Harrison Butker

Suggest we keep this off the football only board?

Maybe the mods can combine with the other Butker/Rice/Chiefs thread on sensitive topics board :)

Oh no!! A kicker said things that I disagree with.

Meanwhile a rapist plays QB in Ohio.

StickierBuns wrote:
Regardless of what you think about what he said, the overreaction today is ridiculous. The media stirs the hornet's nest as always. Social media cancel culture mafia so ready to be outraged. I don't engage.

What happened to just hearing what he said.....disagreeing and saying 'what a dipshit' to yourself.....and moving on with your life? Its not directed at you and it isn't personal, its his opinion. Ignore things you don't agree with. And there's also people that agree with it. Why should he be cut from the team? Quit being so fucking outraged at everything, people. Someone being offended or outraged does not mean its justified.

Is this so for all opinions - since all opinions are just opinions? 

At what point does it become personal? Does he have to refer to a specific person - so any opinions about groups of people is, by definition, not personal? 

What if he had certain opinions about African Americans, or Jews, or Muslins, or Hispanics? They would all be just his opinions and they would not be personal. 

Butker, of course, is known primarily for being a player on the KC Chiefs. I suspect it is unlikely he would have been invited to speak at a graduation ceremony if he were not a well known athlete. It is one thing for him to have his opinions, it is another to make them public.  It is inevitable that he is seen as, to some extent, representing the Chiefs. Now the Chiefs cannot claim ignorance of their kickers' opinions of the role of women. But he could just as easily have opinions about other groups of people (see above). 

Recall the Vikings' special teams coach who shared his opinion that gays should be put on an island and the island should be nuked. Just an opinion. He never said he was going to do that. And it was not personal. But the Vikings were not comfortable with a coach who voiced such an opinion even though, as far as we knew, none of the Vikings nor their spouses were gay.

purplefaithful wrote:
Suggest we keep this off the football only board?

Maybe the mods can combine with the other Butker/Rice/Chiefs thread on sensitive topics board :)

There's a sensitive topics board?

StickierBuns wrote:

Oh please. It isn't hate speech. He's speaking to Catholics, who many still believe what he said. He should lose his kicking job over it? Ridiculousness. Typical strawman argument here....what if he said this? What if he said that? 

I say all of this not agreeing with one word out of his mouth. People make things personal and are outraged over everything today. See Ricky Gervais:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/27ACpn779PY?app=deskt

So you get to decide for everyone what is hate speech? Oh please. And hate speech - as you see it - is where we allowed to draw the line? If it does not pass your hate speech test, as ill-defined as it is, nobody gets to voice their displeasure, they just need to shut up and move on? Sorry, but I'm not ready to make you the arbiter of what people can respond to and how they can respond. We have laws for that. 

And I'm a big fan of Ricky Gervais. I also understand he is a comedian. Context matters.

purplefaithful wrote:
Suggest we keep this off the football only board?

Maybe the mods can combine with the other Butker/Rice/Chiefs thread on sensitive topics board :)

its moved, combining threads is a mess so we will just let one be the active thread and the other will fall away.

He knew his audience, he was catering to the men and dictating to the women. Some of the women from the university that were graduating spoke out about the speech and were not pleased. It seemed sad on a day where women were celebrating a big achievement of graduating college that they were given a message that steers away from that. That messaging doesn't go to men on graduation day, no one says that your most important vocation is being a father, the man's career and choice is first and foremost. I am not saying that one is better than the other but let women celebrate their achievements without undermining it

just curious, how many of those having an opinion either way have actually listened to his speech and not just an clip or quote of the matter? I listened to the speech a week ago and only saw him as propping up women who choose to take a traditional role, coming to their defense in a time where that choice is not a popular one and those that choose to be mothers, wives, and homemakers are somehow lesser women than those that are chasing a buck. its sad that this decision by women requires people to speak in support of it, but promiscuous sexual habits and using abortion to erase the results of those decisions is somehow championed? fucked up times indeed.

just like when a man takes the role of rearing the children and being a home maker, its non traditional, but if it make him happy, why would other try and belittle that role choice... is it really fucking weak that a man is wanting to take care of his children?

I think most kids do better when raised by a parent ( or other family member) as opposed to spending their formative years in day care, doesnt mean that kids whose parents both work are going to end up fucked up or have issues, just that IMO kids with at least one parent around all the time early on ( provided they are a good parent ) have a better chance of avoiding developmental shortfalls.

