SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DirecTV is allowing at least some customers to cancel subscriptions to its Sunday Ticket package of NFL games and obtain refunds, if they cite players' national anthem protests as the reason for discontinuing service, customer service representatives said Tuesday.
Under Sunday Ticket's regular policy, refunds are not to be given once the season is underway. But the representatives said they are making exceptions this season -- which began in September -- because of the controversy over the protests, in which players kneel or link arms during the national anthem.
Spokesmen for DirecTV-parent AT&T Inc. (T) and the National Football League declined to comment.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
DirecTV Allows Some NFL Refunds After Anthem Controversy
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 211 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Friday September 29 2017, @03:49PM (32 children)
Gosh, maybe if they said to news agencies why they were protesting, and calling attention to it, and being ignored, eh?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 29 2017, @03:54PM (31 children)
Nope. The intentions of the speaker do not matter at all, only if the message was effectively conveyed. You don't win someone to your side by shitting on their windshield.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Friday September 29 2017, @04:03PM (13 children)
Neither do you get listened to by standing on a corner saying "Excuse me, Erm.. Sorry... Can I just... I'd like to say..."
Which is a MUCH closer analogy to what they're doing than yours.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 29 2017, @04:15PM (12 children)
From your perspective, yes. From that of the fans, no. And that of the fans is the one that matters unless you're trying to piss them off rather than convey a message. It's not the job of the fans or of myself to tell you how to speak effectively to an audience. Figuring that out is your job.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Friday September 29 2017, @04:30PM (7 children)
I was listening to Bill OReilly froth at the mouth over this. Boomers and older are really mad because to them the anthem and flag = America, the anthem and flag =/ the president. What they saw from this event appears to be equivalent to pissing on graves at Arlington, not taking a stand against the presidents policies.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 29 2017, @04:39PM
Yup. It was an exceedingly poorly chosen method of communication.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday September 29 2017, @05:12PM (2 children)
Boomers and older are really mad
They won't be round much longer.
(Aren't boomers the woodstock generation?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @08:37PM (1 child)
Boomers used to burn the fucking flag! You want to piss of some petty nationalist fascist Americans, just criticize they Wars of Aggression and set fire to Ol' Gory! So who are all these current day offended American conservatives, besides the Might Buzzurd?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:55AM
A) Not a conservative.
B) Not offended.
I've actually been offering helpful advice on public speaking this entire article.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 29 2017, @07:42PM (1 child)
That's it exactly. Thank you for saying it.
There are some who are slyly trying to smear everyone thus upset as nazis who actually do want cops to murder black people. It's disingenuous.
I don't care if they're protesting, except that anyone else in America would be summarily fired for engaging in political protests on the job, but let not what's going on be hijacked for more stupid culture wars.
Anyway the NFL is shooting itself in the foot with this business, because the Baby Boomers are the NFL's core audience. The numbers of Gen-X who care about the NFL are much lower than the Boomers, and the Gen-Y and Millenials care even less, especially since ESPN and the sports leagues have refused to lower themselves to broadcasting their stuff online in a reasonable fashion. Not that I have a problem with the NFL shooting itself in the foot, because I fucking hate football and football players and always have.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @08:37PM
I like football.
Not such a fan of the NFL, but the game itself is an interesting fusion of brain and brawn. I don't know of any other sport where the coach controls so much of the action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @11:45PM
Don't assume. Don't assume. I am at the tail end of the boomer generation (born 1963) and I'm completely fine with the players kneeling for the national anthem. Frankly, it is all those who are bloviating and "frothing at the mouth" who disgust me. Of course, I'm just one data point...but there you go.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @11:58PM (3 children)
What you are failing to grasp is that perhaps--just maybe, mind you--the fans do understand the message and are offended by having their precious country called out for the not so subtle inequities minorities must face every day in this country. Inequities like being shot by cops for existing while black, for example.
