Hoops

Irving leading push to cancel NBA season

You don't think this would shift the whole media narrative towards a story about the division amongst NBA players, between players and owners, players and the public etc?

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

[The only way to effect change is to hit those in power in the hip pocket].

You don't think this would shift the whole media narrative towards a story about the division amongst NBA players, between players and owners, players and the public etc?

Fundamentally I think the cancellation idea would mostly serve to create extra division in the media and therefore the public.

And the other question is, how long should the boycott go on for? We're talking about a rescheduled playoffs that's due to run from 31 July - 12 October. OK, so boycott that. What then? The next season starts December 1.

Does any NBA player really think - by refusing to do what they're paid to do, and by massively reducing their brand and their goodwill amongst their paying fan base- that they'll manage to change the entire American law enforcement system and create equality in society between now and 30 November? Clearly not. Surely not even an airhead like Kyrie thinks this....

What do they hope to achieve- what are the concrete goals? If they don't achieve those goals by 30 November, what, boycott 20-21 season as well?

The owmers would probably take them to court and rightfully refuse to pay them too - surely their contracts wouldn't allow them to simply refuse to play indefinitely?

I'm surprised there's so many people on this forum actually seriously considering this as a legit idea

And so many fewer opportunities to actually achieve anything.

The only way to effect change is to hit those in power in the hip pocket.

"Right, nobody has noticed the lack of NBA over the past few months and these players have no other platforms."

By the way, was this sarcasm? Are you suggesting the potential for attention while not playing would be anywhere near the attention while playing? Can we not all safely agree that playing opens up so many more opportunities for activism for the players.

For the first time ever I agree with Kendrick Perkins. Kyrie shouldn't be saying he is willing to give it all up, he should just do it. What does saying I am "willing to" mean or even achieve. Do it or STFU.

And of course, the other elephant in the room regarding the cancellation model is what type of long term damage to the game of basketball and the NBA would be done by losing the playoffs, and what impact does that have on the ability of guys like Kyrie to have a platform in the first place?

What of the cost structure of the NBA- would cuts need to be made to the NBA's social programs like NBA cares, etc?

Also, many younger players would lose earning opportunities and the playing group would generally become more divided- this would be a genuine reality, wholly apart from the media beat up that Fox News etc would likely generate.

Getting back to the Kyrie NBA boycott thing, imagine two scenarios:

1. Kyrie leads a push to boycott the remainder of the season.

The entire continuation of the 20-21 season is cancelled due to the players wanting to advance the BLM movement.

Other players are unhappy, and make it well known that they thought the best approach was to play out the season. But the number of players boycotting with Kyrie made it impractical to continue, so the NBA has no chance but to cancel.


2. The 20-21 season continues. The NBA finals is a massive hit for sports starved fans. The basketball storyline is Lebron continuing his quest for comparison with MJ. Many top players use their voice to continually talk about BLM in the media throughout the playoffs. Some put prominent messages on their uniforms or sneakers. Others publicly pledge to donate their salaries to BLM associated organisations.

In both scenarios:

Moving forward into a shortened offseason, with a US election in November and the re-scheduled Olympics next year, many top players continue talking about BLM at every opportunity, bringing their message across America and the Globe.


What would happen in each scenario?


Here's some thoughts

Under the cancellation model, there would be an initial media frenzy as the public realised "Wow! The season has been cancelled", but after a week or two, this initial frenzy would die down, and the boost to BLM might prove to be short-term.

Under the cancellation model, Fox News and conservative figures use this as an opportunity to extend the culture war nature of the debate. Of course, this would happen anyway, but the debate would become particularly vitriolic and divisive once the season was cancelled. Some NBA players comments- like Lebron, who wants the season to continue - would be used to fuel a debate and create a storyline about division amongst the NBA's stars. The public would become even more divided.

The continuation model has a better chance of getting the entire public on board and getting widespread support for BLM. Of course the debate would remain divisive, but to me, it seems continuing creates a better opportunity for a non-partison, uniting groundswell of support for a critical society-wide analysis of issues around law enforcement and racial inequality generally.

Sad to see gang violence in Deer Park Melbourne last night with a 16 year old stabbed to death walking home from school.

