RD5 #13/#159: K Justin Rohrwasser, Marshall

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
1,985
Berkeley, CA
I think queenb makes a ton of good points. You have to give a young guy some room to figure stuff out. If he publicly disavows those associations and he has teammates speak up for his character, then I think it's only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. Writing a person off entirely for an early bad decision is harmful to that person and society. I'll root for him, but I'll admit it will be done somewhat cautiously. He knows there's now awareness of his tatoos and he also knows what they mean today. Where he goes from here is on him.

Rohrwasser's age is a key for me. Same for, say, a 20 yo Curt Schilling - I'd have rooted for him cautiously if he had exhibited bad judgement in his late teens but had then denounced those decisions. 53 yo uber-deplorable Curt Schilling doesn't deserve the same consideration.
 

BusRaker

lurker
Aug 11, 2006
786
I miss when sports was just sports...
Technically, Emperor Theodosius put an end to that in 393 A.D.

Well at this point it seems this guy is one unfortunate tattoo from a potential Pat Tillman still, correct? Everything is forever on the web these days so they'll find out (the press)

Football related ... we took Ghost with the 118th pick so hopefully this will work out as well
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,713
This guy appears to be a very good kicker and offered a reasonable and sincere explanation for something he did when he was 17. We also know that dealing with unwanted tattoos is not simple. Here's another vote for getting off the soap boxes, giving him a chance and focusing on sports.

He's going to have to function in a diverse locker room in Foxboro. If he's a racist and is unable to hide it, I'm guessing it will be dealt with.
Eh. It’d take 45 minutes and like $80 to cover that up. He doesn’t seem too pressed.

The overlap between white folks who are super into militias and guns seems profound, but not absolute. So, at this point, this guy looks like a duck, but I guess he hasn’t quacked yet.
 

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
Name a few.
Any reporting on this would be racist so that reporting doesn't exist. The real answer is there are too many to count and it's a good thing we don't count them. Plus you won't see many tattoos of a stamp that says "CERTIFIED CRIP" on someone's forehead because gangs are usually too sophisticated. Instead you see symbols and oblique references to certain groups that give them plausible denability. But if the NFL hired law enforcement to inspect tattoos and create a Gang Tie Probability Matrix for each incoming prosect they'd have PR hell to pay and - I suspect - most people on this board would be saying how fucked up it is to deny these guys employment because of some tattoos they got as teenagers. We don't even require that athletes denounce particular gangs once they enter the league because that would be dangerous for them. We just expect them to leave it behind quietly and stay out of trouble and say what you will but this kid went one step further.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,756
Any reporting on this would be racist so that reporting doesn't exist. The real answer is there are too many to count and it's a good thing we don't count them. Plus you won't see many tattoos of a stamp that says "CERTIFIED CRIP" on someone's forehead because gangs are usually too sophisticated. Instead you see symbols and oblique references to certain groups that give them plausible denability. But if the NFL hired law enforcement to inspect tattoos and create a Gang Tie Probability Matrix for each incoming prosect they'd have PR hell to pay and - I suspect - most people on this board would be saying how fucked up it is to deny these guys employment because of some tattoos they got as teenagers. We don't even require that athletes denounce particular gangs once they enter the league because that would be dangerous for them. We just expect them to leave it behind quietly and stay out of trouble and say what you will but this kid went one step further.
This already has been a thing.

