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

[Jauronimo]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The thread’s OP is about Butker’s speech.  One can safely assume that articles discussing the speech, opinions about it, and ramifications of it are on topic.  This article Is written in direct response to Butker’s speech.  I’m not sure how a logical person could consider it off topic.  I’m guessing you didn’t find any articles linking Butker to Elvis’ love child but if you did, post away.

 

 I can see why a demonstration of the silliness advocated by someone of your political persuasion would make you more sensitive than you already are, but as I’ve mentioned, I don’t personally put people into groups.  This means I understand that you may not share the opinion of the article’s author.  You needn’t deflect and wish to censor opinions that make “your side” look bad.  You didn’t write the article so it doesn’t make you look bad or silly.  Granted, you’ve done enough on your own already, but the article reflects poorly on its author, not you.  Your convoluted reasoning in favor of censorship is something that you own though.  

 

With all that said I don’t mind the idea of the Chiefs signing a female kicker for public relations purposes.  I say they should do it but the choice is theirs.

 

Well at least you aren't grouping anyone while you clumsily guess at my political "persuasions" and attribute sweeping motives there from.  

 

Declaring an article to be void of meaningful content is no more a form of censorship than your suggestion that the article makes its author look bad and silly.  I have not, in any way, restricted anyone's ability to consume that nonsense above or any other such nonsense and you know that.  I imagine that defending the patently stupid is essentially reflexive to you at this point, a form of self preservation, but you simply must to stop conflating these misguided efforts with some form of principled defense of censorship or our first amendment rights.  You are no more defending our constitutional rights than a dog barking at cars. 

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

Well at least you aren't grouping anyone while you clumsily guess at my political "persuasions" and attribute sweeping motives there from.  

 

Declaring an article to be void of meaningful content is no more a form of censorship than your suggestion that the article makes its author look bad and silly.  I have not, in any way, restricted anyone's ability to consume that nonsense above or any other such nonsense and you know that.  I imagine that defending the patently stupid is essentially reflexive to you at this point, a form of self preservation, but you simply must to stop conflating these misguided efforts with some form of principled defense of censorship or our first amendment rights.  You are no more defending our constitutional rights than a dog barking at cars. 

1. I don’t have to guess unless all your posts are “Opposite Day” posts.  I attribute no motives, sweeping or otherwise.  Motives require multi-step processes often exceeding three steps, so I can’t see attributing any motives on your part.

 

2. Perhaps you missed that the article was already erased from this thread once.  It reappeared and despite it be directly related to the thread’s topic, you made a pronouncement from on high that it was not.  

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

1. I don’t have to guess unless all your posts are “Opposite Day” posts.  I attribute no motives, sweeping or otherwise.  Motives require multi-step processes often exceeding three steps, so I can’t see attributing any motives on your part.

 

2. Perhaps you missed that the article was already erased from this thread once.  It reappeared and despite it be directly related to the thread’s topic, you made a pronouncement from on high that it was not.  

You don't have to guess what political group I belong to while you declare I am trying to censor an article to protect my political group and all the while you aren't grouping me or anyone else and you're definitely not ascribing motives...like censorship...because of the political group I belong to?  Got it.  Thank you for clarifying.

 

Ya know, maybe you should stick to calling me a racist.  I think you got a little too far over your skis today.

 

In our shared commitment to combatting censorship, real or otherwise, I am resharing the article.  Come all and read this brilliant selection from @4merper4mer's curated list of topical articles.  Behold its relevance.  Bask in its wisdom.  Daresay I like it even more than yesterday's timeless think piece titled "Garfield - Love for Lasagna - 3/18/1982".   

 

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article288545627.html

[boyst]

3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You don't have to guess what political group I belong to while you declare I am trying to censor an article to protect my political group and all the while you aren't grouping me or anyone else and you're definitely not ascribing motives...like censorship...because of the political group I belong to?  Got it.  Thank you for clarifying.

 

Ya know, maybe you should stick to calling me a racist.  I think you got a little too far over your skis today.

 

In our shared commitment to combatting censorship, real or otherwise, I am resharing the article.  Come all and read this brilliant selection from @4merper4mer's curated list of topical articles.  Behold its relevance.  Bask in its wisdom.  Daresay I like it even more than yesterday's timeless think piece titled "Garfield - Love for Lasagna - 3/18/1982".   

