I thought the left was supposed to be the crybabies

LOL
They are so easily TRIGGERED!

Hey in 1984 Los Angeles a hammer thrower who in 1964 Tokyo i think accidentally hit his wife with the hammer carried the US flag after he decided to retire but his wife urged him not to

Her 15 minutes are up. She is not a good enough thrower to make the awards stand in the Olympics.

I don't care who you are. Don't try to compete and represent the United States of America on the world stage if you have a problem with its flag. Find another platform to protest. She gave up her right to completely free speech when she undertook the professional duty to represent the Stars and Stripes as a world-class athlete.

She should be booted from the team if she hasn't already.

As an athlete representing the US, she can’t be a professional, meaning she doesn’t (and can’t) get paid to compete. Not only that, stating an American citizen “gives up her right to free speech” for any reason whatsoever is utter lunacy on multiple levels.

Why are conservatives for free speech until it’s speech they disagree with?

Being paid or not has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is she's being utterly hypocritical here. If she's not proud of the American flag, for whatever reason, then she shouldn't try to represent it. That makes no sense.

I'm all for free speech. One of my favorite sayings ever is, "I may dislike what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it." The fact is though there exists a concept called "decorum", which means the need to meet the expectations of a given situation. The Olympics are not a forum for political discussion. They are a showcase of each nation's national pride and athletic prowess. The team by its very nature must meet those expectations.

Someone trains their entire life for a few fleeting moments of glory. Pride in one’s country has little to do with it.

On one hand you state, “I may dislike what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it,” and then turn around with this decorum nonsense. One person has one shot to possibly affect a positive change in those few waning moments, only to be told “shut up, this isn’t the time or the place” by people who simply want to bury their heads in the sand and not acknowledge the problem.

Without looking it up on the internet, who won the bronze in the women’s 400m in 2004? You have no idea. You didn’t know two days after the event was over. Hell, I’ll argue you didn’t know twenty minutes after it was over, and to that end, I’ll counter your BS ‘decorum’ statement with ‘If not now, when?’ and it’s a rhetorical question because the answer is when the eyes of the world are upon you.

Pride in your country has everything to do with it. The athletes compete for their country. They win personal glory and it is rightly earned, but they do so while representing the entirety of their nation.

It's not mere rhetoric...well, it is proper rhetoric, I suppose, but nobody knows how to exercise that anymore. The point is, we have every capability to bring something front and center in the world's eyes in this digital age. A star American athlete can easily get the attention of any number of U.S media organizations and be household talk within a week as a result.

Therefore her use of the podium to turn her back on the flag was not some one-chance-at-exposure moment, but an intentional hijacking of a moment of pride and unity for the purpose of sending a political message that could easily have been sent at a more suitable moment.

If I thought the U.S flag, anthem, or Olympic Team stood for something other than the universal ideals on which this nation in fact stands, I'd not try and put myself in a position where I have to represent those institutions.

Utilizing your freedom of speech is exemplifying what being an American is all about.

While Jesse Owens originally disagreed with Tommie Smith’s and John Carlos’ black power salute at the 1968 Olympics, he said two years later: “I realized now that militancy in the best sense of the word was the only answer where the black man was concerned, that any black man who wasn't a militant in 1970 was either blind or a coward.”

…and that’s coming from the man who single-handedly shoved it up Hitler’s hoop in 1936.

Instead of projecting on these athletes the idea that it’s somehow self-aggrandizing or selfish, I’d argue that African-Americans would just as soon not want to have any reason to protest and that maybe, just maybe, they’re attemping to draw attention to a larger human rights issue.

Do you really think we've progressed in no way since the 1960/70's in terms of race relations? That nationwide systemic abuse of blacks is still the norm?

