Harrison Butker | Commencement Address 2024

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Well sure, that's where my argumentation runs into foreseeable problems because I can't quite paint the leftist spectrum as an example of ideal consistency. I can for example not deny that many shy away from going after people they perceive to be on their side. That didn't start with campus chants, a way more massive example to me is how they treated the BLM protests, and then some. Yeah, sure, I have no defense or clever retort to that in principle.

As for the example at hand, at some point there just has to be some kind of denouncement boundary dependant on relevance. There always is someone shouting something worth of condemnation. And I don't know if these death to america chants are so widespread that they even deserve much attention to begin with. Actually, I did not even find a reliable source that convinced me that it happens at all (I mean, it probably does, but still), much less on a large scale. And when stupid Timmy Connors shouts something with his moron buddies or writes something in a college pamphlet it does not take the whole nation to condemn it before turning to anything else, or else every debate becomes an event requiring hour-long condemnations before even starting. I for one have no reason to believe that some of your special frenemies like Dill or Dino think Death to America chants are a-ok, and by the way I also do not know if they support an universal silence is violence stance you mentioned which would be grounds to confront them in the first place.

All that if course not to say that you were not treated quite unfairly time and again on this board. But I don't think that is too closely related to Butker or Palestine.

(05-23-2024, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?

That is a good question and I don't really know. No doubt media support and his constant presence was instrumental in Trump winning and I sure would have wished that stations like FOX would have challenged him more, I also would have wished that the more leftist media would not have villified every tiny thing he did, and overall less costless screen time would have been preferrable too. Quite often I'm afraid it's just the additional attention that makes things (or people) viable that would disappear otherwise, even if said attention is negative. There might be issues that are better left alone and bound to die away in obscurity. Shining the spotlight on certain chants and demanding this spotlight to keep shining on non-mainstream extremes might not have the effect you desire and Trump might be a good example for that. How much relevance did any pro palestine protest gather by FOX being outraged about it and would they even be relevant if that weren't so? As I said, I don't really know.

(05-23-2024, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Ok, so in case I have not yet explicitely stated it, I do condemn Death to America chants and antisemitism. Would a statement like that put anyone in the clear to debate Butker?