Too strong a take for me IC.
1. Permanently placing a tattoo on yourself when you're 16,17,18 years old probably isn't the best choice, but hardly for lack of cognitive ability. Who you are at that age typically isn't who you are a few years later, let alone decades so. Ink is largely permanent and as such should be "respected" accordingly if you want to avoid "embarrassing" situations later in life. And I say this as someone who has five pieces, so hardly the anti ink crowd.
2. If he, as a kid, thought the iconography showed support for the military and the defenders of issues he believes in, I get it in an agnostic POV.
3. If the icon took on new meaning after the fact because the group's views matriculated along the spectrum, while that is a hypothetical reality, that's hardly his fault. He pointed to this in his statements.
4. In a vacuum, his place on the team should be based on the merit of his performance in his role, just like it should be for any player and any "advocacy issue".
5. But its also true he aint playing in West Bumf*** anymore. Hes playing in the biggest sports league on the planet now and if his "advocacy" costs his team something then there almost certainly will be a reaction. That's just the way this cookie crumbles.