Racism exists, yes. But in today's America we've made leaps and bounds towards full racial equality. The ​flag of the United States flies for civil liberty and equality of all human beings over which it flies. By turning her back on that flag, she turned her back on that ideal and, I'd argue, set back progress towards it.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Don't tear others down. Build them up instead." Instead of turning her back on the flag and emphasizing social tribalism instead of unity, imagine how much more unifying it would have been to have both white and black women proudly standing for it on that podium. The flag DOES represent all Americans, and if both white and black athletes affirm that then they send a strong signal that anyone who disagrees is the real source of the issue.

It's just my view, and if you want to dismiss it as idealistic or whatever then that's your prerogative. I know for a fact though that the best way to achieve something is to lead by example. If our nation's best role models can't act in a unified manner, then how can we expect anyone else to follow suit?

I’m still trying to wrap my head around your willful circumvention/suspension of the First Amendment for speech you feel violates decorum, which isn’t the most insane thing I’ve seen on Imgflip, but it definitely ranks in my personal top twenty.

No, I don’t think race relations have improved since the 60’s and 70’s adequately. When black people are still killed at roughly twice the rate of whites by police despite only comprising 14% of the nation’s population, the problem remains. When whites make up 65% of the US population but only 25% of the prison population, the problem remains. When blacks live at approximately three times the poverty rate of whites, the problem remains.

As for the rest of the tribalism vs unity silliness, expecting people to conform to your narrow world view when it’s not reality is just you demanding others to perpetuate an America that doesn’t exist so you don’t have to experience any discomfort.

The First Amendment is not a blanket license to say anything, anywhere. I can't go out into an NBA stadium and start screaming slurs at nobody in general. I can't go out and pump music from my car's speakers in a crowded street for any extended period of time. I can't go into a cathedral and hold up a sign with a big ol' f**k Catholics sign. There are any number of situations where we accept that a minimum standard of conduct is appropriate for the situation. You shouldn't be allowed to try and get a chance to compete for your country in the most prestigious athletic even on earth and then snub that country's flag and anthem. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's her view to hold, but it wasn't the place to express it.

Now, as far as that data goes (which is accurate), I am genuinely curious; what percentage of crime is committed in rural vs suburban vs urban environments? Additionally, do poverty and education trends tend to be mirrored by racial demographic changes? My point to this is to see if arrests and conviction rates tend to be higher around areas with concentrated low-income/stability populations (as in a poorer inner city residence area, for example). I remember way back in college sociology class they highlighted an experiment run in Chicago where folks in low income/stability communities were moved (on the city's dime) to markedly nicer areas and schools. The results were greatly increased graduation rates and overall community stability, which seems to indicate that the problems feeding the prison-industrial complex are educational and economical in nature, not necessarily racial...the fact that it's mostly blacks who are arrested, IF this is true, would largely be then that they were forced by circumstance to gather there in the past and it's merely continued as a trend into the present day despite overall changes in the legal and perceptive state of America.
Again, I don't have data or studies to back that up, but so far no one has proven the theory wrong and I will happily eat crow if you do so.

Finally, it's not a narrow worldview. If you have an issue with the United States of America being a land of equality and liberty for all, and in turn advocating that we actually build others up to and live by that ethos, then that's your problem. I never said it was a current reality, I said it was a goal towards which we all need to work. Again, if you have a problem with that then I can't help you.

You actually can’t help with anything if you’re going to equate shouting racial slurs to a silent protest against systemic racism. She didn’t get on the podium and scream KILL WHITEY.

Does it actually matter if the data is rural vs suburban vs urban? No, it doesn’t because it exists and it’s reality.

You’re *this* close to actually grasping the enormity of the problem, which makes it all the more insulting that people like you who live in a bubble where “America being a land of equality and liberty for all” believe minorities should just shut the f**k up and pretend everything is hunky dory.

Don't try to dodge and reframe the argument. The sole purpose of my listing other examples was to show that the 1st isn't a do whatever you want badge. I never said any of the examples were equally weighted against each other or exactly comparable to our specific topic of discussion.

