Harrison Butker | Commencement Address 2024

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

I would never have imagined this response to a kicker making a great speech to an intended audience who cheered and gave him a standing ovation.

If someone would have told me it would garner this much hand wringing and bed wetting from liberals, I would have laughed in their faces. How could anyone be that insecure they would get worked up over this.

Were they same same people protesting the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas speeches going on at college.

Hopefully so, but likely not.

If someone starts their day looking to be offended, they are going to get offended.

Thankfully, it's only the extremists those striving to be offended who are having issues with his speech, and it's not the norm of the general populace.

Idiots are calling for him to be replaced by a female kicker for his speech, but ignore all the guns, violence, thugging, spousal abuse, drug abuse in the sports...


Crazy

[GMDino]

(05-23-2024, 11:00 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I would never have imagined this response to a kicker making a great speech to an intended audience who cheered and gave him a standing ovation.

If someone would have told me it would garner this much hand wringing and bed wetting from liberals, I would have laughed in their faces. How could anyone be that insecure they would get worked up over this.

Were they same same people protesting the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas speeches going on at college.

Hopefully so, but likely not.

If someone starts their day looking to be offended, they are going to get offended.

Thankfully, it's only the extremists those striving to be offended who are having issues with his speech, and it's not the norm of the general populace.

Idiots are calling for him to be replaced by a female kicker for his speech, but ignore all the guns, violence, thugging, spousal abuse, drug abuse in the sports...


Crazy

All seriousness aside:

You said it yourself that it's only the most extreme raising a fuss.  Most of us here agree that what he said wasn't as bad as it was made it out to be by those on the fringes, but that he had to know thee would be pushback and that he welcomed it because he believes HIS faith is more important.

Good for him.

However, someone doesn't like when someone else doesn't like what they say?  

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-23-2024, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote:

All seriousness aside:

You said it yourself that it's only the most extreme raising a fuss.  Most of us here agree that what he said wasn't as bad as it was made it out to be by those on the fringes, but that he had to know thee would be pushback and that he welcomed it because he believes HIS faith is more important.

Good for him.

However, someone doesn't like when someone else doesn't like what they say?  

I agree.

The extreme lefts, as we see here too, are the ones making the fuss and/or engaging in selective outrage.

If you go out looking to be offended, you're going to be offended.

I agree it is a shame people are not more comfortable in their own skins.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2024, 11:13 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree.

The extreme lefts, as we see here too, are the ones making the fuss and/or engaging in selective outrage.

If you go out looking to be offended, you're going to be offended.

I agree it is a shame people are not more comfortable in their own skins.

Yet your meme  (which I assume Sorbo really said) suggests people made a fuss about him saying "Christ is King" and that wasn't it at all.

And he's on the right.  Weird.  Like he's almost looking for something to be offended about.  Strange.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-23-2024, 11:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yet your meme  (which I assume Sorbo really said) suggests people made a fuss about him saying "Christ is King" and that wasn't it at all.

And he's on the right.  Weird.  Like he's almost looking for something to be offended about.  Strange.

Indeed.

I too am disappointed in anyone who takes meme's seriously or use a meme thread as evidence of anything.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: All seriousness aside:

You said it yourself that it's only the most extreme raising a fuss.  Most of us here agree that what he said wasn't as bad as it was made it out to be by those on the fringes, but that he had to know thee would be pushback and that he welcomed it because he believes HIS faith is more important.

Good for him.

However, someone doesn't like when someone else doesn't like what they say?  

Good to see you admit your buddy Dill is an extremist.  Not that anyone else didn't already know.  Also, dodging the very salient point that people here are more upset by this speech than some very extreme rhetoric at protests is  not a good look.  But you do you.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2024, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good to see you admit your buddy Dill is an extremist.  Not that anyone else didn't already know.  Also, dodging the very salient point that people here are more upset by this speech than some very extreme rhetoric at protests is  not a good look.  But you do you.

Ah!  Time to drag other people's names in that we weren't talking about.

Your obsession with Dill is kind of disturbing.

But please continue to make every thread about Israel.  "You do you."

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good to see you admit your buddy Dill is an extremist.  Not that anyone else didn't already know.  Also, dodging the very salient point that people here are more upset by this speech than some very extreme rhetoric at protests is  not a good look.  But you do you.

Yeah, I would say that's because there are different motivations. As ugly as some extreme slogans from protesters are, these are not mainstream positions. Butker hit a totally different nerve. Some of the things he said can be interpreted as argueing for treating the genders differently and that the male gender might still be the one destined for greater things, like creating the culture and such. And many people have a problem with that and I can understand why. The times where a majority of females were oppressed, denied opportunity and pressured in a role of a husband's dependant are not that far gone, and it were thoughts like the one Butker formulated that contributed to the underlying worldview.

