Kaepernick and Betsy Ross

Nike had an idea for a shoe. They were going to include the original Betsy Ross flag as part of the design. Colin Kaepernick stepped in. He insisted that some people might be offended since slavery was a part of the country at the time.



Many people will look at this and find it consistent with his national anthem protests. His reasoning for both seem to match. The logic between these two, however, is contradictory.

There are certain components of Kaepernick's protests that I have defended. Among them is the idea that what something means to one person should not be forced on another. A lot of veterans were furious over the protests. They felt insulted by what Kaepernick's because of what the national anthem meant to them. The problem with this is that Kaepernick's views on the national anthem did not match those of the veterans.

With the protests, many people were offended. That was never Kaepernick's intention. His views were different from the veterans, and this is something that I can accept. Simply put, his personal views should not be prohibited on the basis that the national anthem means something different to other people.

Colin Kaepernick told Nike not to release the shoes because some people might be offended. The purpose for including the Betsy Ross had nothing to do with slavery. Nike accepted Kaepernick's suggestion. They set aside their personal views on the basis that the flag could mean something different to other people.

On this issue, Colin Kaepernick did a complete one-eighty. This is not in the sense of his opinion, but in the sense of his logic. In one case, he downplayed offense in favor of personal opinion. With the shoes, he downplayed Nike's opinions due to the potential to offend.

If you have been to this blog before, you might have seen a certain phrase, selective logic. This phrase was developed primarily to discuss how bias can change how we think. In many cases, two contradictory arguments can both make some degree of sense.

I can understand how someone can view the right to express their own viewpoints as more significant that the fear of offending. I can also understand how someone can view the possibility of offending as more substantial than the right for people to express their own viewpoints, although I don't personally agree with that viewpoint. In the case of Kaepernick, which one he believes appears to depend on which one best backs his personal viewpoints. This is a terrific example of selective logic.