Harrison Butker…oy vey…what a commencement “speech”

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

You are fixated primarily on his income, then his beliefs, then your own conclusions about his beliefs.  Then, after all of that, you’ve somehow made conclusions about what I think when I’ve offered no opinion about Butker’s speech whatsoever.  In fact, I haven’t even read it and likely wont.  I simply observed the venom spewed at him…..not his opinion…..based on his income.  
 

I’ll agree or disagree with the opinions of any person based on the opinion itself, not based on lumping that person into some category like you’ve repeatedly done as did the poster to whom I originally responded.  None of this has a damn thing to do with Butker’s income despite the apparent raging jealousy you harbor that induces you to twist around the real topic at hand.

 

Butker has the right to his own opinions whether they’re brilliant, moronic, or anywhere in between.  So too do the people you’d incorrectly assume I’d like to stop from speaking.  I might call someone a moron but I’m careful not to lump that moron into some group as if it has some causal effect.  
 

Your irrational post above continues your obsession with “the rich”.  Get over it dude.  You’ve also decided that people’s whose have different definitions of rich than yours are full of “utter bs”.  Get over yourself.  

Yeah... But don't let the rich infect the brains of the poor working slob out there.

 

Those chicks @ commencement have student loans to pay down first!

 

 

 

Edited May 16 by ExiledInIllinois

[Sweats]

2 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Woman supposedly have an innate urge to stay at home and raise children and be homemakers, even if it means living in abject poverty. Which, it doesn't for Isabella Butker, she probably has a nanny and a kitchen bigger than 3 section 8 apartments, combined... Like the politician chick in Alabama. 😆🤣

 

So ladies... If you got that innate urge Mister Butker talks about... Marry your sugar daddy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, thanks for getting me back on track and up to speed.

 

As for the topic direction?......nope, i'm out. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

Ok, thanks for getting me back on track and up to speed.

 

As for the topic direction?......nope, i'm out. 

Hey I tried.

 

The topic is actually better than a political rant coming out of a 10,000 square foot Alabama kitchen.  😆 

[Mikie2times]

9 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

 

 

 

It's pretty equal with the loud ones from each side. Most of us don't really care and accept people with different opinions. 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Dr. K said:

What a clown. An arrogant, privileged clown. 

 

I should add that he has every right to express whatever opinions he likes, and people can take them for whatever they are worth, even if I consider him an arrogant clown. 

Oh look everyone…..someone who actually acknowledges the right of someone to state their own opinions even if he thinks the other person’s opinions are foolish.

 

And look…..he focused on the opinion, not the speaker’s race, religion, economic status or some other group lumping.  
 

Hey Doc, wouldn’t it have been easier if you just called him rich or defined rich as making 300k or inferred the opinions of others for simply pointing that out?  Sure it might be weak minded but at least you could avoid all that mind exercising that made it stronger.

[Jauronimo]

28 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

You are fixated primarily on his income, then his beliefs, then your own conclusions about his beliefs.  Then, after all of that, you’ve somehow made conclusions about what I think when I’ve offered no opinion about Butker’s speech whatsoever.  In fact, I haven’t even read it and likely wont.  I simply observed the venom spewed at him…..not his opinion…..based on his income.  
 

I’ll agree or disagree with the opinions of any person based on the opinion itself, not based on lumping that person into some category like you’ve repeatedly done as did the poster to whom I originally responded.  None of this has a damn thing to do with Butker’s income despite the apparent raging jealousy you harbor that induces you to twist around the real topic at hand.

 

Butker has the right to his own opinions whether they’re brilliant, moronic, or anywhere in between.  So too do the people you’d incorrectly assume I’d like to stop from speaking.  I might call someone a moron but I’m careful not to lump that moron into some group as if it has some causal effect.  
 

Your irrational post above continues your obsession with “the rich”.  Get over it dude.  You’ve also decided that people’s who have different definitions of rich than yours are full of “utter bs”.  Get over yourself.  

