On Thursday, word emerged that Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger won’t be living with his future wife until she’s his current wife, due to the couple’s religious beliefs.
Word of the Herremans tweet eventually got around, apparently resulting in folks giving him a hard time via Twitter. He eventually posted another message acknowledging the backlash — and arguing that he meant no harm: “Funny how it takes all day to get negative feedback from a tweet … If u read it correctly… It reads ‘good for him.’”
Fine, but the use of “Rapistberger” could cause a reasonable person to think that Herremans was clubbing Ben over the head with his past. If, for example, someone were to say as to Herremans’ quarterback, “From vicious, cold-blooded, methodical, calculating dog drowner/electrocuter/slam-to-the-ground-until-deader to Comeback Player of the Year . . . Good for him!,” that could be viewed as a slap against Mike Vick.
Indeed, “good for him!” could become the new caveat for any criticism of anyone. The formula would be to say the bad thing, throw in a good thing, and then tack “good for him!” onto the end of it.
If it catches on, we’ll need to name the tactic after Todd.
Good for him.