No differently than anyone would view someone saying, "Thank my lucky stars." I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that finds something so innocuous as that "offensive". Atheists (some, certainly not all, probably not even most) seem to be easily upset though.
That's the point, it's not that he used his few seconds for a personal agenda, it's that we find the agenda disagreeable. He's not stealing someone's time or doing anything inherently different, we just don't like the message.
Is it something that should be judged by vote? If most people think thanking God is innocuous then it's fine, but if a majority of people found his message offensive then it's no good?
Then might I recommend this: http://www.theamericanschoolofprotocol.com/classes/All of this said I agree with the majority of sentiment here that it's a dumb kid looking for attention. I just dont see anything wrong with him doing something dumb on stage for personal attention mistakenly thinking he's doing something good. Its exactly how I feel when someone thanks God on the podium.
Yes, yes it is.
I'm pretty sure I laid out a good argument as to why.
Given the brouhahas in the last decade about meeting with POTUS for various things, I've wondered what would I would do if I did something in my private life to earn an invitation to meet the POTUS.
For me, it is basically the same answer as with Obama. (I would've really like to meet Bush as POTUS.) I would accept the invitation, exchange small talk, and only if offered an opportunity to bring up our differing approaches to things would I do so. "So, what do you think about my bumpstock ban?" "Well, sir," while my wife cringes "thanks for bringing that up."
The reality is that it is most likely too late in my life to stand on a podium like that, or meet the POTUS. And that's ok.
I wasn't responding to your point.
It’s not a dichotomy. It’s not either/or. He won the individual event that got him on the podium AS A MEMBER OF A TEAM that represents his country AND PAID HIS WAY. If he wants to make statements on a personal level, then he should do it while not representing his nation. If he can’t figure out where the balance is, if he wants to be on his own, why is he on a team?So if an athlete makes the podium, that's ours, as Americans, collective time to bask in our american glory for having gotten him where he is? For having given him the opportunity to do what he did?
No, it's a dumb sporting event, we shouldn't care one way or another. But we certainly shouldn't pretend we're somehow owed his respect or that it's taking anything away from us in raising those issues.
Itd be like an athlete pointing up to thank God for making the podium at the Olympics and people complaining this is a secular country and he shouldn't be using 'our collective time' to air personal beliefs.
Well, as a non-believer myself, it doesn’t bother me. Thank whomever/whatever you want. That isn’t making any demand for what I should do.How should an atheist view that display? It's still the airing of one's personal beliefs, done so purposefully, and with the intent to make public spectacle. Ultimately, I don't see the difference.
He’s using the platform paid for by other people who might not agree with the agenda he’s pushing.That's the point, it's not that he used his few seconds for a personal agenda, it's that we find the agenda disagreeable. He's not stealing someone's time or doing anything inherently different, we just don't like the message.
Is it something that should be judged by vote? If most people think thanking God is innocuous then it's fine, but if a majority of people found his message offensive then it's no good?
He’s using the platform paid for by other people who might not agree with the agenda he’s pushing.
Activists suck. They suck because they try to force the change they want on people who don’t want it. Well, if you’re an activist, what if you’re full of ****? If you’re advocating by persuasion, and you’re full of ****, people will just reject you. No harm done.
You want to change the world? Convince people through persuasion, not coercion, not through inciting the mob, doxxing, narrative control, and not through abusing the platform other people helped give you. Do it with your own ***damn platform. As John Q. Public. Individual. Nobody. One vote. Just like everyone else.
So you are against this sort of thing in principle, not just this specific example?
You want to change the world? Convince people through persuasion, not coercion, not through inciting the mob, doxxing, narrative control, and not through abusing the platform other people helped give you.
Well yeah. Activism is retarded. I'm against this iteration as much as any.
Jamil's rules for changing the world:
1) Try persuading people rather than coercing people, because what if you're full of ****?
2) Try not to be full of ****.
He can stand on the podium and point up to thank god
Not a personal agenda
He can kneel on the podium
Personal agenda
What is the inherent difference between the two?
Is it only that we collectively feel one disrespectful and the other innocuous?
Right exactly how coercive is kneeling instead of standing at a podium? Other than it apparently really hurts peoples feelings.
2) be an activist for something I agree with
This has been explained six ways to Sunday already.
Let me give another explanation: He's not saying, "This is something important to me." Nope. He's saying, "The US must change to what I want." Read his explanation - it all about him trying to tell you what to do.