To be very clear, I just shared with you my response to what I think is your incorrect assertion about this protest.

To take your assertion and run with it - that the act of disrespecting the flag carries the specific message of disrespect and not the intended message against police brutality - no, our flag does not deserve the respect you want it to have. It is not currently earning it.

First of all, groupthink does not make an incorrect analysis correct.

Then that first sentence of yours made no sense. I’ll move past that and respond to this more fleshed-out position.

I can’t even follow this.

She says “point of view” right there in that quote, and sets it apart from their actions (“when they do that”). She’s saying, not only does she think their actions are wrong, but that their message that they’re attempting to convey with their actions is wrong too.

Where did I say Justice Ginsburg hates black people? Why the need for your direct attack on me rather than my argument? What the actual fuck? You’re usually productive in your conversations here...

No, she’s saying she thinks they’re being “stupid” and “arrogant,” and that she maintains they have a constitutional right to being stupid and arrogant. Those aren’t hypotheticals, those are her evaluations of their message.

Except, she makes clear at the end of her answer she is speaking about the message itself, not just the acts of the protest. She does not agree with Kaepernick’s and other athletes’ message, in addition to not agreeing with the mode they’ve chosen to use to deliver that message.

That last one would suggest that racism and mistreatment of the most marginalized in our society aren’t baked right into what our country and its government are. And I think they are, since no one can point to a single point in time in the United States when black people weren’t being abused and killed by authorities…

What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.

I’d sit in on this talk.

While you’re probably right that this could be a reason, I seriously doubt it would play out this way. Low-level misdemeanors don’t sound like the kind of convictions (assuming the charges even stick) that push a university to revoke tenure, unless they’re looking for a reason because of other issues.

Ashley, is this the least and most fun you’ve ever had?

He’s likely tenured, so thankfully no, he won’t be.

Every time I see Pete Rose mentioned on Deadspin, I’ll be pasting this as a comment:

I may just be imagining things, but it’s just a little bit sad that I think you’re not entirely joking.

“In my mind, she consented every time we had sex. Why wouldn’t she do it that one time?” Rose said.

I am a Mariners fan first, but when they inevitably go to shit every year, I turn to my NL team, the Cubs, if they’re still in it.