 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,965
The causation is a little weird. Aaron Hernandez wasn't actually in any gangs, right? So the gang tattoos were just him being a poser if I recall correctly (I guess one could argue that getting gang tattoos without actually being in a gang is more of a warning sign than having one from being in a gang?)
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,215
Quincy, MA
Any reporting on this would be racist so that reporting doesn't exist. The real answer is there are too many to count and it's a good thing we don't count them. Plus you won't see many tattoos of a stamp that says "CERTIFIED CRIP" on someone's forehead because gangs are usually too sophisticated. Instead you see symbols and oblique references to certain groups that give them plausible denability. But if the NFL hired law enforcement to inspect tattoos and create a Gang Tie Probability Matrix for each incoming prosect they'd have PR hell to pay and - I suspect - most people on this board would be saying how fucked up it is to deny these guys employment because of some tattoos they got as teenagers. We don't even require that athletes denounce particular gangs once they enter the league because that would be dangerous for them. We just expect them to leave it behind quietly and stay out of trouble and say what you will but this kid went one step further.
Just to clarify (because I agree with this post), this kid went one step further - in that he's disavowed himself of it's current day perception and has indicated he'll cover it. That's what I'm inferring, am I correct?

I love that Jamelle Hill can scream all the divisive stuff she wants, but if any Caucasian writer asked a single athlete of color to explain and identify the meanings behind his body art he'd likely be fired. Wait, no I don't love that.

This kid got body art when he wasn't old enough to drink. As a society we don't trust his mental development enough to have a beer, but we can condemn him for his choice of art... and then further judge him for not covering it/removing it when we decide he should have. I know plenty of people who have tattoos that they've not covered up - specifically stating that it's who they were at the time, and they serve to remind them to continue to grow and evolve. My dad for example is covered from the waist to neck to each of his hands. A life full of stories, experiences, etc. Merchant marines, motorcycle clubs, children, business ventures, pets, favorite themes, he's covered, and been photographed at various times for magazine layouts. He's covered some that didn't age well because quality, including having some redone to restore the colors of parrot wings for example. I would love to see his expression if someone offering him a job had told him to cover one up. I'd also love to see the result if a couple of the folks in this thread decided to offer their judgement on their perspective on what various tattoos meant. In the face of all that, I've never gotten a tattoo - I've never felt the need, though I did come close to getting a tattoo of bugs bunny with a leather jacket at one point. Glad I ducked that one - never mix alcohol when you are feeling creative... lol I'm not judging anyone because of their body art - especially not one that was applied in teen years, and remains at 23.
 

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
This already has been a thing.

I should have noted it but yeah that's what I was referencing. The idea was floated behind the scenes in response to the Hernandez case but does not appear to have been implemented I think for the reasons I (and Dave Zirin here) stated.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
162
He was already, no doubt, in a diverse locker room at Marshall. The idea that the Patriots, who look very seriously into issues of team ethic, would have no idea if he couldn't get along with large blocks of his teammates is ridiculous.
Yeah, that's not at all what I was suggesting. My point was that if he really is a racist, which I tend to doubt (while I recognize that there's some smoke here) , he will eventually have issues with many of his teammates. That is, unless he's really exceptionally good at covering that up.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,734
Yup, I was a teenager and didn't know what I was I doing might be true, but probably isn't going to satisfy a lot of people. T
Seems like it satisfied college teammates in 2 schools, since we haven't heard anything else about him.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,463
ct
Oh I completely agree. I am a hypocrite. I know many athletes and artists I support are horrible people. I choose where the line is drawn.

I won't judge others if they continue to support this team, but I am going to have a very hard time coming to grips cheering for them if this isn't addressed by the owner.
I find it very ironic that the very same set of posters who strongly believe in a woman's right to control her own body are leading the chorus to get rid of the guy. Doesn't he also have the right to control his body or what he writes on it?
I'm not saying I agree with what the tattoo but what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Freedom of expression?
 

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
Just to clarify (because I agree with this post), this kid went one step further - in that he's disavowed himself of it's current day perception and has indicated he'll cover it. That's what I'm inferring, am I correct?

I love that Jamelle Hill can scream all the divisive stuff she wants, but if any Caucasian writer asked a single athlete of color to explain and identify the meanings behind his body art he'd likely be fired. Wait, no I don't love that.