That's not to say I support silencing him or him being kicked off the Chiefs team, certainly not, but I get the sensitivities here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 11:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I would say that's because there are different motivations. As ugly as some extreme slogans from protesters are, these are not mainstream positions. Butker hit a totally different nerve. Some of the things he said can be interpreted as argueing for treating the genders differently and that the male gender might still be the one destined for greater things, like creating the culture and such. And many people have a problem with that and I can understand why. The times where a majority of females were oppressed, denied opportunity and pressured in a role of a husband's dependant are not that far gone, and it were thoughts like the one Butker formulated that contributed to the underlying worldview.

That's not to say I support silencing him or him being kicked off the Chiefs team, certainly not, but I get the sensitivities here.

One can interpret it as one chooses.  I don't agree about the silence on protestors being ignored because they are not mainstream.  Yesterday's extreme position can easily become tomorrow's norm.  One need look not further than gay rights.  Note I mean extreme in terms of how they differ from the current norm, not extreme in the sense of morally outrageous.

Butker is arguing for more traditional gender roles and a nuclear family.  He is encouraging it, not dictating and enforcing it.  It's his opinion.  He also is against Catholics who diverge from the church's tenants due to "modernizing" their faith.  Again, he is encouraging this, not dictating it.  Louis Farrakhan says far worse things in every speech, you never hear about him and in fact some Dem politicians count themselves as a supporter.  The man literally said about Jews, "When God puts you in the oven, it's forever."  So, yes I find the outrage over this speech to be ridiculous. 

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 11:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One can interpret it as one chooses.  I don't agree about the silence on protestors being ignored because they are not mainstream.  Yesterday's extreme position can easily become tomorrow's norm.  One need look not further than gay rights.  Note I mean extreme in terms of how they differ from the current norm, not extreme in the sense of morally outrageous.

Butker is arguing for more traditional gender roles and a nuclear family.  He is encouraging it, not dictating and enforcing it.  It's his opinion.  He also is against Catholics who diverge from the church's tenants due to "modernizing" their faith.  Again, he is encouraging this, not dictating it.  Louis Farrakhan says far worse things in every speech, you never hear about him and in fact some Dem politicians count themselves as a supporter.  The man literally said about Jews, "When God puts you in the oven, it's forever."  So, yes I find the outrage over this speech to be ridiculous. 

Oh yeah, it probably is, objectively worse things are said every day, I agree with that. I just don't know how much I can blame people for engaging in an issue that becomes a media phenomena and is served to you everywhere. Why did I read the Butker speech in the first place and know nothing about Mr. Farrakhan, it's because that is what's been put on the plate of my attention and there's only so much control I have over that. And after it was there, I too thought, well that speech probably does not sit well with quite some people, even on the level of mere encouragement. And that was all what I was saying, that I can understand why it does not sit that well. I grant you the point on proportionality, I will just say that this point probably can be made about pretty much anything. Whatever you're annoyed or outraged about, there's probably plenty even worse going on you ignore or do not mention and I almost certainly can always find something. It's a bit of a knockout argument to make.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 12:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh yeah, it probably is, objectively worse things are said every day, I agree with that. I just don't know how much I can blame people for engaging in an issue that becomes a media phenomena and is served to you everywhere. Why did I read the Butker speech in the first place and know nothing about Mr. Farrakhan, it's because that is what's been put on the plate of my attention and there's only so much control I have over that. And after it was there, I too thought, well that speech probably does not sit well with quite some people, even on the level of mere encouragement. And that was all what I was saying, that I can understand why it does not sit that well. I grant you the point on proportionality, I will just say that this point probably can be made about pretty much anything. Whatever you're annoyed or outraged about, there's probably plenty even worse going on you ignore or do not mention and I almost certainly can always find something. It's a bit of a knockout argument to make.

Maybe it's just because I remember a time when people would hear something they don't agree with, would express that they don't agree and then move on with their lives.  There used to be speakers in the quad area of my college that I found ridiculous, the Black Israelites for example.  People would just walk past them.  No pearl clutching, no frothing response, just walk past them.  You're not wrong that the media feeds us what they want us to be upset about, and obscures what they don't want discussed.  Maybe adult humans can express a little autonomy though and not simply a Pavlovian puppet?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-23-2024, 08:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Time to blow the dust off this one...



And, of course, the same applies to those who agree with him and feel the OTHER side are assholes.

Carry on.

The problem is,  you aren't respecting other opinions that vary from your own. Take it with a grain of salt.
What feels right to him, doesn't have to feel right to you and vice versa. 

He found a mate that shares his idea on what he wants a family means to him. Good for him. 

