05-23-2024, 12:53 PM
(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?