This kid got body art when he wasn't old enough to drink. As a society we don't trust his mental development enough to have a beer, but we can condemn him for his choice of art... and then further judge him for not covering it/removing it when we decide he should have. I know plenty of people who have tattoos that they've not covered up - specifically stating that it's who they were at the time, and they serve to remind them to continue to grow and evolve. My dad for example is covered from the waist to neck to each of his hands. A life full of stories, experiences, etc. Merchant marines, motorcycle clubs, children, business ventures, pets, favorite themes, he's covered, and been photographed at various times for magazine layouts. He's covered some that didn't age well because quality, including having some redone to restore the colors of parrot wings for example. I would love to see his expression if someone offering him a job had told him to cover one up. I'd also love to see the result if a couple of the folks in this thread decided to offer their judgement on their perspective on what various tattoos meant. In the face of all that, I've never gotten a tattoo - I've never felt the need, though I did come close to getting a tattoo of bugs bunny with a leather jacket at one point. Glad I ducked that one - never mix alcohol when you are feeling creative... lol I'm not judging anyone because of their body art - especially not one that was applied in teen years, and remains at 23.
Correct. He not only distanced himself publicly but also seems to condemn their existence to some extent. Richard Sherman wrote this:

I look at those words—gang ties—and I think about all the players I’ve met in the NFL and all of us who come from inner-city neighborhoods like mine in Los Angeles, and I wonder how many of us could honestly say we’re not friends with guys doing the wrong things.

I can’t.
And in this piece he says these gangs are also there for you in your youth and deserve help from you once you're a millionaire. This kid at least seems to be saying that he thinks this group is undeserving of his support going forward. Personally I agree with him, but he'd be on fairly solid ground if he took the Sherman approach and said "these aren't inherently bad people, they're not a hate group, and they were there for me. I won't actively participate in the organization but I won't condemn them on the grounds I'm being asked to either."
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,325
Oregon
I find it very ironic that the very same set of posters who strongly believe in a woman's right to control her own body are leading the chorus to get rid of the guy. Doesn't he also have the right to control his body or what he writes on it?
I'm not saying I agree with what the tattoo but what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Freedom of expression?
Mrs. Godwin's Law: Every argument about proto-Nazis eventually draws a comparison to abortion
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,140
Pasadena, CA
I find it very ironic that the very same set of posters who strongly believe in a woman's right to control her own body are leading the chorus to get rid of the guy. Doesn't he also have the right to control his body or what he writes on it?
I'm not saying I agree with what the tattoo but what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Freedom of expression?
What the fuck? This thread is off the rails.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
3,539
I find it very ironic that the very same set of posters who strongly believe in a woman's right to control her own body are leading the chorus to get rid of the guy. Doesn't he also have the right to control his body or what he writes on it?
I'm not saying I agree with what the tattoo but what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Freedom of expression?
Sarcasm? Nobody is putting him in jail for his tattoo. People are saying they will not support the Patriots organization with TV views, ticket purchases, and merchandise sales. The Patriots as a business can decide if a young doofus who moves an odd shaped ball with his foot is worth the hit.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,757
from the wilds of western ma
Seems like it satisfied college teammates in 2 schools, since we haven't heard anything else about him.
A few of his teammates have been very supportive of him, and that's definitely in his favor. I wouldn't consider that to be the only criteria, however. The brothers in arms, got your back culture of a locker room can go to extremes at times. There are other constituencies that may have a problem with the tattoo. That said, my stance from the beginning has been that red flags/questions/concerns about the tattoo are fair and legitimate, but if he is not revealed to have ever gone full blown white supremacist, and conducts himself well going forward, that he should be Ok. And after a day, the evidence looks good for him. And I have to say, for some of the cries of "outrage" and "torches and pitchforks" I've seen in here, I don't think very many posters really fell into that category. And I've seen at least as much false equivalency, whataboutism, and reflexive defending of the draft pick as well.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
12,140
Somewhere
Fuck guys, five pages and no one made the "I did Nazi that coming" joke? As for the guy's explanations, they don't fly with me.