Trying to get him to lose his job isn't wise. That's the opposite of what the Left should be doing. The only thing being accomplished by that, is more animosity and division being generated, isn't that the opposite of what the Left is supposed to stand for?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 12:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The problem is,  you aren't respecting other opinions that vary from your own. Take it with a grain of salt.
What feels right to him, doesn't have to feel right to you and vice versa. 

He found a mate that shares his idea on what he wants a family means to him. Good for him. 

Trying to get him to lose his job isn't wise. That's the opposite of what the Left should be doing. The only thing being accomplished by that, is more animosity and division being generated, isn't that the opposite of what the Left is supposed to stand for?

Sir, you are all wrong.  Everyone must think and express the same opinions at all times.  A failure to do so would actually cause some people to think and examine their own beliefs, which we certainly don't want.  

[GMDino]

(05-23-2024, 12:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The problem is,  you aren't respecting other opinions that vary from your own. Take it with a grain of salt.
What feels right to him, doesn't have to feel right to you and vice versa. 

He found a mate that shares his idea on what he wants a family means to him. Good for him. 

Trying to get him to lose his job isn't wise. That's the opposite of what the Left should be doing. The only thing being accomplished by that, is more animosity and division being generated, isn't that the opposite of what the Left is supposed to stand for?

I can only assume you didn't understand the picture I posted.

Let's try another one:



And that works both ways.

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe it's just because I remember a time when people would hear something they don't agree with, would express that they don't agree and then move on with their lives.  There used to be speakers in the quad area of my college that I found ridiculous, the Black Israelites for example.  People would just walk past them.  No pearl clutching, no frothing response, just walk past them.  You're not wrong that the media feeds us what they want us to be upset about, and obscures what they don't want discussed.  Maybe adult humans can express a little autonomy though and not simply a Pavlovian puppet?

Sure, that would be nice, but that ship has left the harbour a long time ago probably. That being said, I guess most people just do as you describe, they express their disagreement and move on. Butker will vanish from the headlines, still kick plenty of field goals and XPs for the Chiefs while probably winning some more Super Bowls, Biden or Trump will invite him to the WH again, some people will still not like him and that's that. He will not become a second Kaepernick over that.

The point where it's too much for me is when folks sign petitions for him to be removed from the Chiefs, that angers me too and it's worth stating so. Aside from that, what about your outrage over people's outrage? You don't agree with what people say about Butker's speech, you could just express that and move on with your life too. Instead you smack them over the head with things said at pro Palestina protests. It seems a bit disproportionate too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 12:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, that would be nice, but that ship has left the harbour a long time ago probably. That being said, I guess most people just do as you describe, they express their disagreement and move on. Butker will vanish from the headlines, still kick plenty of field goals and XPs for the Chiefs while probably winning some more Super Bowls, Biden or Trump will invite him to the WH again, some people will still not like him and that's that. He will not become a second Kaepernick over that.

All true.  Kaepernick is another can of worms we'll leave unopened.

Quote:The point where it's too much for me is when folks sign petitions for him to be removed from the Chiefs, that angers me too and it's worth stating so. Aside from that, what about your outrage over people's outrage? You don't agree with what people say about Butker's speech, you could just express that and move on with your life too. Instead you smack them over the head with things said at pro Palestina protests. It seems a bit disproportionate too.

I'm discussing consistency and proportionality.  It strikes me as odd that a person can take such issue over Butker's speech while remaining silent while someone yells death to America or some of the blatantly antisemitic chants and slogans that have occurred at these protests (no, not the majority, but sadly not rare).  You already see the disproportion in these issues, which makes it surprising you're not grasping my point.  How can you exercise you ability to ignore speech you don't like (I would certainly hope no one here likes that type of speech) for a more extreme example and not for this topic?  The logic of that seems tortured at best.  I will support someone's right to say those things, in this country you absolutely have that right.  But if your moral outrage is going to carry any weight it needs to be consistent, no?  

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm discussing consistency and proportionality.  It strikes me as odd that a person can take such issue over Butker's speech while remaining silent while someone yells death to America or some of the blatantly antisemitic chants and slogans that have occurred at these protests (no, not the majority, but sadly not rare).

I mean, these are just two different topics, imho that's the main reason. What is there to say about death to america chants at rallies. Hardly anyone likes that and I guess for most people it's blatantly obvious that these are idiotic screams from an idiotic fringe. At what point does your argument turn into claiming no one should bother about anything else as long as these people are screaming. Some right wing extremists scream Jews will not replace us, can we still be mad about unrelated things?

(05-23-2024, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You already see the disproportion in these issues, which makes it surprising you're not grasping my point.  How can you exercise you ability to ignore speech you don't like (I would certainly hope no one here likes that type of speech) for a more extreme example and not for this topic?

