Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
You two keep throwing around words like "offensive" and "respect", but only when it fits your ideals. As a veteran, Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem offends me and a large group of the population and we think it's disrespectful, but people like you defend his right to do so.
I realize the situations are totally different, but they're also the same in that he's (Kaepernick) doing the very same thing (offending and disrespecting) to a group of people that you're claiming Chief Wahoo does. Native Americans only represent 2% of the population. Do you think more than 2% of the population is disrespected and offended by Kaepernick kneeling?
|
David, Kaepernick kneeling was an example of an INDIVIDUAL expressing his right to free speech. His exercising that right offended enough people that he is currently unemployed. So it appears that the people he offended won that standoff. Now, some of the same people offended by Kaepernick, are calling others "snowflakes" for being offended by the Indian caricature.
A logo is neither speech, nor is it an expression from an individual. It is an image that represents a major league franchise. This logo is not a free speech issue.
When Kaepernick knelt, I didn't like it, but defended his right to free speech. I was not surprised or angered that he lost his job. The right to free speech protects you from GOVERNMENT action, but your employer doesn't have to put up with it. If The Indians or MLB have made a business decision, and chose to change a logo that could be viewed by some as racist, then they are as much in their rights to do it as the NFL and its execs were in blackballing Kaepernick.