Also, there's the following from Lisa Guerrero (from way back). I don't think it's particularly relevant, but it accurately reflects the sentiment of the general public:

View: https://twitter.com/4lisaguerrero/status/1254288763301146624

Haha the Pats drafting a white supremacist surprises me not at all because I once worked for them. You. Have. No. Idea.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,713
Wasn’t Guerrero before Kraft? That’s kind of like citing Yawkey to say the Sox are racist under Henry.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,215
Quincy, MA
Do we really think street gangs and white nationalism are comparable?
Perhaps in at least one way:
- The markings they adorn their bodies with are governed under their constitutional rights.
One group wears their markings without issue, without strangers 1000s of miles away making broad proclamations of whether they are suitable to pursue their professions with an employer that shows interest. The other not so much.

And let's not forget the kid has stated (with no evidence to the contrary) that he thought it was a positive message of support to the military of our country, disavowed himself with the current perception/leanings of the group, and that it would be covered. But it's not enough for those in this thread, they've declared it's BS, because they know what this stranger's personal body art means to him - even though they'd never heard of him 10 days ago. And the team owners should have to explain themselves by golly. Oh, and now we hear those voices of support from the teammates of color that have been around him for years - they don't count either because "locker room code". Interesting, I hope those making these points, and these judgments get the same clarity of thought from others when it comes to their own turn in the spotlight.

1) The kid deserves to have his words taken at face value. We all do as Americans, otherwise it's guilty until proven innocent, and as far as I can tell we know that doesn't work.
2) Even if the tattoo was intended to mean what others are insisting it meant despite his explanation, tolerance for others opinions is also supposed to be baked into our country - no matter how disgusting they are. Voltaire for the win: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

That should be enough. But it isn't. Mainstream media is blasting forward on this kid like he has acknowledge he was scouting hardware stores around Foxboro to look for insurrection supplies. Jamelle Hill, Lisa Guerrero have just stated as fact he is a white supremacist, in spite of his denials. That's the way it goes now - ignore any denial, make assumptions, assign a label, destroy, destroy, destroy. Someone else defends them, attack the defenders the same way. It's beyond pathetic. And yes, demanding the Jewish owner of the team (who has personally led players from all religions/walks of life to join him on pilgrimages to his holy land) provide an explanation as to why it's a good thing to hire a kid who denies being a White Supremacist/Neo-nazi is just mind blowing. Damn, that takes balls. No lack of hubris in this thread, or in our society in general.

And it's not whatabout-ism to ask why one player drafted with body art is being treated differently than other players drafted with body art, when the dividing line appears to be reasons beyond the football field.

Edit: And just out of curiosity, since this kid professed it was intended as a symbol of support for those who've performed military service for our country... Can I get a show of hands... how many of those opting for the tar and feathers in this thread have performed military service? I think it might be illuminating. [If you are/were the spouse/partner of someone while they were serving, that counts in my book.]
 
Last edited:

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
Do we really think street gangs and white nationalism are comparable?
I think they're apples and oranges but for reference, Salon, a leftist publication, ran this in 2018:

As criminologists, our research is based on the rationale that “alt-right” groups are no different from conventional street gangs.
This begs the question of whether they're morally comparable, which I think is what you're asking? And that's tricky because right-wing militia membership doesn't really have moral implications in and of itself if the militia limits its political statements to "guns are a constitutional right and we think the government is coming for them, which is tyranny, so fuck off, this is America." Just as street gang membership alone doesn't have moral implications either. But if you're part of a militia that propogates white nationalist beliefs - which is morally repugnant - but rhetorically condemns and never commits violence vs. a gang that has universalist beliefs about the inherent dignity and worth of all people but regularly kills people, it's not close.