Well, my guess would be that the Butker speech just hits a bit closer to home for many people. Eg for a woman who was confronted with a potential dark side of traditional family values, meaning the tradition that women are subservient to men and disallowed from having own ambitions outside the family, or at least saw their mother being confronted with that, that does not vanish from people's consciousness over just a generation or two. I feel that might be a point, the other one still being that I guess for most people it indeed goes without much saying that death to america chants are not endorsed or appreciated. I mean, as you said, probably no one likes that kind of speech and it probably indeed goes without saying, doesn't it. The same maybe is not true for the issues Butker addresses.

(05-23-2024, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will support someone's right to say those things, in this country you absolutely have that right.  But if your moral outrage is going to carry any weight it needs to be consistent, no?  

Yeah, to make the same kind of judgment I would need a person that tells me flat out how he finds antisemitism or death to America chants to be less outlandish on its own than Butker's speech. I guess most people would say that the chants in question are more appalling, but maybe less relevant or important. Be they right about that or not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 01:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I mean, these are just two different topics, imho that's the main reason. What is there to say about death to america chants at rallies. Hardly anyone likes that and I guess for most people it's blatantly obvious that these are idiotic screams from an idiotic fringe. At what point does your argument turn into claiming no one should bother about anything else as long as these people are screaming. Some right wing extremists scream Jews will not replace us, can we still be mad about unrelated things?

Sure you can.  If you condemned Jews will not replace us and condemned death to America, and condemned the antisemitic chants at protests then you'd be consistent.

Quote:Well, my guess would be that the Butker speech just hits a bit closer to home for many people. Eg for a woman who was confronted with a potential dark side of traditional family values, meaning the tradition that women are subservient to men and disallowed from having own ambitions outside the family, or at least saw their mother being confronted with that, that does not vanish from people's consciousness over just a generation or two. I feel that might be a point, the other one still being that I guess for most people it indeed goes withoug much saying that death to america chants are not endorsed or appreciated. I mean, as you said, probably no one likes that kind of speech and it probably goes without saying, doesn't it. The same maybe is not true for the issues Butker addresses.

You're not an American leftist (I know your left is father left than ours, but bear with me).  The left here loves to claim that "silence is violence" or "silence is complicity".  So, no, they don't get that "isn't it obvious" get out of jail free card.  If someone says something like that it should be condemned.  You've had to point out how many times that I've condemned 01/06 and other Trump statements?  So, for some, even actually condemning it isn't enough.  If people are going to have a standard that they demand others adhere to then I'm going to point out when they don't adhere to it themselves.  So the silence on my examples is deafening compared to the outrage over this speech. 

Quote:Yeah, to make the same kind of judgment I would need a person that tells me flat out how he finds antisemitism or death to America chants to be less outlandish on its own than Butker's speech. I guess most people would say that the chants in question are more appalling, but maybe less relevant or important. Be they right about that or not.

As I said, today's outlandish can quickly become today's norm.  Look at the groundswell of pro Bin Laden support among young people that happened recently.  It was quickly challenged and then largely dissipated.  If it had been ignored because it's obviously "outlandish" then who knows what could have grown from it?  You challenge Trump often, and rightfully so.  Would you not say many of his claims are outlandish or extreme.  I realize that he's a former, and possibly future POTUS, so his words are far more powerful, but do you think if he had been challenged much earlier by the media, instead of treated like a ratings boon, that he may not have won in 2016?

I just can't accept a standard that says the most extreme speech can go unchallenged while simultaneously saying Butker's speech "hits closer to home" and needs to be called out.  Again, if you're being consistent.  As I said earlier, I accept that social media changes the landscape that I grew up in, and amplifies voices that would otherwise go unheard.  But I'm also not the one displaying an inconsistent set of values on this subject.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-23-2024, 12:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I can only assume you didn't understand the picture I posted.

Let's try another one:



And that works both ways.

You don't get it, if the left won't respect someone else's opinions, then wtf should anyone else respect the Left's? Calling for his Job is past the line of being respectful. It's cancel style behavior and completely unacceptable.


And with that, it got me thinking, just how many on here have called for someone else to be banned because we have a different opinions. 

[GMDino]

(05-23-2024, 01:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You don't get it, if the left won't respect someone else's opinions, then wtf should anyone else respect the Left's? Calling for his Job is past the line of being respectful. It's cancel style behavior and completely unacceptable.

You still are missing the point because your infatuation with "the left".

(05-23-2024, 01:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And with that, it got me thinking, just how many on here have called for someone else to be banned because we have a different opinions. 

None that I'm aware of, but I'm not a mod.

I know I got a suspension once for a joke that was in poor taste. And several posters have suggested I "get away" with things.
I have a permanent 100% warning for posting a video with the wrong date on it so I was accused of trolling and then all my responses to that were deleted by someone.
I've also suggested that people who can't avoid name calling, continuously "calling out" other posters even when they are mentioned and other poor board etiquette should get a nice reminder.

But what does that have to do with free speech?