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?
1) I disagree with the first statement. AFTER he was asked about and answered the questions about his tattoo, there have been posts in here continuing to try to knock him down. Post "calling BS" on his story, posts showing old photos and twitter investigators attempting to discredit his statement, post from Jamelle Hill (and she didn't post them here, so clearly people here value her opinion enough to post it), a post referencing Guerrero calling him a white supremacist (and she didn't post it here, so people value her opinion enough to post it), people demanding answers from ownership explaining why a white supremacist was drafted, and more. I repeat, AFTER he denied it, distanced himself from the organization and it's current views, and that it will be covered up. Hell two or three posts above, people are still calling BS - "he didn't get rid of them fast enough", and one post above are still saying they and his employers have the right to not want to be associated with him because of his views. I'm thinking those are real consequences.
2) I've said repeatedly, he was asked, and he answered in a manner that denies the very thing people are trying to cause him "consequences" for. What more can the kid do? Are people looking for an hour of self flagellation? Two? Why is this kid assumed guilty? Is that what we want for our country?
Even assuming that he didn’t know what the symbol meant when he got it* , the fact that he’s kept it uncovered up until now at a minimum leads to an inference that he was unconcerned with the symbol’s meaning up until the point it became advantageous for him to express concern. Yeah, maybe he’s a good kid and it’s all a zany mixup, but that’s not the most logical explanation.
And saying you are “pro troops” doesn’t earn you any bonus points. Using troops and veterans to deflect criticism from a poor personal decision is some cynical bullshit.
*which I suspect is baloney, too. The symbol is not something that is obviously “pro troops”; it’s a III surrounded by stars. If his goal was to get ink that was pro troops, why did he choose that one? It’s like having a tattoo of the iron cross and explaining it was because you really liked Volkswagen.
1) The truth is often the most logical explanation. You are trying to find something that may or may not be there, and there is no way for the kid to defend himself from the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.
2) He's a young kid who stated he was a teenager honoring family members who served their country. That's not wrapping yourself in the flag, unless one is a cynical asshole. It's wrapping yourself in your family and their values
3) Now you are an expert on tattoos, and the thought process of a teenager and what it might mean to him. I'm glad you are an expert - I've been around them my whole life (my dad is covered with them, and so are about 500 of his acquaintances) and if I've learned one thing about them, it's that what they mean to the wearer is exactly what the wearer says they mean - no matter the opinion of those looking at them. YMMV
Could you point to someone complaining about the American flag tattoo? It's there another player with similar tattoos that people are knowingly disregarding?
You're too fired up about this and you're not making much sense.
This isn't an abstract design that could mean one thing for some and another for others. It's the symbol of an organization with white supremacists ties.
The government won't/can't do shit about it, and so his first amendment rights aren't being trampled. But his employers, and it's customers, sure have the right to not want to be associated with someone expressing, and a tattoo is a form of expression, this kind of views.
1) I just asked a question: You've decided the meaning of one of his tattoos to him - is what you decide it is. I'm just asking what other tattoos of his you have a problem with. The question of intent was asked and answered by him. You continue to deny and overlook his answer to meet whatever bias you are carrying.
2) Not fired up, just tired of the mob mentality, in this case at a 23 year old kid. I made my fair share of bad choices in my teens through early 20s, and wouldn't want to have them examined and called a liar when I explained my decisions to people who've never met me. I've also got a 20 year old son who's put stuff on his social media that has embarrassed me as a parent and as a human being. And when he applies for a job after college, I wouldn't want him to face the same scrutiny over a stupid youthful decision. This kid touched a 3rd rail of sorts, we can all say it was a poor choice given what the organization has come to stand for. That doesn't mean he is a bad kid - nor should he be punished as such the way people in this thread are suggesting.
3) It isn't an abstract design, it is one that initially meant something very specific for the men who wore it. It was a symbol indicating permanent oath of loyalty/service by ex-military to their country. That is the symbol that he tattooed in support of various family members who served. That the organization was corrupted, or devolved to something else shouldn't sentence this kid to the professional consequences suggested by this thread.
lol. Yeah, because whatever else we know, criticizing white supremacist symbolism implies you don’t support the American flag. I mean—can you even imagine someone making that rhetorical move in the same way about gang tats associated with minorities? Game, set, match. Pull up your pants, your ass is showing. And I don’t even know what that means.
Ironically, it would probably be the threeper who wants to overthrow the government. So who the hell knows what this guy is up to.
1) That's not what I was suggesting, so perhaps you should check your own drawers. There is more than one tattoo on this kid, I'm wondering which others he doesn't approve of. I think it's a valid question.
2) I can't imagine anyone making any move associated with gang tats associated with minorities, because no one can ask the question without sparking their own storm of outrage. But that's a topic for another day, eh?
----------
Note: Still waiting for a show of hands of current/former military who want to tar and feather this kid...