• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2864 months ago

    This is such a non-thing that it hurts to even consider how stupid it is.

    But, let’s consider:

    1. The Super Bowl is a private corporate event; any song may be performed ceremoniously. That’s protected speech.

    2. Not standing up for the Black National Anthem is whatever. That’s protected speech.

    3. The Black National Anthem is a colloquial title and has no legal status. That’s protected speech.

    4. While there is a statute outlying etiquette for performances of the National Anthem, there are no penalties for not adhering. That’s protected speech.

    5. “America the Beautiful” was also performed and there’s no legal basis for etiquette or participation. This song also has a long history of being performed alongside the Star-Spangled Banner to the point that it’s sometimes referred to as the National Hymn, even though that is a colloquial and non-legal designation. That’s protected speech.

    6. This is apparently the fourth year that “Lift Every Voice and Sing” has been performed at the Super Bowl. That’s protected speech.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      114 months ago

      Your statement presupposes that MAGAs are mad because this is somehow illegal. How did you come to such a conclusion?

      • aubertlone
        link
        fedilink
        514 months ago

        They didn’t, at least not in what I read.

        They’re just outlining how stupid the argument is.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -28
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          They made 6 statements, each ending with “that’s protected speech”, referred to a “legal basis” and “legal status”, and mentioned that the SuperbOwl was a private event, as if someone was implying otherwise. Not sure how else you interpret that but please share if you have another perspective.

          E: LOL you people are literally delusional. Zero objectivity.

          • HonkyTonkWoman
            link
            fedilink
            314 months ago

            All of those six statements were predicated with “This is such a non-thing that it hurts to even consider how stupid it is.“

            Ergo, let’s not make it a thing…

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -364 months ago

              And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.

              • HonkyTonkWoman
                link
                fedilink
                184 months ago

                No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -25
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  No, they didn’t.

                  Yes. They did.

                  The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech.

                  Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).

                  No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung

                  Oh look, another strawman.

                  Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.

                  I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article before I even knew it took place.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -14
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            144 months ago

            This is such a non-thing that it hurts to even consider how stupid it is.

            You missed statement 0.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            63 months ago

            In this context “that’s protected speech” means roughly, “STFU maga, nothing you can do about it, and you have no basis for your tantum.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        214 months ago

        The larger context of why anyone is talking about what is sung at the Super Bowl should have been enough of a set up, but apparently not.

        This entire stunt is predicated on the right’s frustration that they couldn’t do anything about black athletes and allies being disrespectful during the National Anthem (a legally defined song with etiquette spelled out in the US legal code), which is protected speech.

        Now, in my opinion, they have a Super Bowl to posture about eight months before a presidential election. They want sound bites and over-the-top reactions so that they can paint themselves the victims of a hypocritical, leftist, anti-freedom conspiratorial media machine. This part of that “projection” plank in the modern GOP.

        My original post was simply outlining that no matter how you slice it, there is nothing to be mad about them “protesting” the Black National Anthem. I added in a rhetorical refrain to drive home the point while beating a dead horse for effect.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      03 months ago

      I never understand this argument from Americans.

      Why can’t people be pissed off with what a private company does? Like if there is a sweet company that makes blueberry flavour and it’s the best. If they stop selling it then I can be pissed. The argument “well it’s a private company it can do what it wants” is in no way related to if I get to be pissed at it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They have freedom to do as they please, but whining about it does about as much as whining about blueberry flavor.

        We aren’t saying you can’t be pissed, we are saying it is completely stupid that you are pissed and there is nothing you can do. There are far more things to be worried about in this country. We are eating ourselves alive, life expectancy is dropping, suicide rate and overdose rate is climbing, our jobs are being given to foreign countries and robots, no one owns anything anymore.

        I’m starting to believe people whine about these pointless things in order to avoid confronting the more complicated and deeply rooted issues we have.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          03 months ago

          Culture and community is absolutely important to a lot of people. In fact it could be very important for happiness.

          Maybe people don’t care about monetary things as much as you. Or maybe they care about both. It’s possible to care about everything you said and the superbowl.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            The only people not thinking about money are those who are privileged by wealth.

            Some of us paid for our own school, car, etc. some had a $100k head start. Willing to bet you are in that second group.

            If people care about these things why are so few people talking about it? Why are we whining about flavors and pop stars so much instead?

            It’s cool that you don’t have to worry about the future, but some of us want our children to not be slaves

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              03 months ago

              No. My capitalist country paid for most of my education the rest I paid for on a low interest government backed loan. Total came to just over a years median salary.

              I used my grandads old car as it was largely worthless until it completely died on me within a year then I bought my own secondhand car. But that was after uni and working for a bit, so I used my own money for that car.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                my government gave me a loan at 6.8%. The amount I have paid into it is the same as the original principle amount, I still owe 80% of it because of the interest. I am making 2x the average American and am still on a hamster wheel of the capitalist death cult. I will never own anything at this rate

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  0
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Yes the poltical system in America is terrible.

                  But there are more capitalist countries without stupid education loans than with, it’s kinda just you guys. You really need some form of proporional representation.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        Well, you can choose the things you care about. Why waste your energy getting upset about something that has zero negative consequences in your life when you could be doing something productive, <s> like arguing on Lemmy? </s>

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1364 months ago

    My favorite part was how they kept mentioning the sign language interpreters and then never showing them again. Like, give them a picture-in-picture or something. Otherwise, what’s the point?