Growing number of players are expressing concern about resuming season, young stars want league paid insurance. Insuranc

[dougthonus]

I find this an interesting point, because you could say the exact same thing about other topics, like education and just flip the sides.

So yes, you could say that about education. If someone advocated defunding education, that would also be controversial. If someone advocated defunding medicare or social security or fire departments or anything which many people feel is a critical service, then it would be controversial.

There is nothing particularly special about the police that makes defunding them controversial, take any service that is was once deemed critical and now say it isn't, and you will find people that likely disagree (rightly or wrongly) with that. The word defunding is controversial in itself, because it implies "go to zero" (even if that is not what is meant).

If someone said we reduce the responsibilities of police departments and augment them with other departments that more precisely resolve the same problems and distribute funds appropriately, then that might be different. That may even be what is meant, but it's not even the least bit surprising that defunding the police gets a hard no from people without looking into it.

It's like getting a tattoo on your forehead that says 'F--- YOU' and then wondering why people don't want to get to know you. If you start off trying to be as controversial as possible then you shouldn't be surprised if people don't want to hear your message even if at its core its more reasonable.

We have increased funding for police over and over again. Chicago, for example, spends more money on police, per capita, than almost any other large city [1]. What is the ROI on that investment? Will your suggestion to "increase funding for it" solve the problem if it hasn't already?

https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/1_PDFsam_CompStat-Public-2020-Week-31.pdf

Total crime seems to have decreased. There is also generally a correlation between # of police officers and decreased crime rate though I don't want to try to dig it up. Spending on things other than boots on the ground isn't necessarily reducing crime rate for obvious reasons. If you're spending on protective gear, oversight, and things like that your goals are increasing safety of officers or innocents or removing corruption. Those are worthy goals but don't decrease crime.

[DuckIII]

You all can rationalize the fact the NBA is losing audience and money all you want. Fact is the Marxist, anti-family, and USA hating BLM is destroying all sports -- especially the NBA, NFL and MLB.

No reason to pay for imposed Marxist propaganda.

If you can't see the anti-American agenda now, well then you need to look and try harder.

But they aren’t losing viewers. It’s the opposite. The ratings are up. The idiot who made your video assumed people wouldn’t look up the data and analyze the validity of his assertion. To his credit though, between you and me, he was half right.

Ah, but the NBA is losing viewers. You take a disingenuous position that ratings are up compared to December 2019. Of course they are up from the doldrums of a long NBA season. This is basically a season opener and when you compare viewership to the 2019 season opener, this version still falls short and you also have to add that the NBA 2019 season opener had to contend with the World Series. The Bubble re-opening had zero competing sports fare to distract viewers. All this after the sports fans have had basically zero new content to consume for nearly six months. No wonder the NBA had a decent - albeit hardly spectacular - opening given the circumstances. If you'd care to take a look at the numbers, the falloff in viewership in just a week went from pretty good opening-season type viewership to mid-season viewership in the matter of a few games. That's not a lot of staying power from a mode of entertainment that has no other competition currently.

So, you're blanket statement that "ratings are up" is without context and rather misleading. Up from December 2019? Sure and given that we've been through a time where there has been no new sporting content for almost half a year - is that surprising? It is surprising that the bubble restart didn't top the actual season restart especially given that there is literally almost no other content to consume and there is almost no competition for that consumption. I'm pretty sure the powers-that-be in the NBA aren't happy with the numbers they're seeing. I know I wouldn't be if this were my business.

Do you think I’ll argue with you? I won’t. Unless you are going to say that the numbers are what they are (up? down?) because of BLM. Which is an argument I said is stupid and rejected outright.

So if you are arguing the numbers are down because viewers are angry about social justice, I’ll have that debate. But if you want to argue that the numbers are ambiguous and could be better due to a wide variety of potential factors, I won’t. Because I wouldn’t even disagree.

[dougthonus]

Trained Marxists? Why is that everytime over the many decades a minority fights for equality they get labeled with buzzwords like communist, unpatriotic, un-american, some people even called MLK a terrorist, now I can add Marxist to the list. Can I see some quotes or stories of them saying or espousing Marxists ideology.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

That is the founders explicit quote.

Not taking a stance on whether you should change your view on the group based on this quote, but it isn't something that was brought up by opposition falsely out of thin air.

[dougthonus]

Ah, but the NBA is losing viewers. You take a disingenuous position that ratings are up compared to December 2019. Of course they are up from the doldrums of a long NBA season. This is basically a season opener and when you compare viewership to the 2019 season opener, this version still falls short and you also have to add that the NBA 2019 season opener had to contend with the World Series. The Bubble re-opening had zero competing sports fare to distract viewers. All this after the sports fans have had basically zero new content to consume for nearly six months. No wonder the NBA had a decent - albeit hardly spectacular - opening given the circumstances. If you'd care to take a look at the numbers, the falloff in viewership in just a week went from pretty good opening-season type viewership to mid-season viewership in the matter of a few games. That's not a lot of staying power from a mode of entertainment that has no other competition currently.

