Reply With Quote
Why do people try to change the subject to China or something else when people are talking about racial issues in the U.S? Always thought that was ing stupid.
I think that's the thing; Lebron can speak out against the crazy voter suppression going on in southern states and states-- and get support from players and owners-- while the owners then give big financial donations to the same politicians who are putting forth the bills and voting them into law.
It's the owners money, they can do whatever but they shouldn't have it both ways when the sides are conflicting.
Why do people try to change the subject to China or something else when people are talking about racial issues in the U.S? Always thought that was ing stupid.
No more disingenuous than players that complain about voting rights, but ignore voting rights in China bc they stand to lose money. Why hasn’t Pop condemned Chinese oppression of voting?
Everyone is disingenuous. They only care about how they are affected.
Pop needs just to retire he really sucks right now as a coach
It’s just to expose hypocrisy. The players and business that complain about Georgia laws are disingenuous if they readily do business with Communist China. But don’t worry, people invoking Chinas lack of democracy wouldn’t support boycotting the Winter Olympics. No body cares except for how it affects them.
For a guy who dabbled in Soviet studies in college, he sure is sounding more like a good commie these days.
When is he going to scrutinize the NBA's relationship with China?
First, being a hypocrite doesn't actually affect the correctness of a stance. That's what the ad homenim fallacy actually refers to (not insulting people like a lot of folks seem to think). Second, the China point has literally always been a really weak point. I can imagine you know that. Pop is directly affected by what goes on with voting in the US. Georgia making it harder for black folks to vote leads to a greater chance of GOP reps in Congress, which pushes the split with the Dems lower, which lowers the chances for legislation that Pop wants passed to pass. It makes WAY more sense for Pop to focus on this than it does China. Also, not saying anything about China isn't the same thing as supporting China, and the few times Pop has talked about China and Hong Kong, he has backed Silver/Morey.
This is basically an example of why the marketplace of ideas needs to be allowed to function normally rather than in the protectionist manner a lot of people want it to. This sort of criticism of Pop is bad. It's fallacious, irrelevant and inaccurate. In an ideal world, it would be stamped out in favor of better criticism or agreement. But because we have echo chambers that shelter these arguments, they never actually go away. They just go into a place where no one critically examines them and show up like they're brand new.
Not attacking you personally, CD. I don't think you're using the argument maliciously, and you've never come across as a fascist or Qanoner. I just think you get a lot of your news from sources that don't self-examine the way they should if they are going to try to direct thought.
The people who bring up China when people talk about civil rights in this country don't usually actually care about China, they're using it to try and deflect from the civil rights issues here.
Pop has generally only discussed issues pertaining to the U.S, likely because he knows those issues much better and has the platform to draw attention and to try and sway people. Same could be said about Lebron or other athletes. I wouldn't call that disingenuous
You know the problem I have with Pop is that he is the liberal version of Trump, except that he has never been elected president. He oversimplifies complex issues as if there is a clear right and wrong and that is not the case for anyone that looks at any controversial issue with true honesty. For example, is it really inconsistent for an owner of an NBA team to be concerned over an incident where an unarmed black man is shot or killed in some other way by a police officer and still believe in and support police officers? In an honest world, yes, there is room for a person to have both opinions. But not in a hyper-sensitive and oversimplified world where one takes a moral stand that his way of thinking is the only way of thinking and that everyone else that doesn't agree is somehow evil. Is it possible for Holt to contribute to Trump because he wants tax cuts or likes Trump's positions on foreign policy? In an honest world, that should not be an issue. But it bothers me when people oversimplify issues and act like they are right and everyone that disagrees is evil and must be stopped. Yes, it is not exclusive to Pop. Yes, you can say the same thing about Sean Hannity or some other blowhard, but the difference is that Pop gets praised while the others get demonized. Pop is just like Foxnews and he is contributing to the divide in our country by being "outspoken" when all he really is doing is trying to use public shame by oversimplifying the issues with brief statements to people that have never asked him a hard question in their lives. I've never heard any of the sycophant media ask him a tough question and I've never heard Pop have an honest conversation about any issue. It's fine for him to have an opinion and it's fine for him to express it on the platform that he has mostly because of Peter Holt giving him the opportunity to be an NBA coach and other NBA owners keeping the NBA afloat. But calling people to go after owners because they don't agree with him, to me, is akin to an owner firing Pop and Kerr and anyone else that disagrees with the owner's politics.