 

I have not once mentioned Butker's beliefs or shared any opinions on his beliefs.  I have not once criticized or villainized the rich.  I have only commented on the opinions you have shared about stifling the free speech of individuals and socio economic groups while reminding you of some opinions you willing share.  Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

 

I'm obsessed with the rich?? You launched into a largely irrelevant diatribe about villainizing the rich, marginalizing the rich, and even mass murder of the rich.  Not once, but twice.  It was a pretty good diatribe, I can tell you've been practicing.  It was, however, misplaced as Butker fits any conventional definition of the term as it pertains to wealth.  

 

You can't dish it out then clutch your pearls when it comes back around. When did you get so fabulously dramatic?

 

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Oh look everyone…..someone who actually acknowledges the right of someone to state their own opinions even if he thinks the other person’s opinions are foolish.

 

And look…..he focused on the opinion, not the speaker’s race, religion, economic status or some other group lumping.  
 

Hey Doc, wouldn’t it have been easier if you just called him rich or defined rich as making 300k or inferred the opinions of others for simply pointing that out?  Sure it might be weak minded but at least you could avoid all that mind exercising that made it stronger.

Doc?  Here comes that famous reading comprehension of yours again.

[4merper4mer]

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

I have not once mentioned Butker's beliefs or shared any opinions on his beliefs.  I have not once criticized or villainized the rich.  I have only commented on the opinions you have shared about stifling the free speech of individuals and socio economic groups while reminding you of some opinions you willing share.  Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

 

I'm obsessed with the rich?? You launched into a largely irrelevant diatribe about villainizing the rich, marginalizing the rich, and even mass murder of the rich.  Not once, but twice.  It was a pretty good diatribe, I can tell you've been practicing.  It was, however, misplaced as Butker fits any conventional definition of the term as it pertains to wealth.  

 

You can't dish it out then clutch your pearls when it comes back around. When did you get so fabulously dramatic?

 

Doc?  Here comes that famous reading comprehension of yours again.

I replied to Dr. K and called him Doc.  What part of that has anything to do with my reading comprehension?  It seems to me that yours is a bit off……still.

 

As for the rest of your poorly written post…..I tried hard to decipher your “English” and failed.  For instance you said “….reminding you of some opinions you willing share”.  I can’t answer that because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

 

I concur that I wrote something that could be considered a diatribe, but it was not irrelevant.  Butker’s wealth is irrelevant yet was the only thing mentioned by EII.  He in no way focused on anything Butker said…..only his wealth.  You then decided to define “rich” for all of us.  
 

I was trying to point out that the thread was meant to be primarily about the speech, not the speaker, or at least that I thought that made more sense.  I admittedly did it in an indirect way and this sailed waaaaaaaaay over your head.  That is why I asked about your reading comprehension.  In the future when replying to you I will try to use small words.

 

 

[boyst]

ya'll should be lucky i did not chime in with my input on this one  

[DrW]

1 hour ago, Irv said:

Butker made total sense.  Need more people like that in the world of freaks.  

 

Are you married? If yes, did you ever ask your wife if she agrees with you?

 

Before you ask me the same question: Yes, I am married. Both my wife work in academic research/teaching, full-time. Still, we were able to raise two kids who did not seem to suffer from the circumstances. Sure, it was sometimes hard to do your work at night because during the day you had to incorporate the kids' schedule. No, I am not saying that this is the correct approach for everybody; you and your spouse sometimes have to make hard decisions. Most importantly, not everybody who does not share Mr. Butker's values is a "freak". There is very seldom a clear black or white; most of us operate in the grey zone.    

[ExiledInIllinois]

His wealth is very relevant!

 

Move to 2 income families is a tragedy of commons!

 

He's hogging the wealth for 50 single income families!  He shouldn't be preaching people into poverty!

 

 

I will correct that from wealth to "resources."

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Butker didn't call for women to not be allowed to work. He said it was his wife's experience that she found fulfillment as a mother.

 

The narrow minded ones are the ones calling for him to be cancelled and released from the team for having his own beliefs.

 

Let's imagine a world where he said women should be able to work and people signed petitions to have him kicked off the team. Would you want to live in that world? Or should neither side have that much power. Think about it.

In his clarification he said he wanted to revert to a time where women didn’t have thoughts.  There is no way to spin his comments other than misogyny.