 

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article288545627.html

if everyone could stop posting that ridiculous article it'd be great. the guy is a buffoon trying to get traction for his own name attacking the low hanging fruit because he is so majestically superior.

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

You don't have to guess what political group I belong to while you declare I am trying to censor an article to protect my political group and all the while you aren't grouping me or anyone else and you're definitely not ascribing motives...like censorship...because of the political group I belong to?  Got it.  Thank you for clarifying.

 

Ya know, maybe you should stick to calling me a racist.  I think you got a little too far over your skis today.

 

In our shared commitment to combatting censorship, real or otherwise, I am resharing the article.  Come all and read this brilliant selection from @4merper4mer's curated list of topical articles.  Behold its relevance.  Bask in its wisdom.  Daresay I like it even more than yesterday's timeless think piece titled "Garfield - Love for Lasagna - 3/18/1982".   

 

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article288545627.html

I don’t group.  Or at least I try very hard to avoid it.  I’m sure I’ve fallen into the trap because it is a flaw in human nature.  Persuasion and group are two different things. I didn’t put you in a group.  
 

Objective groups are a thing.  “People over six feet tall” is a group for example, but there is no reason to assume a lack of individuality among them.  There are many factors to all of us.  One of your factors appears to be a desire to define terms.  “An article about desired ramifications of Butker’s speech is off topic in a thread about Butker’s speech” is a odd definition of terms from my point of view, but whatever.  Look at your own words about one of your prior posts “Declaring an article to be devoid…..”. Declaring?  Not opining?  You’re the authority?

 

9 minutes ago, boyst said:

if everyone could stop posting that ridiculous article it'd be great. the guy is a buffoon trying to get traction for his own name attacking the low hanging fruit because he is so majestically superior.

I just want the Chiefs to use a female kicker.  Is that so wrong?  I wish the Bills could get that mule from the movie while we’re at it.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I don’t group.  Or at least I try very hard to avoid it.  I’m sure I’ve fallen into the trap because it is a flaw in human nature.  Persuasion and group are two different things. I didn’t put you in a group.  
 

Objective groups are a thing.  “People over six feet tall” is a group for example, but there is no reason to assume a lack of individuality among them.  There are many factors to all of us.  One of your factors appears to be a desire to define terms.  “An article about desired ramifications of Butker’s speech is off topic in a thread about Butker’s speech” is a odd definition of terms from my point of view, but whatever.  Look at your own words about one of your prior posts “Declaring an article to be devoid…..”. Declaring?  Not opining?  You’re the authority?

 

I just want the Chiefs to use a female kicker.  Is that so wrong?  I wish the Bills could get that mule from the movie while we’re at it.

As far as you're concerned, yes.  Now go get your shine box!

[boyst]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I don’t group.  Or at least I try very hard to avoid it.  I’m sure I’ve fallen into the trap because it is a flaw in human nature.  Persuasion and group are two different things. I didn’t put you in a group.  
 

Objective groups are a thing.  “People over six feet tall” is a group for example, but there is no reason to assume a lack of individuality among them.  There are many factors to all of us.  One of your factors appears to be a desire to define terms.  “An article about desired ramifications of Butker’s speech is off topic in a thread about Butker’s speech” is a odd definition of terms from my point of view, but whatever.  Look at your own words about one of your prior posts “Declaring an article to be devoid…..”. Declaring?  Not opining?  You’re the authority?

 

I just want the Chiefs to use a female kicker.  Is that so wrong?  I wish the Bills could get that mule from the movie while we’re at it.

What is a female?

[4merper4mer]

5 minutes ago, boyst said:

What is a female?

Well.  I mean. Um.

 

Never mind.  I retract my request if the declarator of all things this thread will allow it.  I will make my request more specific and my wish is now that the Chiefs hire the specific person the article advocated,  

 

But we have to wait for the declarator.  Never forget the declarator.

[oldmanfan]

And we are still where we were when all this started.  A player has the right to say what he wants, people reading or hearing it have the right to express their opinions if they be negative or positive.  The league and the team have a responsibility to the other players and teams to indicate the player speaks only for himself.
 

And of course as with seemingly everything these days it all comes down to political persuasion.  Some of the same people who lambasted Kaepernick for his stance fall all over themselves praising Butker.  And vice versa.  

