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

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes they did.  They needed to make sure the public knew the player did not speak for the league.  Not everyone out there who read the story is an NFL fan

 

The idea that the ‘public’ would ever think that a place-kickers words spoken at an off-season, non-NFL related, non-NFL endorsed, non-NFL created event would in any way represent the NFL is a tad ludicrous.

[Beck Water]

3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

Ok, I'll play.....

 

Of the people who fully supported the actions of Capernik and his right to free speech, how many of these folks are now butt hurt by the remarks of this other football player? I suspect almost all of them but that doesn't seem to bother you. It appears that you are only offended by those who do not adhere to your own specific credo which is imposing and unreasonable.

 

You lose. 

But it's not the question of who is "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant, just as it wasn't the question of who was "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant.  Both have the right to speak their minds.  Both don't have the right to expect freedom from consequences to accompany their freedom of speech. 

 

Kaepernick provided enough credible evidence that he'd been blackballed due to his protests to obtain a settlement from the NFL.  I don't expect Butker to suffer any actual consequences.

 

But the issue is the same for both: both have the right to freedom of speech, and in both cases people can support free speech AND object to what they said.

 

But I don't expect you to see that. 

 

I do expect you to not put words in my mouth or imagine you know what does or does not offend me.  (I don't think you understand it, but you do know it's imposing and unreasonable) 

 

3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

I think that folks are allowed to have opinions and speak their minds, even if you morally object or even just plain disagree. This is why I don't care what this place kicker says as an invited guest of a religious school. I think that many who are not so demanding, self rightous, and dictatorial might agree.

 

Wait.....you? Dictatorial? Brings back memories. 😯😂

 

I wondered how long it would be before we'd get to the gratuitous personal insults.  You don't disappoint.  Well, actually, you do, but you don't surprise.

 

5 hours ago, boyst said:

I support his right to free speech at work but not his protesting for results unfavorable to himself. I work for a German company, so I walk in there every day and point at the scoreboard? No, I'm not a moron... Wait... Well I'm not that stupid ...how about that....

 

OK I don't understand the point you're making here - in fact, I couldn't parse it at all.  But that's OK.

Edited May 20 by Beck Water

[ImpactCorey]

10 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The idea that the ‘public’ would ever think that a place-kickers words spoken at an off-season, non-NFL related, non-NFL endorsed, non-NFL created event would in any way represent the NFL is a tad ludicrous.

 

Sure they shouldn't have to, but they chose to do it anyway.  Just in case someone would think they condoned this promoted commencement speak where one of their decorated players was speaking.  They put out a brief message to make it clear they are not expressed views of the NFL.  Why would this upset anyone?

 

When Kaepernick took a knee and the NFL didn't say anything there were people saying they would boycott the NFL.  They didn't say "well, that's the player's views and not the NFL."

Edited May 20 by ImpactCorey

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The idea that the ‘public’ would ever think that a place-kickers words spoken at an off-season, non-NFL related, non-NFL endorsed, non-NFL created event would in any way represent the NFL is a tad ludicrous.

Yet that is what happens.  The NFL protects the shield like it or not.   The health care network I work for would do the same if I made remarks that ticked off a lot of folks.

[boyst]

20 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

You lose. 

But it's not the question of who is "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant, just as it wasn't the question of who was "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant.  Both have the right to speak their minds.  Both don't have the right to expect freedom from consequences to accompany their freedom of speech. 

 

Kaepernick provided enough credible evidence that he'd been blackballed due to his protests to obtain a settlement from the NFL.  I don't expect Butker to suffer any actual consequences.

 

But the issue is the same for both: both have the right to freedom of speech, and in both cases people can support free speech AND object to what they said.

 

But I don't expect you to see that. 

 

I do expect you to not put words in my mouth or imagine you know what does or does not offend me.  (I don't think you understand it, but you do know it's imposing and unreasonable) 

 

 

I wondered how long it would be before we'd get to the gratuitous personal insults.  You don't disappoint.  Well, actually, you do, but you don't surprise.

 

 

OK I don't understand the point you're making here - in fact, I couldn't parse it at all.  But that's OK.

Kaep can run his mouth all he wants at work but when he is punished for it or meets consequences his employer provides he has no right to be upset if he was given fair warning or reasonable ability to correct his behavior. He didn't, he reeped the consequences. I support any idiot showing themselves to the world. The problem is social media amplifies them to brings them together and we have chorus lines of idiots singing to us. 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

You lose. 

But it's not the question of who is "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant, just as it wasn't the question of who was "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant.  Both have the right to speak their minds.  Both don't have the right to expect freedom from consequences to accompany their freedom of speech. 

 

Kaepernick provided enough credible evidence that he'd been blackballed due to his protests to obtain a settlement from the NFL.  I don't expect Butker to suffer any actual consequences.