There is no doubt in my mind that Roe v Wade, IVF, LGBTQ @ Target, Gaza, book bans and extremism on both sides are turning everyones sensitivity meter to off the chart territory.

Then you look at the polar opposite beliefs and values of our 2 POTUS  choices and this is what you get...

Outrage and fear; except among Russia, China, Iran and NK - who are smiling.

Even the nuns of his school aren't fans.

Way to Eat Those Cleats

He just confirmed the paranoia of every leftist that fears the right wanting to keep women in kitchens, marginalize the LGBTQ+ citizens, etc etc etc.

There's gonna be ripples for awhile.

Yes, he was totally within his rights to say what he said, but his read of the room...which is far beyond the school, in this age...was lacking.

Vikergirl wrote:
He knew his audience, he was catering to the men and dictating to the women. Some of the women from the university that were graduating spoke out about the speech and were not pleased. It seemed sad on a day where women were celebrating a big achievement of graduating college that they were given a message that steers away from that. That messaging doesn't go to men on graduation day, no one says that your most important vocation is being a father, the man's career and choice is first and foremost. I am not saying that one is better than the other but let women celebrate their achievements without undermining it

Did you even listen to the speech before your liberal beliefs went front and center?  Lol

MaroonBells wrote:

There's a sensitive topics board?

Look at the reply from the gutless ACLU member. Lol. Can you express your view rather than avoiding the topic at hand? Butkers views aren’t shared by all, but they’re shared by many. Of course, he’s a white male, so let’s make sure to burn him at the stake. Lol

Waterboy wrote:

Look at the reply from the gutless ACLU member. Lol.  Can you express your view rather than avoiding the topic at hand?  Butkers views aren’t shared by all, but they’re shared by many. Of course, he’s a white male, so let’s make sure to burn him at the stake.  Lol

We'll get his bake sale and weeping commentators on deck, ASAP...! CUE MTG, AND HIDE FROM THE JEWISH SPACE LASERS!!

I think there’s a lot to unpack with his speech.

Firstly, people should be allowed to have wrong opinions. This is not hate speech. The woke left is very much similar to the religious right they claim to be against in their inability to be tolerant to people of differing viewpoints and their desire to eradicate those with differing viewpoints is noted. I don’t really think that a 28 year old football player is necessarily the guy you want espousing wisdom to the youths, but he’s also not jeopardizing anyone’s ability to live the life they want, they can merely choose to not agree with him and move on with their lives. It’s not like he’s a political figure or one of their bosses or anything.

Secondly, there was a lot of things right about traditional society, and we’re very much at an inflection point right now, where a lot of people are realizing that we were sold a bunch of lies both with regards to modern (post-modern?) society, and are finding comfort in some of the aspects of more traditional aspects of society. So there’s some parts of what he was saying that resonate with a lot of people, even though I think he’s probably not absorbed some of the truths that modern society was rebelling against.

I think we’re very much realizing that there has been a strong aspect in feminism that hasn’t been about the woman choosing, it’s been about getting the woman out of the homemaker role and into an employee role, regardless as to whether it was a good fit for the specific woman. It’s been very beneficial to big corporations to have double the labor pool competing for jobs, and while in the pre-feminist era, a family could survive on one income, it’s not really an option that’s available to a lot of people as surviving really requires two incomes now days, unless one member is really well off. I don’t think this has been beneficial to men, women, children, families, etc., as the household chores that the woman traditionally did, aren’t getting done in a lot of cases as now both partners are exhausted after work, while the kids are being raised primarily by day care or public schooling. I don’t think the answer is that women need to go back into the home, as that is a luxury only really available for the very well off, nor is it really tolerant of what the individual man or woman wants. I think we as a society, need to self-correct on the expectations of how much income a family needs to survive. Every year, technology should be making life cheaper and easier, but that hasn’t been what we’ve seen. Instead profits for the very few have been astronomical and the poor and middle classes have been hollowed out via economic means. We need to get back to being able to survive on 40 hours a week per family and then work to ensure that technological gains lead to a corresponding drop in the number of hours a family has to work. So if one family wants partner A to work all 40 hours, cool. If another family wants partner B to work all 40 hours, cool. If another family wants each partner to work 20 hours a week, cool. But we really need to recenter on doing what’s best for our own families, not necessarily what’s best for the executives that are buying yachts off our labor.