12 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

OK and you would have been right to walk out because this is how you feel. Otoh the school certainly has the right to invite they choose, or do you disagree with this?

I would address your comment about Biden but while comments such as yours appear to be fine on TBD, I would certainly get chastized and probably issued points for an opposing view.

It is not surprising this school invited him to speak as his views align with the school’s.  It is also not surprising that many feel his comments were terrible.

[Jauronimo]

55 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I replied to Dr. K and called him Doc.  What part of that has anything to do with my reading comprehension?  It seems to me that yours is a bit off……still.

 

As for the rest of your poorly written post…..I tried hard to decipher your “English” and failed.  For instance you said “….reminding you of some opinions you willing share”.  I can’t answer that because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

 

I concur that I wrote something that could be considered a diatribe, but it was not irrelevant.  Butker’s wealth is irrelevant yet was the only thing mentioned by EII.  He in no way focused on anything Butker said…..only his wealth.  You then decided to define “rich” for all of us.  
 

I was trying to point out that the thread was meant to be primarily about the speech, not the speaker, or at least that I thought that made more sense.  I admittedly did it in an indirect way and this sailed waaaaaaaaay over your head.  That is why I asked about your reading comprehension.  In the future when replying to you I will try to use small words.

 

 

Using small words may expedite the process of misrepresenting and misunderstanding the posts you're responding to.  May also lead to shorter rants and less weeping for the rich, whomever they may be, those poor unfortunate souls.

 

Butker's wealth is highly relevant when suggesting single incomes and homemakers is the paradigm by which we should all live.  Of course, the vision Butker has laid out is not an economic possibility for many households.  Some would call this opinion out of touch.  Some might argue that making millions a year is contributing factor to losing touch with the realities of middle class and lower class America.  Some already have made these points, but you spun it into proletarian class warfare and trampling on the first amendment rights of the wealthy. And for that, you earned mockery.

 

I find it funny that you insist EII and others focus on the content of a speech you admittedly haven't read and likely won't.  Such a principled stand. A stand in defense of the rich.   The rich that you are so reluctant to identify.  I'm sure they sleep soundly at night knowing their dark per4mer is out there protecting their interests on internet fora from Marxists and the Neo Khmer Rouge.  Well that and their gated communities and private security.

 

[Mister Defense]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

 

 

 

 

I never said that there are not a lot of narrow minded hateful idiots in our country, but that the vast majority of us are not that.

 

But if ten percent  of the former persuasion are like Butker, that still equals millions of yahoos. 
 

We just have to make sure they never become the majority...

 

 

 

Edited May 16 by Mister Defense

[Bad Things]

2 hours ago, Mister Defense said:

 

Butker does not seem to be an actual Christian, but a phony.

 

 

Unfortunately, I believe this is the way things are trending for many.

[oldmanfan]

I wonder if Butker is against nuns?  

[ExiledInIllinois]

23 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Using small words may expedite the process of misrepresenting and misunderstanding the posts you're responding to.  May also lead to shorter rants and less weeping for the rich, whomever they may be, those poor unfortunate souls.

 

Butker's wealth is highly relevant when suggesting single incomes and homemakers is the paradigm by which we should all live.  Of course, the vision Butker has laid out is not an economic possibility for many households.  Some would call this opinion out of touch.  Some might argue that making millions a year is contributing factor to losing touch with the realities of middle class and lower class America.  Some already have made these points, but you spun it into proletarian class warfare and trampling on the first amendment rights of the wealthy. And for that, you earned mockery.

 

I find it funny that you insist EII and others focus on the content of a speech you admittedly haven't read and likely won't.  Such a principled stand. A stand in defense of the rich.   The rich that you are so reluctant to identify.  I'm sure they sleep soundly at night knowing their dark per4mer is out there protecting their interests on internet fora from Marxists and the Neo Khmer Rouge.  Well that and their gated communities and private security.

 

Bingo!

 

Then Catholic church stance on abortion, etc...

 

It's a pure #s game and they are losing it. They are proselytizing them into poverty.