So, you're blanket statement that "ratings are up" is without context and rather misleading. Up from December 2019? Sure and given that we've been through a time where there has been no new sporting content for almost half a year - is that surprising? It is surprising that the bubble restart didn't top the actual season restart especially given that there is literally almost no other content to consume and there is almost no competition for that consumption. I'm pretty sure the powers-that-be in the NBA aren't happy with the numbers they're seeing. I know I wouldn't be if this were my business.

The NBA is currently competing against MLB and the NHL which are both presently on-going. This is actually more competition in some ways than competing against the NFL and NHL because the NFL plays on limited days whereas MLB is on everday.

Since the lack of competition seems to be your primary point, I just want to note that it is incorrect.

I'm not one who could try and figure out what factors go into the ratings and why people are choosing what they're choosing, but there are probably many factors, I would think these are the most noteworthy off the top of my head, but I'm no expert.

1: Not finding meaning in the rest of the NBA regular season or thinking the bubble system stinks (could hurt)
2: Competition with baseball is a legitimate threat that they don't normally compete with. (could hurt)
3: Lack of competition from going out to other events (movies, dinners, etc) might keep people more at home. (could help)

[the ultimates]

Trained Marxists? Why is that everytime over the many decades a minority fights for equality they get labeled with buzzwords like communist, unpatriotic, un-american, some people even called MLK a terrorist, now I can add Marxist to the list. Can I see some quotes or stories of them saying or espousing Marxists ideology.

I bring up the homogenous point because when minorities are vocal about equality and rights people will bring up the fringe idea's from those groups and make it seem as if those are core idea's that are being pushed. There is no other political group that is on message all the time but that somehow is a standard that not you but many apply to BLM and other minority movements and use it to discredit them.

The article is about cities spending millions to pay for bad policing and brutality while the police unions themselves pay nothing. I bet the problem would clean up dramatically if the unions would have to payout for the behavior of its members instead of the city. If they don't have any monetary skin in the game they won't change. There have been several studies over the many decades and real-world examples saying that community resources for youth, social services, and other things can help reduce crime in areas.

Everytime anyone does anything, some people will call them every name in the book (positive and negative). That's the nature of population dynamics IMO. We just hear and see about it now due to social media.

For myself, I can appreciate and applaud the positive things the BLM org does while still opposing the aspects I disagree with. I do the same for all so-called political groups. We are in a crisis of losing the perspective of individual identity and character as more and more people react to their pre-determined labels for group X, Y, or Z. I certainly applaud the mentality and efforts of many BLM supporters. I'm pretty sure a number of my closest friends have been supporters.

I don't disagree on the skin-in-the-game notion regarding police unions. But in order for them to pay more towards damages, they have to pay more in dues, which means defunding their salaries or increasing overall funding. I prefer the latter as an effective measure for a variety of reasons.

One can most certainly be in support of increased funding for police, AND increased funding for social programs.

I'd rather have the individual criminal offenders ("bad cops") be subject to civil litigation than for their unions to have to pay for their crimes, though.

Regarding the marxist ideology of the BLM org leaders, I can google that for you:

Watch on YouTube

They have a clear anti-western ideology as highlighted on their website under "what we believe':

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Nowhere do they criticize the "Eastern-prescribed" totalitarianism and enormous human rights violations that coincidentally are virtually inherent in marxist idelogy, nor do they provide any evidence for what they see as the ills of society being uniquely or identifiably western or American in genesis (I think this is a major problem because they correctly identify societal problems but then catastrophically associate those problems primarily with "western" culture or American society, when a strong argument can be made over generations that in fact "western" culture and American society may be more advanced against these problems than other societies). I think they'd win a lot more minds if they dropped the American or western identification from their rhetoric for these reasons. But I obviously question the totality of their motives seeing as how they haven't.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

BTW, a lot of black people don't support BLM.

I'm not trying to discredit BLM. I don't think marxist ideology makes one evil or invalid. I just oppose it due to my study of history and science.

The cops still won't have any skin the game. You can't say if you defund them they have to pay higher dues with less money or if you want them to pay damages then they have to have more money. So then there are no consequences for the union. You want the individual bad cop to pay but not the union that hired him, not the union who kept him on the streets despite documented complaints, the same union that did an investigation and couldn't find anything wrong. What they can do is obliterate the thin blue and do proper investigations into the conduct of their brethren. Look at the George Floyd murder. Do you think those other two officers would have told their superiors of what officer Chauvin did?

Now for BLM because I read that sentence in a totally different way. I don't think they are saying nuclear families are bad or against them it's they aren't going to look down upon single parents. Many of those single parents are in the black community are women and need help from family and friends at times. Hell even two-parent households get help in raising and supporting their children from family and friends. How is that an anti-western concept when that has been used by different people and cultures for centuries.