Then again, if a right-wing militia kills the same amount of people as a gang, I could see saying the gang is morally superior because their violence has a theoretical ceiling: their ambitions are local and their motivations are sort of commercial and resource-based, which we all intuitively understand and forgive, whereas white nationalist violence is in service of a project that's obviously national in scale and has the greater potential for violence. (As is, though, gang activity kills many more people than militia membership. Search CDC data for one and SPLC data for the other.)

The reason I would say they're "comparable" in this instance is that this kid is implying that the militia is too close to white nationalism for comfort, and not just pro-military or pro-gun or whatever he claims he thought it stood for when he got the tat. He's saying he had some association with or affinity for an organization that on the whole he doesn't wish to represent now. Since there's no evidence of violence or hate speech from him, he's basically as morally culpable as someone who was loosely affiliated with a criminal organization but didn't necessarily commit any crimes.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,713
I never met any middle or upper class gang members.

Unless we’re counting frats?
 

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,500
Brasil
Perhaps in at least one way:
- The markings they adorn their bodies with are governed under their constitutional rights.
One group wears their markings without issue, without strangers 1000s of miles away making broad proclamations of whether they are suitable to pursue their professions with an employer that shows interest. The other not so much.

And let's not forget the kid has stated (with no evidence to the contrary) that he thought it was a positive message of support to the military of our country, disavowed himself with the current perception/leanings of the group, and that it would be covered. But it's not enough for those in this thread, they've declared it's BS, because they know what this stranger's personal body art means to him - even though they'd never heard of him 10 days ago. And the team owners should have to explain themselves by golly. Oh, and now we hear those voices of support from the teammates of color that have been around him for years - they don't count either because "locker room code". Interesting, I hope those making these points, and these judgments get the same clarity of thought from others when it comes to their own turn in the spotlight.

1) The kid deserves to have his words taken at face value. We all do as Americans, otherwise it's guilty until proven innocent, and as far as I can tell we know that doesn't work.
2) Even if the tattoo was intended to mean what others are insisting it meant despite his explanation, tolerance for others opinions is also supposed to be baked into our country - no matter how disgusting they are. Voltaire for the win: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

That should be enough. But it isn't. Mainstream media is blasting forward on this kid like he has acknowledge he was scouting hardware stores around Foxboro to look for insurrection supplies. Jamelle Hill, Lisa Guerrero have just stated as fact he is a white supremacist, in spite of his denials. That's the way it goes now - ignore any denial, make assumptions, assign a label, destroy, destroy, destroy. Someone else defends them, attack the defenders the same way. It's beyond pathetic. And yes, demanding the Jewish owner of the team (who has personally led players from all religions/walks of life to join him on pilgrimages to his holy land) provide an explanation as to why it's a good thing to hire a kid who denies being a White Supremacist/Neo-nazi is just mind blowing. Damn, that takes balls. No lack of hubris in this thread, or in our society in general.

And it's not whatabout-ism to ask why one player drafted with body art is being treated differently than other players drafted with body art, when the dividing line appears to be reasons beyond the football field.

Edit: And just out of curiosity, since this kid professed it was intended as a symbol of support for those who've performed military service for our country... Can I get a show of hands... how many of those opting for the tar and feathers in this thread have performed military service? I think it might be illuminating. [If you are/were the spouse/partner of someone while they were serving, that counts in my book.]
You do realize that the right to freedom of speech is to protect from government restrictions?

You have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't remove society's right to judge the fuck out of you for it.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,463
ct
I hate Jemele Hill and I hate that I am forced to agree with her on this.
Why do you and others like you such as Maufman think that his explanation is BS? Do you know if he actually has any family members in the military? If it is proven that he has had family in the military wouldn't that prove his story true? It should be easy enough to do research or check out his story. I'm not talking about his girlfriend's cousins uncles wife who served. I mean if his parents or uncle served, the information should be readily available or am I mistaken?
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,215
Quincy, MA
You do realize that the right to freedom of speech is to protect from government restrictions?

