• @helenslunch
    link
    132 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
      512 months ago

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

      They’re just outlining how stupid the argument is.

      • @helenslunch
        link
        -28
        edit-2
        2 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
          312 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…

          • @helenslunch
            link
            -362 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
              182 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.

              • @helenslunch
                link
                -25
                edit-2
                2 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.

                • HonkyTonkWoman
                  link
                  fedilink
                  142 months ago

                  Oh look, someone trying to stir up a dumb argument on the internet because they need attention.

                  • @helenslunch
                    link
                    -192 months ago

                    Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦‍♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.

              • @helenslunch
                link
                -14
                edit-2
                2 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.

            • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              142 months ago

              Oh okay so you chose to ignore it and draw your own conclusions at what point they were making, got it.

                • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  82 months ago

                  Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up as to why maga doesn’t care about legality. You missed the plot it’s okay.

                  • @helenslunch
                    link
                    -10
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up

                    I did not write “a whole write up”, dog. It was 2 sentences. All of their reasons were legal, which is what I addressed.

                    as to why maga doesn’t care about legality.

                    🤦‍♂️ No. Wrong again. My point was that it’s not a legal issue.

        • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 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.”

    • @derfunkatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      212 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.