~Soccer Thread~

[Anonymous Coward]

People who sit out of the anthem aren't "protesting the nation," they are protesting things that happen in the nation. These are not identical. Protesting america is a darker, misanthropic thing - wanting america to end or be destroyed. And that's not a common credo. If any of our citizens take that tack they occupy less than a thousandth of the population. And Rapinoe playing for the United States, presumably liking it and her teammates, excludes her. Protesting america was Osama bin Laden's credo, to take an extreme example.

[Brutus Buckeye]

People who sit out of the anthem aren't "protesting the nation," they are protesting things that happen in the nation. These are not identical. Protesting america is a darker, absolute thing - wanting america to end or be destroyed. And that's not a common credo. And certainly not Rapinoe's. Protesting america was Osama bin Laden's credo.

I respectfully disagree.

They are protesting what they believe to be the "things that happen in this nation" BY protesting the National Anthem. 

I can flip you the bird, and then say that I am doing it for some other reason. But that doesn't change the fact that I am still flipping you the bird. 

She has the right to protest the National Anthem, the National team has the right to let her play anyway, we have the right to take issue with it, and you have the right to think that we are misguided for taking issue with it. What a great country we live in. 

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing "disrespect toward aspects of a nation" with the word unpatriotic. But that doesn't work. It's a false equivalence. Just as you aren't unpatriotic if you disrespect liberal aspects of america. It's not one or the other. It's both, always. Neither you nor Rapinoe can be unpatriotic by disrespecting the American things you disapprove of. That your example will never include sitting out the anthem is irrelevant.

The crux here: It's counter-productive to want to silence unpopular protests because by that logic you'd have to accept yourself to be silenced the next time a majority disagreed with you. Which happens to not be an American ideology because it's a fascist one.

[Brutus Buckeye]

I suppose that we will simply have to agree to disagree, seeing as your odds of bringing me around to your way of thinking are even slimmer than my odds of bringing you around to mine. 

I am still rooting for the National team, but I Hope, perhaps Solo, that we don't win another game because of Rapinoe. 

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave up on convincing the internet was wrong some time ago. Or at least I tried to try and want to keep it up. My motivation here is just to be my version of real. You're doing the same. I think that's nice. Brainwashing to increase my clan is boring anyway. And if you ask Kant, unethical. You're an end unto yourself. It's good that you're out there. And if people with different bends can take an even-keeled second to get along in disagreement, that's good for everyone.

[utee94]

I gave up on convincing the internet was wrong some time ago. Or at least I tried to try and want to keep it up. My motivation here is just to be my version of real. You're doing the same. I think that's nice. Brainwashing to increase my clan is boring anyway. And if you ask Kant, unethical. You're an end unto yourself. It's good that you're out there. And if people with different bends can take an even-keeled second to get along in disagreement, that's good for everyone.

Yup, agree with all of the above.

I respect and encourage people with differing opinions.  I don't learn much from people who already agree with me.  And I'm a strong proponent of the 1st Amendment.

What I dislike, is people that believe there should be no consequences for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.  The only thing you're guaranteed, is that the government won't throw you in jail for it. There was never a guarantee that everyone must like your opinion, or agree with it.  There was never a guarantee that public figures making public displays of their opinions wouldn't result in negative repercussions, such as advertisers pulling their endorsements from your professional organization because it is harming their business, or concert promoters pulling the backing of a musical artist because it's bad for their business, or employers terminating an employee because it's bad for their business.

This idea that exercising 1st Amendment Rights should be free from consequences is decidedly UN-American, rather it's the sacrifice one makes for standing up for your opinion that is the truly "American" ideal.  Just my opinion of course, and hopefully my employer won't terminate ME for expressing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for consequences ... disdain even when called for, and maybe by sitting out of the anthem Rapinoe deserves that from a third or half of the population. I'm cool with that part. My argument wasn't to say otherwise. It was to specify ideas and definitions. Namely, that in America, whose foundation was laid by subversion and (sometimes not so civil) disobedience, perhaps an earnest protest can never be unpatriotic.

[MaximumSam]

"I ain't going to the fucking White House"

Ok now I'm a fan

[Cincydawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX56rbqZhto

[ALA2262]

If you thought I was finished bitching about the WWC seeding, think again. There were 8 European/Scandinavian teams in the final knockout round. ALL were matched against non-E/S teams. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. The US was the only one that advanced to the quarterfinals.

[utee94]

I didn't pay much attention, how did they perform the seedings?  Is there a legitimate reason it turned out that way, or just some home-cooking?

[ELA]

I didn't pay much attention, how did they perform the seedings?  Is there a legitimate reason it turned out that way, or just some home-cooking?

Pre-slotted based on Group

[utee94]

Pre-slotted based on Group

Well I know that, but was there something deliberate done with the groups?

[ELA]

Well I know that, but was there something deliberate done with the groups?

I don't think so.  I think FIFA used to hand pick the groups to ensure good TV viewership for group play, but I believe this is the first time it's totally random within the pots.

The problem is that there were 9 UEFA teams in the tournament so 3 groups had 2 and 3 groups had 1.  Groups A, B and D had 2, and a UEFA team came in first in all three, and came in 1-2 in A and B.  Groups C, E, and F had one, with the UEFA team winning C and E, and coming in second (Sweden) in F.

So the 8 UEFA teams to advance were all distributed, but all came in 1st or 2nd in their Group, meaning they were totally pre-selected.

I would think the only argument would be that you only use Group play to determine the 16 to advance, then you reseed 1-16 based on the seeding you used to split to pods.

Then you'd get...

#1 USA vs. #46 Cameroon
#8 Japan vs. #9 Sweden
#5 Canada vs. #13 Norway
#4 England vs. #15 China
#3 France vs. #16 Italy
#6 Australia vs. #12 Spain
#7 Netherlands vs. #10 Brazil
#2 Germany vs. #39 Nigeria