 

I'd have more an open ear to what Butker is putting down if he was the sole breadwinner in the family making $50k.  Then the world would listen.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16 by ExiledInIllinois

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Bingo!

 

Then Catholic church stance on abortion, etc...

 

It's a pure #s game and they are losing it. They are proselytizing them into poverty.

 

I'd have more an open ear to what Butker is putting down if he was the sole breadwinner in the family making $50k.  Then the world would listen.

 

 

 

 

butker called homosexuality a deadly sin

 

i have below zero interest in listening to him.

[ExiledInIllinois]

17 minutes ago, Bad Things said:

 

Unfortunately, I believe this is the way things are trending for many.

"Cafeteria Catholics" I think they call them.

 

He's got his! He's got his 6 chairs. Now stop the music and the other 6 zillion grab one of the remaining 1 zillion!

 

Ut ah... It doesn't work that way BUTT-ker the kicker. 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

Using small words may expedite the process of misrepresenting and misunderstanding the posts you're responding to.  May also lead to shorter rants and less weeping for the rich, whomever they may be, those poor unfortunate souls.

 

Butker's wealth is highly relevant when suggesting single incomes and homemakers is the paradigm by which we should all live.  Of course, the vision Butker has laid out is not an economic possibility for many households.  Some would call this opinion out of touch.  Some might argue that making millions a year is contributing factor to losing touch with the realities of middle class and lower class America.  Some already have made these points, but you spun it into proletarian class warfare and trampling on the first amendment rights of the wealthy. And for that, you earned mockery.

 

I find it funny that you insist EII and others focus on the content of a speech you admittedly haven't read and likely won't.  Such a principled stand. A stand in defense of the rich.   The rich that you are so reluctant to identify.  I'm sure they sleep soundly at night knowing their dark per4mer is out there protecting their interests on internet fora from Marxists and the Neo Khmer Rouge.  Well that and their gated communities and private security.

 

Failed again.  
 

I will repeat….I responded to a post by EII that did not comment on Butker’s speech.  It only mentioned Butker’s economic status.  Therefore the contents of his speech were not relevant to my response.  It also did not mention the color of Butker’s car or the length of Butker’s hair, so I left those out too.  How could I “spin it” into class warfare, when economic status was the entirety of the post to which I responded?  There was nothing else in there at all.  It was 100% about economic status to begin with.  Your reading comprehension remains poor.  
 

Your last paragraph is pretty twisted dude.  I haven’t defended “the rich”.  I defended Butker’s right to speak as he sees fit.  You, the arbiter of all things economic, have defined Butker as rich so you’ve reached a poor conclusion again.  He’s a person.  I’d also defend the right of a person you define as poor, short, tall, straight, gay, black, white or whatever else to speak.  Keep defining people in ways that dehumanize them if you’d like, but pardon me if I don’t.  
 

I’ll even say that people that use racist tropes in a screen name and avatar should be able to speak their mind, even when barely literate. I consider the right to free speech important so limiting it for anyone is dangerous.

[ExiledInIllinois]

6 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Failed again.  
 

I will repeat….I responded to a post by EII that did not comment on Butker’s speech.  It only mentioned Butker’s economic status.  Therefore the contents of his speech were not relevant to my response.  It also did not mention the color of Butker’s car or the length of Butker’s hair, so I left those out too.  How could I “spin it” into class warfare, when economic status was the entirety of the post to which I responded?  There was nothing else in there at all.  It was 100% about economic status to begin with.  Your reading comprehension remains poor.  
 

Your last paragraph is pretty twisted dude.  I haven’t defended “the rich”.  I defended Butker’s right to speak as he sees fit.  You, the arbiter of all things economic, have defined Butker as rich so you’ve reached a poor conclusion again.  He’s a person.  I’d also defend the right of a person you define as poor, short, tall, straight, gay, black, white or whatever else to speak.  Keep defining people in ways that dehumanize them if you’d like, but pardon me if I don’t.  
 

I’ll even say that people that use racist tropes in a screen name and avatar should be able to speak their mind, even when barely literate. I consider the right to free speech important so limiting it for anyone is dangerous.

I guess we shouldn't be giving him the airplay then.