If it's not a big deal, then why bother campaigning to get the wording changed in the first place?
Does this make ducks the governor of bad takes?
If it's not a big deal, then why bother campaigning to get the wording changed in the first place?
Looking around the news...
never have i been so proud to be an NBA fan![]()
I didn’t campaign for to be changed. I couldn’t care less, they could force all the players to refer to team owners as “massa” and I wouldn’t care. It doesn’t affect my life or the life of anyone outside the fantasy world of pro basketball, and it does nothing to the on-court product. So why give a either way?
this is true. It reeks of try-hard white liberal bull tbh. But why does anyone here care? You'll never be owners tbh, stop with the fake outrage
![]()
Pretty much how I feel..it's weird how the average fan, a person who 99% of the time is an employee at a business(rather than the boss), always sides with the owners of sports teams
I'm always in favor of free speech, anarchy and crossing the line, so I cringe when I see this type of (which Adam Silver seems to specialize in), it just speaks on today's soft society as a whole, but OTOH, it's very entertaining to see all these conservatives on twitter losing their minds over this trivial![]()
If I were comparing the 2, I'd actually say that Governor sounds like the racist term, imho....
What if you just call the owners the O word or owna without the hard er, would that be acceptable?
Example, "Dr Buss was the best owna in sports, he's a real ass owna, yo."
People will literally suck the s of the 1% with hopes of magically reaching their status (while their jobs are continually outsourced), not knowing the people they worship wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. I mean look at the POTUS![]()
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/governor
the managing director and usually the principal officer of an ins ution or organization
Calling them “governor” is accurate. And calling them governors doesn’t change the fact that they’re also owners, so just keep calling them owners and get on with your life.
Without the people sucking the s of the 1%, the NBA doesn't exist. Hollywood doesn't exist. Sycophancy and -riding celeb slurpers outweigh the people who worship the 1% you're identifying. Living vicariously through the same people, tbh.
Because we all hold jobs and accept rules and regulations. And we don't think some uppity pampered ball bouncers should be different
Welp, they got the rules changed. Guess that makes you a nobody Polack tbh.
So hate both equally. Yet I hear far more disdain for millionaire athletes making too much money far more than I hear disdain for the billionaire Governors who often overprice tickets and put out a product (or wholesale moving teams after getting the city to build stadiums) while making billions at the expense of fans. I just find that interesting.
NBA has consistently followed the snowflake political agenda. That's apparently a proven winner for them.
I understand hatred is easily flipped. It's just down to how people see things. I can identify with what a Governor deals with being on the ownership side of a business the past ten years. I don't ride rich governors, but I do realize they're the ones providing the outlet for the athletes and if no money is made, regardless if its on their own doing or not (that's debatebale considering how the players basically decide where they play the League Office has obvious market bias) the owners will take a loss. Regardless if a player plays or not, or produces or not, they will be paid their exorbitant salaries. I can understand the resentment.
Just because I identify with them doesn't mean I wont find disgust with those kind of rich, but it's silly to suggest both have to be hated equally. More people want to live vicariously through their celebrities, there's not much sexy about being rich if you can't let everyone know you're rich when you're a daydreamer. Murica is a sycophant nation.
but I sho wood like to play for gov'nuh Dolan
NBA gets the most media (mainstream & social) coverage and yet few (non blacks) consider it their favorite sport
It’s going after the younger demographic. The younger generation loves this stuff and mistaken it for social justice. It’s sad really.
The sadder part is that businesses constantly think that the younger generation has the most disposable income and thus the most valuable demographic. While there is some truth to the longer runway thought with younger kids lasting longer (obviously) the older generation, particularly the boomers and the gen xers, are by far the biggest spenders.
I doubt that's true. But in any event the NBA is about the snowflake demographic, which is mostly 15-34.
How is it a proven winner?
What does it have to do with the product they sell?
They sell snowflake values, son. Do I really have to hold your hand through this?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)