Why can't anons just choose a username? Any name will do, just stick to it. It's makes it easier to understand the flow of discussion. Although I can understand why some avoid doing so: some of the weakest and most inconsistent arguments come from those that don't want to be scrutinized.

No I'm not.

However the psycho stalker above in post #444 is Bruce AKA curious.

RIP Cops 1989-2020

And if you’re going to dribble a lame argument get your facts right. 57 members of the emergency response task force quit in solidarity. But facts aren’t high on your agenda

No it just didn’t suit your rhetoric

As stated if the old man moved back like he was instructed too he would not have been touched. Pretty simple concept even for you.

I see you ignored the Las Vegas policeman shooting...didn't suit your one sided argument I guess. No surprise

Next time you get robbed or mugged or your house get's broken into make sure you do not call the police. They are all dogs.

If the old man moved back like he was instructed to does he get pushed over?? Simply question really. With an equally simple answer. No he does not.

I was taught to do as I am told and obey the police. If I get told to get back I get back. It's not a difficult concept. The old man should have got back. The force the policeman used was hardly brutality...fucking left wing PC wankers ffs

I didn't see much outrage from you lot about the policeman who got shot in the back of the head at point blank range at the Las Vegas protests...very silent there.

If the old man had moved back like he was told to (repeatedly) there would have been no need for contact. At some point people must take responsibility for their own actions/decisions. He was told to move back and didn't. Should they have called in a wheelchair (wow look at this frail old man protesting and not listening to instructions, best we stop moving forward) and have escorted him away whilst ordering him a cup of tea and a muffin? Give me a spell. They are in a riot situation pushing people back. Do as you're told and move back. It's pretty simple really.

If you only investigate black people, of course you're only going to find evidence against black people.

" rjd might think I am oppressing white people again."

You can't help but needlessly insert racial descriptors while also playing along with these pathetic strawman arguments. I never talked about "white people" nor "oppression". I have only pointed out the inconsistencies in your own position. It is so ironic that the only person to advocate racial discrimination in this thread has been you!

Burning down the Wendy's because Brooks died outside is one of the worst things I have seen in this whole saga.

Not only did the Brooks incident not happen in Wendy's, Wendy's has ZERO to do with it.

Maybe watch the news re-seattle

And please tell me how protests such as burning down the restaurant where Brooks was killed or the fortress in Seattle where a warlord is handing out assault rifles helps the cause? All it will do is either A) get more black people incarcerated or B) if Trump sends the military into Seattle get more black people killed.

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

Deciding to not play is removing public attention from athletes, which seems like a good way to ignore them.

Not as much as Lebron James

It's called expecting one to have consistent principles, no matter how big or small an issue. Without consistent principles you undermine your own argument.

Protest any way you like. But violence and looting will not solve the problem in any way shape or form.

Is it too much to ask you to respond to the points raised? It might be more convincing than whatever that is meant to mean.

"Telling white people that it's time to listen for a change, is creating divide and being discriminatory? Ok then, I didn't realise you were that precious"

Do you want to be ideologically consistent or not? Make your choice.

"Yeah, the message is basically "only protest in a way that we can safely ignore""

How so? Deciding to not play is removing public attention from athletes, which seems like a good way to ignore them.

Be wary of extreme protests because they create counter-responses from the opposing side and a general distaste from the middle. This will create more division, not unity with the cause. The players union could negotiate to promote the BLM movement in a far more prominent way, bringing the mainstream with them, far more effectively than just sitting out, which creates resentment and division. Social movements require unity. Do you believe this kind of argument is also saying "only protest in a way that we can safely ignore"?

"I know you're a person who refuses to believe white privilege exists"

Again, you are arguing against an imagined counterposition.

"Forgive me for taking a position that it's not the place of white people to tell black people how to protest anymore."

I don't see the benefit of introducing further discrimination based on race, as you are ironically advocating, as a response to racial issues. That is overstepping the mark. That is tribal. That is creating *more* racial division. That is advocating *exactly* what you should be against if you want racism to end. That is, how are you not *against* allowing one's race alone to limit one's freedom and behaviour?

