I know you were being sarcastic, but you're exactly right. It is very, very wrong to imply people might be prejudiced. You have to meet them, otherwise you're the one being prejudiced.
"Person", not people. And at this point, I'm unsure what that poster is trying to convey.
I think it would be better phrased as, "The NFL doesn't want it's players to do things that might turn off fans". Now certainly "opinions" and "personalities" could fall under that, depending upon what is being said. But they don't always fall under that. I think Favre had a personality and the NFL was fine with it because it didn't turn people away. Colin had an "opinion" and the NFL was fine with it, until fans became upset. Mess with the owners money and you won't be around long.
As far as I can tell:
If I started engaging in social activism in my company-wide Teams chat, there would be consequences. You get paid to work, not to be an activist. Unfortunately, some people respond with the "oh, so it's just shut up and dribble?" well, yes, it is. I've worked every job under the sun - from construction, in kitchens, service industry, landscaping, etc. If I showed up to work and started spouting sociopolitical things I'd be reprimanded and fired if I didn't stop. These guys are the luckiest people in the world - they become multi-millionaires from playing a game and can retire in their 30's.
It's just so tiring. There's a famous quote by Socrates, I believe, that goes something like "Show me the stories you tell your children and I'll show you your culture." - When you teach young people to see racism in everything, they will absolutely do it. I've played different sports at various levels and there are certainly people who try to inject race into it whenever possible.
If a person is more interested in fighting against allegations of prejudice than against actual prejudice I’ve got no time for them. If a person plays the ‘accusing someone (or in this case not even an actual individual) of prejudice means youre the prejudice one, Ive really got no time for them. Those are the ‘moderates’ Dr King spoke of, who claim to be for justice but only when it suits them. And trying to narrow a systemic issue such as racism, even racism in a sports league, down to individuals being racist in ways that can be proven in a court of law is a subtle way people try to discount the realities of the issue. Probably wasn’t much documented evidence of racism by the NFL in the 70s, but there also weren’t any black QBs. Folks arguing like you are would claim that I was being racist then for implying that there was a problem. Its a bad faith, disingenuous argument.
I’ll wade in and make one comment as there are some younger posters, who may not be aware of the history of it.
The point is that black qbs have been successful for 40 years. I didn’t argue that it was fair or easy for those first few who broke thru. Today? Not even a debate. There have been a ton of black QBs taken first overall in the 2000s including each of the last two years. Being upset that NFL teams didn’t like “this” qb because of his amazing personality and opinions is beneath anyone with a brain.
we'll agree to disagree. This nation has too much history, past and recent, for me to believe anything of the sort is beneath anyone. And in this case I don't even think it's the issue. I simply don't fault anyone for posing the question or wondering that.
Agreed, but sanders was no Manziel in college. Johnny had more passing yards than Sanders.