Greetings my beloved masters of the universe. Exciting times are upon us! From September 2nd – October 5th a portal is opening which will help you to make very important decisions about your life which will impact your…
OpenAI’s ChatGPT Exposes US Government False Flag Terror Attacks, Fluoride Lowering IQs
OpenAI’s ChatGPT Exposes US Government False Flag Terror Attacks, Fluoride Lowering IQsOn the Wednesday show Alex Jones spoke with ChatGPT about so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ which the AI chat bot confirmed were…
Read more…
Comments
In fact they always do lip service to 'a political sports'. When they zero in on an issue, eg 1968, it is always a double standard.
But we don't need to be apolitical to promote unity anyway! All we need is to be truthful. Anchor your political stand in truth, and you promote unity! Anchor your 'apoliticalness' on a lie, and you promote disunity! Thus TRUTH not POLITICS or a lack thereof that matters.
"I would say that international sporting events were first designed by the Greeks and Romans, to bring nations, or imperial provinces, together in celebration...When the concept was re-introduced to the world, in Athens, Greece, 1896, the SPIRIT OF FRIENDSHIP was the intent..."
In what sense then does raising an issue relevant to the absence of one or two nations, in the event intended to 'bring nations together in celebration' inconsistent with the spirit of unity and friendship amongst nations??
Raising awareness pertaining to unfriendliness towards a certain group of pple is perfectly in line with the spirit of of friendship and unity amongst nations. If games were meant to promote unity amongst nations, then it is hard for the same games to be indifferent to issues that divides pple, let alone 'criminalize' any other attempt to bring that unity!!
"Why do pple write books about such a thing as 1968 event? Was it so extraordinary thing to merely protest against racism in a sporting event, more extraordinary than apartheid still being practiced in 20th century??" End quote...
I would say that international sporting events were first designed by the Greeks and Romans, to bring nations, or imperial provinces, together in celebration...When the concept was re-introduced to the world, in Athens, Greece, 1896, the SPIRIT OF FRIENDSHIP was the intent...That and enjoyment of competative sports, between athletes and through them, nations...
The converse was actually first introduced during the Berlin Olympics of 1936, in which nations did not demonstrate against the Nazis, but rather gestured political support for them, by using the Nazi salute, as they passed Hitler...Even the English did this at the time, which caused outrage....
So the politicization of sports, at international and national levels, causes frictions, and that leads to tensions....Hitler used 1936 as a grand demonstration to the world, of how "superior" his Übermensch were, albeit, in the process made his cause rather stunted, by the good performance of black athletes, such as Jesse Owens....
Again, causing anger in the German crowds and anger in the visitor guests...Hitler's disapproval of Owens success, were most obvious and highly political....
So, like 1968 and 1972, a BAD EXAMPLE, not in keeping with the spirit of unity, that the Games were supposed to promote, between nations...
Some British athletes politicized the Games of 1936, in just as an idiotic way, as American athletes did in 1968....Different causes, but the same fanaticism...
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/19/08/2AA31DE200000578-3166...
Even with that, no one talked of bombings in Bolton marathon!! If we don't want politics in sports, then bombings in stadiums should be what we are spending more time condemning, not some mere gesture that did not harm anyone!! But we find them still saying '1968 was the most political thing in sports'. In other words it is more than a terrorist attack in a stadium??
Why can we use sports to advertise toxins but not to advertise morals and/or ethics??
"These political protests at sporting events are anti-social and designed to offend and hijack, what should be a neutral and apolitical international festival of sports, between nations...It is good manners to respect others, by not protesting your cause, valid or not, at a medal ceremony..."
I disagree with this! If someone has a VALID cause, being 'neutral' is no longer a morally justifiable stand. 'Neutral' does not always mean 'more ethical'. True, they have a 'right' to create any of those so called 'neutral' things. But this doesn't mean they always deserve the respect.
Sports are not 'apolitical' in the sense that politics affects sports. No Palestinian has ever won a medal, for instance, and every sporting event, in fact EXPRESSES this political reality! They cannot thus boast to us that 'they are apolitical'. There is no such a thing in the society!
Drekx response: These political protests at sporting events are anti-social and designed to offend and hijack, what should be a neutral and apolitical international festival of sports, between nations...It is good manners to respect others, by not protesting your cause, valid or not, at a medal ceremony.....Or on a pitch, with the inane kneeling, which frankly looks and is, STUPID.....
Yes, freedom to protest at the ballot, by voting...Or taking part in a demonstration in a street...BUT, when these fanatics disrupt events such as the Olympics, it becomes highly disagreeable....There have been even worst examples of this madness, such as 1972 and Black September, Munich.....
It is not going to win and hearts and minds to your supposed cause...In fact, the Munich massacre caused the world to absolutely turn against the Palestianians.....
Whether it's Black Panthers, Black September, or Black Lives Matter, the sporting event should not be hijacked for political advantages...And in practice, causes the public and wider world, to switch off interest and support...
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120727105203-munich-terrorist...
No! If 'rules' of Olympics or whatever forbids people from peacefully expressing themselves over whatever issue, then who should care about Olympics anyway? What we should be protesting against is those rules meant to go way round the anti-tyranny of the constitution. We should boycott the Olympics itself etc for attempting to silence pple! Those 'rules' are not inspired by the same spirit that inspired the constitution.
But maybe if I use Twitter, Facebook etc banning of Trump etc, my point will sink more to some pple. The constitution provides for freedom of speech. If you respect the constitution, then neither would you erect an organization that forbids freedom of speech nor moraly support any such organization. Pple should not group pple with the aim of infringing on 'freedom of speech', such as they did in Twitter. But the 'conservatives' too should not cheer organizations (including stadiums) that try to stiffle freedom of expression, now that what they want to express is unpopular amongst the 'conservatives'. They should be consistent, if they are to make a good point.