You have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't remove society's right to judge the fuck out of you for it.
Yep, and I also note that no one is judging anyone else's tattoos in this draft, except the one kid. Seems odd. There's dozens and dozens of them all over the draft. And only one kids body art is of concern...
 

Leskanic's Thread

lost underscore
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
943
Los Angeles
Is the best part of this thread the argument that black gang members are treated better in society than white supremacists?

Is it Salon being called "leftist"?

Is it someone floating the possibility this kicker will be as good as Ghost?

Is it the longing for a time when sports had no connection with politics?

So many choices...
 

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,500
Brasil
Yep, and I also note that no one is judging anyone else's tattoos in this draft, except the one kid. Seems odd. There's dozens and dozens of them all over the draft. And only one kids body art is of concern...
Because only one kid has a very visible tattoo of an organization with ties to white supremacists.

If another player had an ISIS tattoo, would you be okay with it?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,713
So, do people think playing Tupac at a stadium is the same as playing a white supremacist punk or metal band? Because that’s nuts.

And people can believe whatever they want, but I never quite got how supporting militias supports our troops. I mean, who are they planning to fight?
 

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
Is the best part of this thread the argument that black gang members are treated better in society than white supremacists?

Is it Salon being called "leftist"?

Is it someone floating the possibility this kicker will be as good as Ghost?

Is it the longing for a time when sports had no connection with politics?

So many choices...
That was me. My bad. Is liberal more accurate? Did not mean to mischaracterize. The implication was that drawing the gang vs. alt-right comparison is implicitly racist and so I cited academics on the subject, published on a site that seems to regularly decry racism, who draw the comparison as well. (I thought they also publish more leftist stuff on capitalism and foreign policy, but I could be wrong.)
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,384
Waltham, MA
I have no reason to doubt what the kid says. Unless someone comes forth with evidence that he's indeed a racists, I choose to judge him based on his actions from here on out.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,215
Quincy, MA
Because only one kid has a very visible tattoo of an organization with ties to white supremacists.

If another player had an ISIS tattoo, would you be okay with it?
Tell you what. Complete an inventory of all the tattoos in the draft, and what YOU think they mean versus what the wearers think they mean, and I'll flip through the list to decide which ones I'm OK with. Otherwise, identifying one kid to destroy because you are opposed to what you think it represents to him (in spite of his denials) is pretty lame. I hope you or one of your children never face the same mob mentality.

Edit: He also has a very visible tattoo of an American flag, are you ok with that?
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,503
guam
Is the best part of this thread the argument that black gang members are treated better in society than white supremacists?

Is it Salon being called "leftist"?

Is it someone floating the possibility this kicker will be as good as Ghost?

Is it the longing for a time when sports had no connection with politics?

So many choices...
I like the metastory, where the board eats its own. That story always wins.
 

queenb

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2016
236
Is the best part of this thread the argument that black gang members are treated better in society than white supremacists?

Is it Salon being called "leftist"?

Is it someone floating the possibility this kicker will be as good as Ghost?

Is it the longing for a time when sports had no connection with politics?

So many choices...
So, do people think playing Tupac at a stadium is the same as playing a white supremacist punk or metal band? Because that’s nuts.

And people can believe whatever they want, but I never quite got how supporting militias supports our troops. I mean, who are they planning to fight?
Friendly fire.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
5,021
Somerville MA
Yep, and I also note that no one is judging anyone else's tattoos in this draft, except the one kid. Seems odd. There's dozens and dozens of them all over the draft. And only one kids body art is of concern...
I'm not sure anyone in this thread is still arguing the kid should be cut or face any kind of real consequences for having this tattoo, so I'm not sure what you're up in arms about. Jemele Hill isn't on this message board.

I want to make sure I'm understanding - are you arguing he should never have been questioned about it? That he should not have to answer for whether or not he belongs to a group with white supremacist ties?