I think that we were discussing the MOTIVATION for people making the choices that they do ... and your seeming belief that you can read their minds to determine if they are simply, "virtue-signalling", as you call it.
It's hard to imagine another motivation. Can you imagine any possible way that kneeling for the anthem during a football game would
ever affect "police brutality"?
There's plenty of ways that he could really have made a difference....from volunteering his time with inner city youths, to fundraising, etc. Instead, he chooses to do what will garner him the most attention and praise.
As to your response ... you're right, Travis Scott didn't NEED to get Kaepernick's "blessing" to work with the NFL.
But HE CHOSE to approach Kaepernick. Why did he do so ? I suppose that only he knows.
Oh I think it's not difficult to guess, is it? Do you think that maybe he was concerned that by performing....people would assume that he's "for police brutality", racist, or otherwise morally deficient?
Do you think that maybe he was concerned about those things because that's how the left depicts anyone who doesn't "agree" with Colin's "protest"?
But the article you cited indicated that he and Kaepernick came away from the meeting not exactly on the same page. And that's okay ... people can feel differently about issues. And none of this means that those people who are making these decisions are trying to SIGNAL their VIRTUE. Sometime they just think that they want to do the RIGHT thing, and everybody's free to decide what the RIGHT THING is for themselves.
You're right....anyone can do as they like. The thing is, when they do it conspicuously out of place...like during the anthem, or a shaving cream commercial....and their goals are unclear or non-existent (because Colin can't possibly affect police brutality by kneeling during the anthem anymore than Gillette can affect sexual assault with a commercial lol) one should definitely question why they chose to do what they did.
You know ... I have participated in support for the welfare of people far removed from myself for about 40 years now. I don't do that to SIGNAL my VIRTUE (I've very rarely mentioned it to anyone ... and I'm only mentioning it now as an personal example of my argument). I choose to do it because I think that it's the RIGHT THING for me to do.
Everybody that chooses to support a GOOD cause is not seeking the applause of their fellowman, ... though SOME surely do. Try not to be so cynical.
It's not about you...it's about the argument several posters were either making, suggesting, or beginning to suggest. The argument that the only reason why anyone would have a problem with the commercial in question is their personal moral failings.
As I said, it's the go-to tactic of the left. The only reason why you're against illegal immigration is that you're racist. The only reason why you wouldn't support Colin is you're some white supremacist oppressor. The only reason why you wouldn't be against toxic masculinity is that you're a misogynist/rape apologist/sexual predator.
If you want help...I can point out where the discussion started to turn in that direction. I'm not making this up.
I'll tell you what though, you're a reasonable person...so I'll just ask you this...
You agree that people can dislike or disagree with the commercial and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are a moral person, right? Just as agreeing with the commercial doesn't automatically make you a "good" person even in regards to the subject matter of the commercial?