• @[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
      124 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
              -354 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
                  -24
                  edit-2
                  4 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
                  -13
                  edit-2
                  4 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
            64 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
      04 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
        24 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -14 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
            14 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
              04 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
                14 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
                  4 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
        14 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?

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      274 months ago

      I’m old enough to remember when shows used to have ASL interpreters in a little window. All the time. But I haven’t seen it much since the 80s.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        284 months ago

        I imagine widespread adoption of closed captioning has reduced the need for ASL interpreters on TV.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        We switched to closed captions over the course of the 90s. Irl events still use terps but using then on screen is now a specific choice. Usually the only times you’ll see ASL on screen these days is presidential addresses and shows that make a point to cast signers for Deaf characters

        • kase
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          I have a question about this, if anybody can help me out. Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing people generally fluent in English (at a similar rate to the general population)? I’ve heard anecdotes about Deaf people who only know ASL, little to no English, but I don’t know how common that actually is. Mainly curious about the US.

          I know ofc it’s more complicated than that (ASL isn’t the only sign language used here, and English isn’t the only spoken language, not all Deaf/HH people use sign language, etc.), but I’m just trying to get an idea of the big picture. Like when it comes to TV, are closed captions generally considered ‘accessible’ by the Deaf community?

          Apologies if that didn’t make much sense, I had trouble wording it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            24 months ago

            So it depends a lot on age, location, and severity of hearing loss. First Deaf and deaf aren’t the same thing. Capital D Deaf means culturally Deaf regardless of severity of hearing loss. Someone can be hard of hearing and Deaf and someone who hears worse may not be. Hoh and deaf people who aren’t Deaf usually are either late deafened or were mainstreamed (basically given hearing aids and usually not taught sign). Little d deaf implies hearing loss severe enough that it would require yelling to have an unaided verbal conversation (not precise but it’s generally accurate).

            So for starters, if you grew up with the internet you’re probably fluent in written language, probably English. Unless you’re from a time and place where hearing people weren’t literate you’re probably literate as a deaf person. And to my knowledge there are no widely adopted sign language written forms beyond all caps words in language common to area with sign syntax. That’s why when you see Deaf people struggling with verbal languages it’s usually issues of spelling or syntax not vocabulary. But there’s also fingerspelling. There are a lot more words than signs. Common words quickly get a sign, but shit you don’t have to express face to face often to another Deaf person like professional jargon, you just spell it out.

            But think about the 80s-90s in America. People who didn’t learn to read in school were still around. Especially if the system didn’t really care and their parents were illiterate. Even now there are people who can read but not at speaking speed. Captions are fine now, it’s like English to the Dutch. You’ve been using it in entertainment at least partly your whole life. But when it was a language someone half bothered to teach you at ten not so much

            • kase
              link
              fedilink
              14 months ago

              Thank you for your response!

              Wow, yeah, I hadn’t even considered what difference the internet would have made. Way too often I forget to think about history in its greater context.

              And to my knowledge there are no widely adopted sign language written forms beyond all caps words in language common to area with sign syntax.

              Not as far as I know, either. About a year ago I learned about a ministry group that translated the entire Christian bible into ASL and made an app where you could watch the videos. I don’t remember the name, but it was cool to learn about. (IIRC, that project was what got me caught up on this question in the first place, lol.)

              When you say ‘sign syntax,’ does that mean the same thing as gloss? For example:
              YESTERDAY, HOME IX-me STAY

              I see it used all the time as a tool for English -> ASL students (of which I am one, lol), but it’s never crossed my mind to wonder what ways it is (and what ways it isn’t) used by the Deaf.

              If you don’t mind me asking, are you or someone in your life Deaf? Just curious, since it sounds like you’re more informed than the Average Joe. :)

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                24 months ago

                Yeah there’s a thing where Christians like for their texts to be in every language. It’s probably a lot more of that than anything. ASL was developed by nuns IIRC. It’s definitely not like Plains Sign Language which began as a trade language and eventually developed for the deaf. For as long as modern people of European descent have had sign language we’ve had access to Jesus in it.

                I’d give more context but my asl is shit. I don’t really sign beyond insulting the hearing. I’m third generation mainstreamed. (Yeah my great grandparents, grandparents, and parents were all convinced not to teach their children sign language by the experts of the time). And yeah that more or less answers two paragraphs. I’ve been wearing hearing aids since childhood and my mom, grandma, and sister all also have my degenerative hearing loss.

                I grew up with captions on the tv in the 90s except when my father was watching with us (he hates captions, and I’ll acknowledge they did suck 25 years ago, just less than not hearing sucked). And in early adulthood I went on a journey of self discovery and community discovery of embracing my deafness but I still need to find the time and energy to commit to asl learning

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                Yeah there’s a thing where Christians like for their texts to be in every language. It’s probably a lot more of that than anything. ASL was developed by nuns IIRC. It’s definitely not like Plains Sign Language which began as a trade language and eventually developed for the deaf. For as long as modern people of European descent have had sign language we’ve had access to Jesus in it.

                I’d give more context but my asl is shit. I don’t really sign beyond insulting the hearing. I’m third generation mainstreamed. (Yeah my great grandparents, grandparents, and parents were all convinced not to teach their children sign language by the experts of the time). And yeah that more or less answers two paragraphs. I’ve been wearing hearing aids since childhood and my mom, grandma, and sister all also have my degenerative hearing loss.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      I imagine those are more for people in the stadium. The people watching it on TV have closed captioning.

  • Admiral Patrick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1244 months ago

    What doesn’t send them into a meltdown? It’s almost like they’re the things that melt easily that they’re so fond of calling everyone else.

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

      Just like their bigoted positions on LGBTQ+ rights. Like, nobody is forcing you to identify as one. It’s literally as respecting someone to be called John instead of Johnathan.

      Then righties go, “bUT I dONt lIkE tHaT nAMe!”

      So much for individual freedumb I guess.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        Old enough to remember when they went berserk over florescent light bulbs.

        Old enough to remember when they lost their minds, because Obama suggested they check their tire pressure.