I'm reminded of something Patrick Moynihan once said: I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. [biblegateway.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:01AM (2 children)
Oh please. Shouting "Everyone's Racist" isn't going to make it true no matter how loudly you shout it.
You know that a black man is less than ten percent more likely to be shot while committing a crime than a white man, yes? Even though he's three times and change more likely to commit a crime? That math says to me the black man is getting one hell of a break.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @02:17AM (1 child)
But do you really believe the words you write? I guess its a rhetorical question since either way you're compelled to act the part.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 01 2017, @03:33PM
Since I looked up the statistics, did the math, and had an error in my math corrected? Yes, I absolutely believe what I'm saying. Facts: they're still the truth even if they trigger you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @04:10PM (2 children)
Stupid analogy.
This is really like someone protesting on the sidewalk, the other people ramming their car into said protestor and then complaining about the blood on their windshields.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 29 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)
I reread your comment several times, trying to find something worth responding rationally to. There just wasn't anything there. Your assertion was pure idiocy and we are all dumber for having read it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @06:12PM
Now you understand my problem with your posts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday September 29 2017, @06:54PM (13 children)
Please explain how the actions of these folks is akin to "shitting on their windshield?" I honestly don't get it.
"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."
While the first amendment doesn't apply to private entities, the fact that protections for freedom of expression was the *first* amendment makes a strong case for tolerance and acceptance of differing viewpoints regardless of venue.
What's more, no one is forced to watch football games, they can even just skip the national anthem if they wish. Or some (I'd be very interested to see what percentage of subscribers are canceling over this, I imagine it's a pretty small group) may decide they don't like it and don't wish to "support" such activities, which is fine too. If DirecTV is willing to give those people refunds, what of it? This is a tempest in a teapot.
Given the traditions and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded, those decrying the peaceful exercise of expression are the ones who are unpatriotic and un-American.
As such, I ask everyone who would be okay with forcing these athletes to stop peacefully expressing themselves, why do you hate America? Why are you shitting on the windshield of one of our most important ideals?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:10AM (12 children)
Doing something that you should damned well know that a patriotic American is going to see as saying "Fuck America" is not how you win them to your side. Disrespecting the flag and anthem are something anyone with half a brain should know is going to piss off anyone who loves this country.
The problem is they either aren't bright enough to see this or winning people to their side was never the goal. Lashing out exactly like a petulant little dickwad teenager who hates everything daddy stands for just because he stands for it is the official mission statement for a large percent of them. Unless... can you perhaps explain why the left vehemently supports the expansion of a religion that is violently against every last thing that the left has ever campaigned for? There's really no possible reason for them getting all huggy-squeezy with Islam except to give the finger to the home team.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:07AM (11 children)
I stridently disagree. As an American and one who values the ideals of freedom and equality under the law, I find the idea that a piece of cloth or a poem are more important than the concepts of free expression and the right of people to protest injustice (real or perceived) to be ludicrous in the extreme.
If you think waving a flag or singing a song is more patriotic than living the ideals those things represent, that's really sad.
In case you aren't aware, what makes the United States different from pretty much every other country on the planet is that we are not bound together by ethnicity, religion or geography, we are bound together by a shared belief in the ideals espoused by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its amendments. Shitting on those ideals while venerating inanimate objects is antithetical to what it means to be an American.
As such, regardless of what people say, if they bemoan freedom of expression and call for those who express ideas, that are uncomfortable and do so in an unpleasant (to them) way, to be silenced and/or punished for their expression, it's clear that they do not subscribe to the ideals of the United States. That makes them unpatiotic and haters of our way of life.
That's disingenuous and you should know that. kneeling or linking arms during the national anthem has exactly zero to do with Islam or any political agenda, left (although what you call 'left' is really center-right) or right . It is specifically aimed at raising awareness of the injustice (as perceived by those participating in these activities) within our borders. You're attempting (and poorly, I might add) to muddy the issues with irrelevant and inflammatory language and references.
