> Or for the biggest example of modern cancel culture, Kaepernick's firing after targeting by the president.
Kaepernick was "fired" because he was poor at his job. Defenses started to understand his 1-dimensional attack and then shut it down. He was cut after the 2016 season, but had been benched in 2015 because the 49ers offense was struggling.[1] This was nine months before he ever took a knee before a game.[2] Did the 49ers look into a crystal ball and decide to bench him in favor of a demonstrably mediocre quarterback because of something that wouldn't happen for nine months? If he didn't show actual improvement on the field, were the 49ers obligated to keep him? Is an employer obligated to keep any employee who says something controversial regardless of performance?
> Be charitable, he could be talking about the Dixie Chicks or anchors that were fired for questioning the Iraq war.
Which anchors lost their jobs for questioning Iraq? Dan Rather stepped down for his role in publishing a hoax memo about George W. Bush's National Guard duty.[3] Brian Williams was quasi-fired for embellishing a story about his time as an embedded journalist in Iraq.[4]
The Dixie Chicks were actually blacklisted by country music radio stations, so we'll give you that one.
Still, .333 isn't great unless you're playing baseball.
Kaepernick was blackballed by the league, full stop. Find me another instance of an uninjured QB under the age of 35 who led a team to a Super Bowl 3 years prior who was not only cut by his current team but not signed for even a backup role by another club.
There's a reason that Cam Newton has a job today and Kaepernick doesn't, and it's because Newton didn't get cancelled.
Both players debuted in the NFL in 2011. In 2015, Kaepernick led the 49ers to a 2-6 start, while Newton led the Panthers 8-0 (and to a Super Bowl berth). Sure, the QB isn't the only player responsible, but he is the single point of failure. Isn't it possible that Cam Newton is just a much better player than Kaepernick, all else being equal? If Kaepernick were so good and such a talent that teams should have been picking him, why wasn't he winning?
In 2013, Kapernick lead his team to the Super Bowl. By the end of 2016, he was completely out of the league after being blackballed. He hasn't played for a team in any capacity since. While one can argue whether his stats were great or not, he certainly was not anywhere near the worst STARTING quarterback in football.
From 2012 to 2016, Newton's Adjusted Net Yards per Play were .04 higher than Kaepernick's, a virtually statistical dead heat. After the 2015 season, Newton got a shiny new $100M contract for those efforts, and Kaepernick was shown the door after 2016.
In Kaepernick's 11 starts during the 2016 season, his team gave up more than 30 points 9 times. He had a new head coach that had just gotten run out of Philly for having no chemistry with his team, and he had one of the worst receiving corps in NFL history. He still managed 16 TDs to just 4 INTs.
So, for having one of the worst defenses in the league, coached by one of the worst coaches in the league, and throwing to easily the worst group of receivers in the league, his team didn't do so hot. But there's no reason why he shouldn't have immediately found another competition elsewhere, because he WAS a starting-caliber QB, and unlike Newton who was a similar player, Kaepernick had no outstanding injury issues. He wasn't coming off of foot surgery and shoulder surgery like Newton is today.
Kaepernick was "fired" because he was poor at his job. Defenses started to understand his 1-dimensional attack and then shut it down. He was cut after the 2016 season, but had been benched in 2015 because the 49ers offense was struggling.[1] This was nine months before he ever took a knee before a game.[2] Did the 49ers look into a crystal ball and decide to bench him in favor of a demonstrably mediocre quarterback because of something that wouldn't happen for nine months? If he didn't show actual improvement on the field, were the 49ers obligated to keep him? Is an employer obligated to keep any employee who says something controversial regardless of performance?
> Be charitable, he could be talking about the Dixie Chicks or anchors that were fired for questioning the Iraq war.
Which anchors lost their jobs for questioning Iraq? Dan Rather stepped down for his role in publishing a hoax memo about George W. Bush's National Guard duty.[3] Brian Williams was quasi-fired for embellishing a story about his time as an embedded journalist in Iraq.[4]
The Dixie Chicks were actually blacklisted by country music radio stations, so we'll give you that one.
Still, .333 isn't great unless you're playing baseball.
[1] https://www.nfl.com/news/niners-bench-colin-kaepernick-blain...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/01/colin-kaepe...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/media/analysis-p...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/brian-william...