No they’re not. They used to be, butCitizens United destroyed that transparency, leading to Dark Money in politics.
No, that would be the Grand Old Putin party.
Why do people, Pop included, think minorities are too incompetent to apply for a valid form of identification?
Keep in mind you need a photo ID to get the covid vaccine everywhere in this country, and the same people whining about Georgia's voter laws sure are insistent on everyone getting that vaccine.
Um, so you don't actually need photo ID to get the vaccine in many places (Austin being among them). What you need is proof of appointment, which is a print out of the email or the ability to use your phone to display the email.
Secondly, what you're doing would be like Jim Crowers saying "Why do people think minorities are too incompetent to learn to read or too poor to pay a small tax?" It's not about it being an insurmountable task, or even one the average minority wouldn't be able to cross. It's about setting hurdles at just the right height to disproportionately affect certain groups. It's a reality that state-issued photo IDs are something minority and poor people lack at a higher rate than the rest of the population. That's why the line is at state-issued and not allowed to include student ID's or proof of residency or other things that poor people have at a much higher rate than a driver's license or state ID.
The cancelled Donald sterling without pops help. And the players animus towards the owners was barely avoided by the labor agreement. Meanwhile did pop employ Danny ferry and kelvin sampson? I don't know what this thread is really about, however you can believe in free speech and argue that voting rights, which are also speech, are supreme. The real hypocrisy is anti voting pro free speech positions.
Technically, Pop did speak out against Donald Sterling. https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...ng-controversy. But I think there is a big difference between Donald Sterling, who's actions got him banned from the NBA and an owner donating money to say Donald Trump or some other Republican. I do think some people don't want Pop to speak out, but I agree that he has a right to speak out and so do the players, and so does anyone, including a homeless person. We all have the right to speak out. I just disagree that he should be calling out owners like he did, in a way, vilifying them and everything that comes with that in today's overreationary society, especially when Pop is not the kind of person that speaks intelligently about issues, he just makes shame statements for people that don't agree with him without any kind of honest discussion of any issue. That probably works on some asinine thing that Trump says, but when it comes to issues, reasonable people can differ so calling out owners for having an opinion that is different than his, to me, is a bit over the top.
threads like this make me want pop to coach 5-10 more years regardless of the spurs' w-l record, just so i can continue to watch him trigger snowflakes
It's also a reality that over 70% of minority communities support voter ID...
I think you're oversimplifying Pops argument, I think his point is that owners are donating to causes their counterintuitive to the players that they employ. I think that is irrefutably true. How can owners claim that they have players and black people's best interest in mind when they consistent back candidates from a party in which their notorious for undermining the rights of black people for the past 60 years?
I just don't see a gray area in there; owners can throw the money at whatever but they shouldn't claim that they have the interest of players or black people in their mind when they really don't.
The issue of supporting police and and believing the black people get mistreated by the police isn't necessarily incompatible, if they are actually trying to do something to improve policing. The issue is that owners aren't necessarily try to do that.
Also, comparing Pop to the worst president in American history is silly. Trump negativity affected the lives of tens of millions with bad policy, Pop is speaking out on social issues. Big difference.
Well I disagree with you, surprise, surprise. First, I think it's an overgeneralization that GOP=Racist. I know that is a convenient fallback option, but it's just intellectual laziness in my opinion. Owners are businessmen and they have interests that are impacted by who is president and what party is in control. So while they may agree that some police reform is necessary, that doesn't make them hypocrites for donating to a GOP candidate that may be against the proposed reforms, but is supported by the owner for other reasons, like tax cuts or some other thing. We live in a two party system. There are more than two viewpoints in the issues in front of us. But there are only two parties and each person has a right to evaluate which platform they prefer, even if they don't like everything on the platform.
You don't know the owners personally, so I don't think you have a right to judge what their intentions are by where they make their political donations. That is again my point on why drumming up vitriol against specific people, like owners of franchises that everyone knows, is out of line. Why do they owe people an explanation on where they donate their money or who they vote for? Again, you can claim that the owners are disingenuous and you have a right to an opinion, but you are just speculating and so your opinion could be on a completely false premise.