The problem is that too many people don't recognize their own unpatriotic behavior. Just as many a child molester, murderer or bank robber may attend their local church, it doesn't make them decent members of the community, those who wave the flag and stand for the national anthem but call for censorship and for the rights of others to be curtailed because they don't like either their message or the medium used to send it, doesn't make them patriotic Americans. It makes them hypocrites.
Freedom of expression isn't a partisan issue. It's a critical part of a free society. If you advocate trying to choke off the expression of some, you harm us all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 30 2017, @10:39AM (10 children)
Sigh. Your reply, like so many others, tells me that you have managed to completely miss the entire point of my posting to this FA in the first place.
If you know before you do it that your chosen method of speech is going to enrage more of the people than any other method you could possibly use, what is your protest really designed to accomplish? I mean, it's obviously not meant to gain sympathy for your cause if you're actively trying to piss people off. At best it's an childish tantrum.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @01:23PM (1 child)
So by your logic you should stop posting since you are repeatedly failing to get your point across.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 01 2017, @03:37PM
No, that would assume there is only one way to get my point across. Much like there were plenty of ways for the dipshits in the NFL to get their point across that did not piss off a huge swath of their fan base.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:21PM (7 children)
Actually, my reply addresses exactly that. Firstly, the fact that many, many more people are talking about this shows that the method is, in fact, effective. What's more, and this is the crux of my point, those who are, enraged at Americans engaging in peaceful protest against what the protesters perceive as injustice and murderous violence, are the ones who are unpatriotic.
Those who are unpatriotic (specifically in the sense of being angered by the exercise of one of our most cherished and important freedoms) aren't the intended audience anyway, as they are clearly showing their antipathy to the core ideals of our republic. Fortunately, those folks are a fairly small group.
I'll summarize:
1. That some are pissed off by peaceful protest should not only be expected, but exposes those who are pissed off as unpatriotic and, at best, have a poor understanding of what it means to be an American.
2. The level of noise surrounding these protests serves to *increase* awareness of both the protestors and the injustices they are protesting against. As such, it's a spectacular success, IMHO, as people who knew nothing about this are now discussing it.
3. My characterization of those who would rail against and trample on our freedoms and core ideals as unpatriotic haters of America goes to the heart of your argument, as it's clear (at least to me) that pissing off the people who hate American ideals is just gravy on top of getting out the message that the protestors are sending.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 01 2017, @03:43PM (6 children)
People who were already on board with your message talking about your message is not helpful in any way. The entire point of protesting is to convince those who do not agree with you to change their minds.
Your argument is deeply flawed. Not remotely all those pissed off by the protests are against American ideals and anyone you piss off is not going to listen to your arguments even if they would have agreed with them if presented in a civil manner.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 01 2017, @05:24PM (5 children)
You're making assumptions with no basis (or at least you haven't provided any) in fact.
More than a year ago, Colin Kapernick [wikipedia.org] was a lone protestor who was, for the most part, ignored.
In fact, the NFL teams wanted nothing to do with him. His contract wasn't renewed and he *still* isn't working in the NFL.
However, once the "outrage" was picked up by a small number of people about Kapernick, many, many more NFL players and fans took up Kapernick's rubric. And while Kapernick still isn't working, the NFL teams are now standing firmly behind their players.
Those who have complained (again, there is little to no data as to how many people that actually is -- my guess is that it's quite a small number) about a mild and peaceful protest have shown themselves to be intolerant of the rights of others to express themselves. Those who are intolerant of the right to freedom of expression are, by definition, railing against one of our most important civil liberties. Which strongly implies that they do *not* subscribe to the ideals of the United States.
If, On the other hand, had those people expressed themselves by saying that they did not agree with Kapernick and his follow-on compatriots and provided some actual arguments as to why their protests were wrong (e.g., there is no police bias or injustice in the U.S.), that's exactly the kind of response one would expect from people who understand and value our ideals.
