. I don't care if it's not nice. I don't care if it's not politically correct. I don't care if you don't like it. 

So you agree with me that,  we all have our own thoughts on what a man is and what a man should be.  

As such, I cannot be flat out wrong as you indicate.  If I were flat out wrong then we clearly cannot have different thoughts and we clearly do.

Your thoughts demonstrate a complete unwillingness to accept people for who they are and what they may feel.  It shows a lack of desire to accept that their upbringing, family, environment, education, or personal experience might have shaped their thoughts and ideas and that because it they demonstrate personal traits you find so abhorrent.

If you are going to ask us to accept your viewpoints because of the 5 criteria you suggested, how can you not accept alternate viewpoints based on those same 5 criteria?

If you reject it, flat out, as you are indicating by saying "flat out wrong" then you invalidate your viewpoint.  If you accept it, then you accept that your viewpoints may indeed be open for alteration.

Unless you'd like to take a step back and retract your statement that you do believe that we all have our own thoughts and ideas of what a man is and what a man should be.  If that's the case then we get to "This is the world according to Hank. No discussion needed."