Yeah, the message is basically "only protest in a way that we can safely ignore".

You are effectively arguing against a caricature version of an opposing view. Not only that, you are basically arguning LV isn't entitled to airing his opinion.

In this context, you are arguing that people (or is that white people to you?) aren't entitled to sharing opinions of how Irving could more effectively promote his activism. Can you not see the problem with this?

"LV, you're actually telling black people to protest in a way that is more suitable to you."

LV was *suggesting* what an *individual*, Kyrie Irving, could do to *more effectively advance the movement*.

Just curious, was that a trifecta of failures in your comprehension skills, or a willful attempt to misrepresent him to suit your political agenda?

At the end of the day protesting and setting things on fire can only accomplish to much. It brings attention to the matter, but it doesn't necessarily resolve it.

If the players want to not play basketball until racism is over, they won't be playing for a long time. It will be a gradual process.

I think LeBron is setting a good example by starting groups of high profile people encouraging young people to vote if they care about these issues. Trying to influence change by educating rather than just showing anger.

[You've basically just said black people can do stuff as long as it doesn't impact you.]

All I said was that all NBA players- black, white, or other- don't deserve millions of dollars per year if they refuse to do what they agreed to do when they signed their contracts.

Well said LV

Thank you HJ that made me laugh!

I'm wondering how many players will put their money towards this cause, I highly doubt any will want to use their $millions in this way.

And yeah, I realise he's injured anyway, so my statement applies to all players- refuse to play for a non-basketball reason, contract void

Irving and Howard stand out as two of the biggest nut jobs of any NBA stars, ever. Not sure they're the first two guys who I'd listen to for thoughtful, rational commentary on responding to these meta type issues

If Irving doesn't wanna play for non-basketball reasons, then he shouldn't be getting paid. His contract should become null and void.

If he wants to make a stand, then I'd suggest the following is a more effective approach:

- Put #BLM on his sneakers prominently

- Donate entire salary to appropriate organisations

- Use his public status to constantly raise awareness for the cause (his public status which will increase if he become a top 5 NBA player and decrease if he doesn't actually, you know, play basketball)

Dwight Howard is a loon as well. Two guys known for damaging every locker room they've been a part of

I think Kyrie is a bit of a loon, but can appreciate the point that he's making. It's at least worth seriously considering. Obviously though it's a decision that he can accommodate more easily than the entry level players if they've got significant bills to wear (commitment to mortgages, supporting parents/family, etc).

Dwight Howard supports him, saying, in part:

"I agree with Kyrie (Irving). Basketball, or entertainment period, isn’t needed at this moment, and will only be a distraction. Sure it might not distract us the players, but we have resources at hand majority of our community don’t have. And the smallest distraction for them, can start a trickle down effect that may never stop."

“I don’t support going into Orlando,” Irving told the players. “I’m not with the systematic racism and the bullshit. … Something smells a little fishy. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are targeted as black men every day we wake up.”

I can understand if he wants to cancel the season due to Health concerns.

However how does boycotting the season help BLM movement? Just like burning buildings and looting Chanel stores it doesn't add anything to further the cause.

Players and teams wearing something or doing something on court would raise more awareness.

Kyrie is an absolute flog of a bloke. He's been absolute poison amongst his teammates since he left his Daddy LeBron, who was the only one who could keep him in check.

Everyone at Boston to a man were happy to see the back of him, and everyone outside of KD and DJ and Brooklyn can't stand him either.

There are exciting times ahead for the Boomers. The core in Bogut, Mills, Ingles, Delly and Baynes are all still young enough and will play in the 2016 Olympics. We have up and comers in Exum, Motum and Simmons. We have a lot of depth and youngsters coming through.

I have had a shot at the 2014 and 2016 Boomers teams.

2014:
Mills
Delly
Ingles
Baynes
Bogut

Newley
Anderson
Lisch (if available)
Exum
Ogilvy
Gibson
Motum


2016:
Mills
Delly
Ingles
Baynes
Bogut

Anderson
Exum
Simmonds
Gibson
Maker
Lisch (if available)
Motum

Thoughts and changes if you think neccesary. (may have forgotten some.)