 

But the issue is the same for both: both have the right to freedom of speech, and in both cases people can support free speech AND object to what they said.

 

But I don't expect you to see that. 

 

I do expect you to not put words in my mouth or imagine you know what does or does not offend me.  (I don't think you understand it, but you do know it's imposing and unreasonable) 

 

 

I wondered how long it would be before we'd get to the gratuitous personal insults.  You don't disappoint.  Well, actually, you do, but you don't surprise.

 

 

OK I don't understand the point you're making here - in fact, I couldn't parse it at all.  But that's OK.

What a load.  You put words in someone’s mouth by predicting they will put words in your mouth then get upset about it.  For Pete’s sake.

Edited May 20 by 4merper4mer

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think I attempted to throw it out there before... Will try again. 

 

In age of diminishing resources, high competition, etc... As a society as a whole to promote single income families.  Will resources go farther and to more individual families.

 

Does it matter who decides to be the homemaker?

[Bill from NYC]

14 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

You lose. 

But it's not the question of who is "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant, just as it wasn't the question of who was "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant.  Both have the right to speak their minds.  Both don't have the right to expect freedom from consequences to accompany their freedom of speech. 

 

Kaepernick provided enough credible evidence that he'd been blackballed due to his protests to obtain a settlement from the NFL.  I don't expect Butker to suffer any actual consequences.

 

But the issue is the same for both: both have the right to freedom of speech, and in both cases people can support free speech AND object to what they said.

 

But I don't expect you to see that. 

 

I do expect you to not put words in my mouth or imagine you know what does or does not offend me.  (I don't think you understand it, but you do know it's imposing and unreasonable) 

 

 

Why do I "lose?" Because you say I do? Still lording over conversations and dictating terms are we? How presumptuous and silly!!!

 

Hey, the police officer in Buffalo that you so vilified for pushing away an old nut for running up face to face with him and breathing all over him during the height of covid was found NOT GUILTY. Do you now side with the cop because he was vindicated in some way?

 

I don't care that Kapernick got a settlement. Do I think that he deserved one? No, for the reason you cited. Speech can have consequences. This kicker said some things; let's see what happens with him. 

 

And btw, Kapernick did what he did on National TV. It offended and alienated more viewers/fans than some place kicker making a speech as an invited guest at a school. But I don't expect you to see that.

Edited May 21 by Bill from NYC

[boyst]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

Whay do I "lose?" Because you say I do. Still lording over conversations and dictating terms are we? How presumptuous and silly!!!

 

Hey, the police officer in Buffalo that you so vilified for pushing away an old nut for runnig up face to face with him and breathing all over him during the height of covid was found NOT GUILTY. Do you now side with the cop because he was vindicated in some way?

 

I don't care that Kapernik got a settlement. Do I think that he deserved one? No, for the reason you cited. Speech can have consequences. This kicker said some things; let's see what happens with him. 

 

And btw, Kapernik did what he did on National TV. It offended and alienated more viewers/fans than some place kicker making a speech as an invited guest at a school. But I don't expect you to see that.

Kaep polarized people.

Butker is being shoved in people faces because the same people who cheered for Kaep want us to be upset about Butker having an opinion which is ironic because it's not different than Kaep having one.

 

Kaeps polarization was entirely different. He wanted to be a little B word victim as a well paid millionaire athlete who lost his starting position. If he was still the starter or going to be he would have never done it. If at the height of his career he chose to speak out it'd be entirely different. But he's not LeBron or Gretzky. He is a footnote to a decades worth of football not because of his play.

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, boyst said:

Kaep polarized people.

Butker is being shoved in people faces because the same people who cheered for Kaep want us to be upset about Butker having an opinion which is ironic because it's not different than Kaep having one.

 

Kaeps polarization was entirely different. He wanted to be a little B word victim as a well paid millionaire athlete who lost his starting position. If he was still the starter or going to be he would have never done it. If at the height of his career he chose to speak out it'd be entirely different. But he's not LeBron or Gretzky. He is a footnote to a decades worth of football not because of his play.

The thing is, I don't care about either one of them. I'm not going to shed a tear for Kapernick who received millions of dollars, nor do I care about the kicker. They will both be fine. The difference is that the kicker still has to work. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, boyst said:

Kaep polarized people.

Butker is being shoved in people faces because the same people who cheered for Kaep want us to be upset about Butker having an opinion which is ironic because it's not different than Kaep having one.

 

Kaeps polarization was entirely different. He wanted to be a little B word victim as a well paid millionaire athlete who lost his starting position. If he was still the starter or going to be he would have never done it. If at the height of his career he chose to speak out it'd be entirely different. But he's not LeBron or Gretzky. He is a footnote to a decades worth of football not because of his play.