But that's not what happened. A (relatively small, but) vocal group complained not that they disagreed with the protestors, but instead made demagogic complaints about disrespecting "the flag" and "the anthem," and called for these protestors to be punished for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
As for your statement that "anyone you piss off is not going to listen to your arguments even if they would have agreed with them if presented in a civil manner" who are you referring to? Those who silently show their disapproval for the state of the nation they live in, or those who nastily demand the censorship and punishment of those whom they disagree?
Which group is presenting itself in a civil manner? I'll leave that as an exercise for the class.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:32PM (4 children)
Wrong. Those that have complained were pissed off by the perceived shitting on of something they deeply love. If you can't put yourself in their shoes for even long enough to figure that out, you've got a lack of empathy bordering on sociopathy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:54PM (3 children)
Inanimate objects are not equivalent in importance to the core ideals of the U.S. As I have *repeatedly* stated, I don't begrudge anyone the right to speak their mind, whether I agree with them or not. But my voice is just as free as that of anyone else.
Where I have an issue is with those who would shit on one of the core ideals (freedom of expression) of my home. Rail against ideas with which you disagree. Fine with me. Raise your voice in anger and make arguments to refute those your dislike. Go for it!
But when you call for the rights of my fellow Americans to be curtailed, regardless of the content of their speech, I take exception.
If that belief makes you think me a sociopath, then so be it. I'm comfortable that those who actually know me would disagree with that assessment.
I find it amusing that you should stoop to a personal attack on me rather than standing up for your fellow Americans' right to freedom of expression, especially given your passionate embrace of same on this site.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 01 2017, @07:16PM (2 children)
Argue all you like. It's not going to change the reality that some people simply love their country and will never, under any circumstances, appreciate people disrespecting it. They picked a shitty way to convince people of their argument. End of story.
Look, you're an editor, so I know you can read. Read this: nowhere did I argue they do not have the right to do whatever they like. I said they did it in a pretty fucking stupid way if they were looking to win people's support.
None of your beliefs caused that "sociopath" statement. Your utter inability to understand the people who hold a deep and abiding love of the United States does mark you as very much unable to empathize with your fellow humans though. Which is the primary defining characteristic of a sociopath. Unless it's an unwillingness rather than an inability, in which case you're acting like an asshole rather than a sociopath. That is not a personal attack. That is fact.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 01 2017, @07:31PM (1 child)
There. FTFY.
True enough. However, you ignore the deeply hateful and anti-freedom message of those who *do* call for censorship and/or punishment of those who seek to express themselves. In my book, that's not love of country, that's an attempt to silence those with whom you disagree.
No one is forced to support those in the NFL who choose to protest in this fashion.
I disagree with your assertion that those protests are either wildly unpopular or unsuccessful. However, that's irrelevant my main point -- that those who call for censorship/punishment of those who express ideas with which they disagree is deeply un-American and un-patriotic.
And yes, I recognize that your main point is pretty tangential to mine. I sought to bring to the fore that *any* attempt to silence others is deeply unpatriotic.
It's clear that we won't come to any sort of compromise over this Buzzard, so why don't we just agree to disagree?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:50PM
Yes, I do, because it's a strawman. You want to argue something with me that I've not said a word about.
That's a pretty solid bubble you're living in there. Among the people I know in meatspace, I've heard more black folks say "man, fuck the NFL" than I've heard of any race come out in support of the players.
It's always good to keep in mind that there are a fuckton of black veterans. Way more than their ~12% of the population would warrant. And veterans tend to be a little more flag-waving than your average bear.
Regardless, there are only two reasons to pick that particular method of getting their message out.
1) They're stupid and didn't think it would piss as many people off as it has.
2) They don't give a shit about the message and just want to piss people off.
I hope it's the former. Stupid can be fixed; shithead not so much.
What they should have done is something like taken up a collection from all the players interested and bought up every second of Superbowl commercial time they could manage. Putting your money where your mouth is shows commitment and, more importantly, it wouldn't have pissed hardly anyone off so much that they will now never listen.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.