Speaking as an Independent, both these guys had the absolute right to express themselves however they wanted.  I was OK with Kaepernick kneeling because he cleared it with a Green Beret as being appropriate, and I understand those who hated it.  To me the flag stands for freedom, and what you do with your freedom may be repugnant to me but that’s the way it goes.  

Same with Butker.  But with Butker I am less understanding because of his views about the LGBTQ community.  Comments like his get like minded folks charged up and that can result in direct harm to folks who simply want to live their lives.  His comments about women?  Women I know waver between being pissed at the guy and laughing at him, and they are OK with someone wanting to be a homemaker.  That’s not a choice the vast majority of women I know would make, but to each her own.

[Bob Jones]

24 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And we are still where we were when all this started.  A player has the right to say what he wants, people reading or hearing it have the right to express their opinions if they be negative or positive.  The league and the team have a responsibility to the other players and teams to indicate the player speaks only for himself.
 

And of course as with seemingly everything these days it all comes down to political persuasion.  Some of the same people who lambasted Kaepernick for his stance fall all over themselves praising Butker.  And vice versa.  

Speaking as an Independent, both these guys had the absolute right to express themselves however they wanted.  I was OK with Kaepernick kneeling because he cleared it with a Green Beret as being appropriate, and I understand those who hated it.  To me the flag stands for freedom, and what you do with your freedom may be repugnant to me but that’s the way it goes.  

Same with Butker.  But with Butker I am less understanding because of his views about the LGBTQ community.  Comments like his get like minded folks charged up and that can result in direct harm to folks who simply want to live their lives.  His comments about women?  Women I know waver between being pissed at the guy and laughing at him, and they are OK with someone wanting to be a homemaker.  That’s not a choice the vast majority of women I know would make, but to each her own.

One big, BIG difference between Kap and Butker is that Kap did his thing on “company time.” To me, and to many others, that makes a world of difference. An analogy would be if right after the SB win, down on the field in post game interviews, Butker would have said some of the stuff he said at the college commencement speech.

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

One big, BIG difference between Kap and Butker is that Kap did his thing on “company time.” To me, and to many others, that makes a world of difference. An analogy would be if right after the SB win, down on the field in post game interviews, Butker would have said some of the stuff he said at the college commencement speech.

And the company was OK with it or it would not have happened.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

 

Same with Butker.  But with Butker I am less understanding because of his views about the LGBTQ community.  Comments like his get like minded folks charged up and that can result in direct harm to folks who simply want to live their lives.  

Cops don’t want to live their lives?

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Cops don’t want to live their lives?

I have no idea where this is coming from, but yes police should be able to live their lives.  I am very much pro law and order.

[Einstein]

57 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And the company was OK with it or it would not have happened.

In what universe was the NFL okay with it? They were begging broadcast partners not to show it and have literally blackballed him from ever playing again.

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, Einstein said:

In what universe was the NFL okay with it? They were begging broadcast partners not to show it and have literally blackballed him from ever playing again.

His team owner allowed it.  So he got to kneel.  

[Einstein]

25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

His team owner allowed it.  So he got to kneel.  

 

 

that is an entirely different thing than the NFL being OK with it 

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

 

that is an entirely different thing than the NFL being OK with it 

And it’s the owner of the team that made the call.  And if memory serves correct the owners never voted to disallow kneeling league wide.

 

I feel Kaep had the right to kneel during an anthem.  And I also did not agree with his stance on police.

[4merper4mer]

18 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I have no idea where this is coming from, but yes police should be able to live their lives.  I am very much pro law and order.

You expressed concerns that what Butker said would encourage violence against LBGT people but did not seem concerned about Kaep’s comments having similar impact on cops.  

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

You expressed concerns that what Butker said would encourage violence against LBGT people but did not seem concerned about Kaep’s comments having similar impact on cops.  

I disagreed with his comments about the police, just as I disagreed with Butker’s comments about the LGTBQ community.  However, I suppose the police have more capacity to defend themselves if required.  

 

And both individuals had the right to say what they said no matter how much you or I abhor it.  And if either made direct threats they should have been arrested.

Edited May 22 by oldmanfan

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

You expressed concerns that what Butker said would encourage violence against LBGT people but did not seem concerned about Kaep’s comments having similar impact on cops.  

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!