And the comparison between Trump and Pop is absolutely spot on. Both don't talk about issues honestly. They only mention the issue in the most partisan tones and then shame and demonize people that disagree with them. It is a terrible way to convince people of your point of view, but it works great to create division. That's why our country is so divided. It's because people can't have an open and honest discussion and admit the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. If Pop was a president, which he probably could never achieve, but if he was, then I'm sure there would be plenty of people that believe he implemented bad policy on tens of millions of people. I agree that Pop wasn't president, so he can't be compared to Trump in that aspect. But in terms of demonizing people and speaking unintelligently about issues, they are one in the same.
That is true. It's interesting because there is fraud in every election, it's just that there isn't enough fraud to actually overturn an election. That's where it is arguable that Georgia was providing a solution in need of a problem, though their proposals were overpoliticized and were more expansive on voting rights than a lot of blue state democrats that were attacking the statute. But there is a limited amount of fraud. There are laws to prevent it. But elections are not turning on fraud because it takes a lot of fraud that would be easy to prove in a court of law to impact an election. It's just not the case.
And how many people that would vote don't vote because of not having an ID and not being able to get one? Probably not enough to turn any election. I mean, I know that there are advocacy groups that pick up random homeless people, give them food, register them to vote, and then take them to vote and tell them who to vote for. It's legal, but it doesn't feel right. But there aren't enough of those groups to really turn an election are there? I doubt it.
It would be funny if there was a big debate going on and all this fighting when in reality voter fraud and ID requirements make no discernable difference in the outcome of any election.
It boils down to this...this Georgia law (and others that are coming in other states) are an attempt to reign in ballot harvesting. They are extending early voting and absentee voting to allow more votes to be cast by people who want to vote and are trying to weed out people giving blank ballots to activists to vote for them (harvesting of ballots). This was done mostly by the democrats in the covid era last year but, if these laws aren't put in place the Gop will do the same in the next election.
Holt gave 1.2 or 1.5 million to republicans since 2015
Pop is a ing idiot
Liberals think they should have power for everything
How dare a business dare give to the republicans
If you boycot business
It doesn't really matter if minorities support it or not. The point of cons utionally protected rights is that you can't take them away by tricking a majority of people into supporting efforts to take them away, whether from themselves or others.
Do voter ID laws affect voter turnout? Yes. Does not having ID laws reduce election integrity? Not to any functional extent. Is the effect of the reduced election integrity greater than the effect of the reduced turnout? Not even close. Therefore, the laws should should be struck down. Making it harder to vote is against the spirit of the amended cons ution. It doesn't matter who supports it or whatever. Civil rights aren't voluntary.
Now, if the government gave every person free IDs and had a quick and easy system to replace them, including and especially in time for election season, then you could get me to support requiring them to vote. But it's not up to an individual to pay for an ID, to fill out their application and hope it goes through in time. Voting is a right, not a privilege. You don't have to "earn" it by jumping through hoops.
-Its not overgeneralizing to say that about the GOP. In 2004, the RNC chair admitted that they used a racist tactic known as the southern strategy to dominate politics from the late 60's all the way up to today. They then began rolling back civil rights progress and starting and then ramping up the war on drugs to lock up hundreds of thousands of people and destroying communities of color. Since the voting rights act was partially rolled back, literally hundreds of laws have went into affect to make it harder for black people to vote, all done by a specific party. That doesn't even include decades of rhetoric that has caused black people to all but abandon the party.
-I specifically didn't judge them for how they spend their money, I called them disingenuous for trying to have it both ways. If one owner that supported one candidate, then sure but we know that the vast majority of majority owners support the GOP no matter what candidate.
Their players are majority black yet they're supporting candidates that actively work against the interest of black and brown people. My point is that they can support GOP candidates but its disingenuous for them to pretend that they support their players activism when their money actively works against that activism. I'm not sure why that's a take you would disagree with.
-Comparing Trump to Pop is a bad comp, it just is. Trump was the leader of the free world and lead a conservative majority government for two years. He negatively impacted millions of peoples lives, with bad policy. Pop speaking out on social issues is completely different.
Him saying owners should be scrutinized isn't the same as Trump botching the pandemic response and causing millions of people to lose their lives and or jobs. Pop generally talks about issues such as race which isn't inherently partisan btw, and he generally targets specific politicians so its not like he's demonizing a particular side as opposed to calling out specific people. He's also said that he takes the time to respond to angry letters from team fans to try and explain his point of view, I would call that discourse and something that someone who "demonizes" a side would do so I disagree with that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