The same people who boycotted the NFL over Kaepernick are now buying Butker jerseys. Both sides agree, freedom of speech is paramount so long as we like the message. 

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, boyst said:

Kaep polarized people.

Butker is being shoved in people faces because the same people who cheered for Kaep want us to be upset about Butker having an opinion which is ironic because it's not different than Kaep having one.

 

Kaeps polarization was entirely different. He wanted to be a little B word victim as a well paid millionaire athlete who lost his starting position. If he was still the starter or going to be he would have never done it. If at the height of his career he chose to speak out it'd be entirely different. But he's not LeBron or Gretzky. He is a footnote to a decades worth of football not because of his play.

It’s a minor point but Kaep was also being directed by his commie girlfriend.  He’s not really all that bright on his own.  It’s also possible that Butker is being guided by his wife, a pastor or another.

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s a minor point but Kaep was also being directed by his commie girlfriend.  He’s not really all that bright on his own.  It’s also possible that Butker is being guided by his wife, a pastor or another.

Jesus is Butker's copilot! Wasn't Jesus a revolutionary (a "commie" for it's day) too in the eyes of the Pharisees?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21 by ExiledInIllinois

[Bob Jones]

 

 

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

[4merper4mer]

31 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

This opinion piece is not serious enough to be considered political. And thats a pretty low bar these days.  The topic is pretty broad at this point but this nonsense you have now shared twice is not in the same zip code of anything that can be considered the topic.  

It’s literally an article about the topic of the thread.  But you don’t think it’s on topic?  If someone posted a picture of grass in a “green things” thread would you lecture them too?

[Jauronimo]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s literally an article about the topic of the thread.  But you don’t think it’s on topic?  If someone posted a picture of grass in a “green things” thread would you lecture them too?

I must have missed the part of this thread where replacing Butker with a golden retriever because its "good for business" was being entertained. While I disagree that this article has any merit or relevance to the topic at hand, I do agree that it is worth your time and undivided attention and I am heartened that we see eye to eye on this issue. 

 

And on that note, I'll leave you guys to it. Looks like you, Lonnie, Clayton, @Bob Jones, and Jugdish will have lots to talk about!

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I must have missed the part of this thread where replacing Butker with a golden retriever because its "good for business" was being entertained. While I disagree that this article has any merit or relevance to the topic at hand, I do agree that it is worth your time and undivided attention and I am heartened that we see eye to eye on this issue. 

 

And on that note, I'll leave you guys to it. Looks like you, Lonnie, Clayton, @Bob Jones, and Jugdish will have lots to talk about!

Percentage chance that article is written if Butker didn’t give his commencement speech?  And you can’t fire enough synapses to connect the two things?

 

And now women are golden retrievers?  

[Jauronimo]

Just now, 4merper4mer said:

Percentage chance that article is written if Butker didn’t give his commencement speech?  And you can’t fire enough synapses to connect the two things?

 

And now women are golden retrievers?  

His commencement speech may have inspired articles suggesting Butker is the lost Lindberg baby or that he fathered a love child with Elvis Presley.  While there is a tangential connection in that these articles all involve Butker, these ridiculous articles would be equally irrelevant to any conversations taking place between functioning adults.  

 

But since you insist, I will get you and Bob started as we discuss this highly worthy and relevant piece of journalism: 

 

Should Butker be cut and the Chiefs be punished by the.....league I guess...and forced to cut him but then also forced to replace him with a woman??  I think the fans would love this slapstick interjection of social justice and sports.  It really put the Manitoba Sea Squirrels on the map when they let a woman kick a PAT.  Think about what it could do for struggling NFL attendance?  The Sea Squirrels aren't just some random bums either.  They are right in the mix for the Loonie Division. 

 

Hey, maybe Butker should be court ordered to be Megan Rapinoe's butler?!?  That sounds like a sitcom. A topical and relevant sitcom.

[4merper4mer]

17 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

His commencement speech may have inspired articles suggesting Butker is the lost Lindberg baby or that he fathered a love child with Elvis Presley.  While there is a tangential connection in that these articles all involve Butker, these ridiculous articles would be equally irrelevant to any conversations taking place between functioning adults.  

 

But since you insist, I will get you and Bob started as we discuss this highly worthy and relevant piece of journalism: 

 

Should Butker be cut and the Chiefs be punished by the.....league I guess...and forced to cut him but then also forced to replace him with a woman??  I think the fans would love this slapstick interjection of social justice and sports.  It really put the Manitoba Sea Squirrels on the map when they let a woman kick a PAT.  Think about what it could do for struggling NFL attendance?  The Sea Squirrels aren't just some random bums either.  They are right in the mix for the Loonie Division. 

 

Hey, maybe Butker should be court ordered to be Megan Rapinoe's butler?!?  That sounds like a sitcom. A topical and relevant sitcom.

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.

 

[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.