Ah, OK, so you're going to blindly discard three of the four likely causes of demographic/racial disparity (community stability, education, income-by-area, and ongoing racism) and blame everything solely on racism. Sounds reasonable.

The only insulting thing happening here is your patently false accusation that I think life in America is "hunky dory" and that minorities should be ignored. In this conversation alone I've readily acknowledged the real problems we continue to face and agree we've not yet achieved full equality for all. The only way in which we differ is how we think folks should actually solve those problems. I for one would rather we start at the top, with the universal ideal of one nation for all, equal and enjoying unfettered individual liberty no matter their personal characteristics or beliefs, and then lead by example and work to make that ideal a reality in every community, nationwide.

If you have a problem with that, it's your opinion to hold.

“Don't try to dodge and reframe the argument.”

Says the guy who says athletes representing the US should have their First Amendment rights suspended under the bullshit guise of “decorum.” Nothing like taking away the rights of your citizens so we can pretend how great this country is to the rest of the world.

That was the beginning of this little back and forth.

See above.

“Ah, OK, so you're going to blindly discard three of the four likely causes of demographic/racial disparity (community stability, education, income-by-area, and ongoing racism) and blame everything solely on racism. Sounds reasonable.”

No, you’re the one who’s blindly discarding all the ‘likely causes’ because those causes are what has athletes using their very public forum (and freedom of speech that you want to suspend) to shine a spotlight on those causes in an effort to end them.

Basically, what you want is something akin to the Chinese Olympic team, who, by the way, is basically raised by the state who absorbs all living and training costs. This is very much unlike in the US, where Olympic athletes have to pay for themselves and can never take payment lest they forfeit their Olympic eligibility.

Irony, thy name is conservative.

“In this conversation alone I've readily acknowledged the real problems we continue to face and agree we've not yet achieved full equality for all.”

How very mayo of you.

“I for one would rather we start at the top, with the universal ideal of one nation for all, equal and enjoying unfettered individual liberty no matter their personal characteristics or beliefs, and then lead by example and work to make that ideal a reality in every community, nationwide.”

So trickle-down equality? Fake it till you (never actually) make it? Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, you guys are fixated on a singular concept, and an utter failure of one at that.

Since you seem more interested in doing nothing but spewing acidic verbiage I fail to see how we're going to amicably resolve this disagreement.

Turning your back on the nation is no way to engender unity and work for a solution to its problems. That's my view and so far you've only affirmed that it's the correct one. We're no closer towards an accord despite you doing a very good job of highlighting perceived arguments problems while also failing to actually offer any solution. 👍

for real though it was pretty disrespectful

Righties have been getting this wrong since at least Kaepernick.

They’re not “disrespecting the flag.” They’re using their platform as African-American athletes to call attention to racial justice issues that remain stubbornly persistent.

We are dealing with bigger issues as a country. Like the guy on the left.

Ok, makes sense.

Still confused on why turn your back on the flag instead of something that signifies rascism though

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/pdf/ssb_lyrics.pdf

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

“Essentially,” says writer and academic Jason Johnson, “Francis Scott Key was happy to see former slaves, who had joined the British as part of their Colonial Marines, getting slaughtered and killed as they attempted to take Baltimore.”

“The entire song sort of leads up to this point,” Johnson adds, “where he’s essentially saying to these terrible, ungrateful, black people, this is the consequence of standing up against the United States.”
“So it’s clearly racist; it’s clearly pro-slavery, but it’s pretty much in line with the kind of man that Francis Scott Key was.”

Key was a typical white Marylander of his time, and he favored slavery.

About 6,000 African Americans fled to the British during the War of 1812, on the promise of freedom. Most of the men were recruited into the Royal Navy or into the Colonial Marines, a mostly black unit, which fought with distinction.

“It was an amazing opportunity for African Americans to fight for their freedom,” says Johnson.

Ok chill my last 7 brain cells can't comprehend this

Yet you seem to comprehend enough to mock or wonder why a girl (and others) are standing up to it.

I wasn't mocking it bro just chill