Then you say they don't denounce the totalitarian regime's and the violence they inflict. According to the website they seem to be fine integrating and helping the LGBTQ community. What totalitarian governments can you say that about? This goes back to the point I made earlier just because a person has a political belief or leans a certain way does not automatically mean they support every tenet of that philosophy.

As far as the youtube clip I'm going to need more than as far being a trained Marxist. From what I understand Marxcism is a form of socialism and that real die-hard Marxcists feel eventually leads to communism. Are you saying the founders of BLM eventually want communism?

[League Circles]

The cops still won't have any skin the game. You can't say if you defund them they have to pay higher dues with less money or if you want them to pay damages then they have to have more money. So then there are no consequences for the union. You want the individual bad cop to pay but not the union that hired him, not the union who kept him on the streets despite documented complaints, the same union that did an investigation and couldn't find anything wrong. What they can do is obliterate the thin blue and do proper investigations into the conduct of their brethren. Look at the George Floyd murder. Do you think those other two officers would have told their superiors of what officer Chauvin did?

Good questions. I may be wrong, but it's not my understanding that police unions hire officers or investigate their alleged crimes. Police officers/departments do that. Police unions, to my knowledge which may be wrong, are like other unions in that they facilitate collective bargaining by officers with their actual employers, who are departments/cities. I want body cams so that we don't have to rely on things like brand new officers reporting their superiors. I definitely want proper investigations. I don't presume that police unions can preclude those, though I certainly can guess that they often try to.

Now for BLM because I read that sentence in a totally different way. I don't think they are saying nuclear families are bad or against them it's they aren't going to look down upon single parents. Many of those single parents are in the black community are women and need help from family and friends at times. Hell even two-parent households get help in raising and supporting their children from family and friends. How is that an anti-western concept when that has been used by different people and cultures for centuries.

The key part of the quote isn't the specifics of nuclear family and it's benefits, necessity, or sufficiency or anything like that. It's that they inaccurately identify the nuclear family idea as a western idea, which they oppose, they they questionably say nothing of "eastern" concepts.

Then you say they don't denounce the totalitarian regime's and the violence they inflict. According to the website they seem to be fine integrating and helping the LGBTQ community. What totalitarian governments can you say that about? This goes back to the point I made earlier just because a person has a political belief or leans a certain way does not automatically mean they support every tenet of that philosophy.

I definitely agree with the bold part. The problem is that I'm not aware of a marxist regime that wasn't totalitarian. I admit to not having read Marx, so I may be wrong, but I believe that part of Marxist ideology is the virtue of totalitarianism, which is probably why it has been a hallmark of actual Marxist regimes. And before anyone calls places like Scandanavia Marxist, please read this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#44d1b95c74ad

As far as the youtube clip I'm going to need more than as far being a trained Marxist. From what I understand Marxcism is a form of socialism and that real die-hard Marxcists feel eventually leads to communism. Are you saying the founders of BLM eventually want communism?

Socialism is a term used by Marx as a synonym for communism as far as I understand. If you're a Marxist, you're a communist/socialist, as far as I understand it. Many people now days, as far as I understand, use the term "democratic socialism" in various confusing ways. One way is to refer to rich capitalist countries with a large social safety net such as we see in places like Sweden. Another way is to refer to a system where there is a vote, but the vote should and would in their minds yield state control of resources and industries (i.e. Communism).

Yes, I think the likelihood that a person who is a trained Marxist, and publicly claims to be without promting, supports communism, is high.

[dougthonus]

Now for BLM because I read that sentence in a totally different way. I don't think they are saying nuclear families are bad or against them it's they aren't going to look down upon single parents. Many of those single parents are in the black community are women and need help from family and friends at times. Hell even two-parent households get help in raising and supporting their children from family and friends. How is that an anti-western concept when that has been used by different people and cultures for centuries.

If you describe yourself as marxist and you use the phrase "disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family" then regardless of whether you really think you are anti-western or not, you are putting yourself out there in a way that is purposefully confrontational.

You could make the statement "We want to support single mothers by having more community driven options to help raise children" and no one would blink about that at all right? We'd all say that's a great idea. When you lead with "We want to disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family" then well, what do you expect people to think?

This is a group that is purposefully and intentionally being very radical in its beliefs.

As far as the youtube clip I'm going to need more than as far being a trained Marxist. From what I understand Marxcism is a form of socialism and that real die-hard Marxcists feel eventually leads to communism. Are you saying the founders of BLM eventually want communism?

The leaders of BLM have used the words Marxist to describe themselves. Do you no longer object to other people using that word to describe them then?

Much like LC said, there are certain things that they are for that I am also for. I also want equity (more than equality) for those of all races in this country and to try to improve systemic biases across all areas of society. I don't know that I agree with the methods they feel will achieve those ends though.

[samwana]

Sports have been political for centuries. During the 70-80's the Olympics were in a part a Cold-War propaganda showdown between Russia and the United States. China politicizes the medal count by saying they win it if they have the most gold medals instead of all cumulative medals won.

I don't know what team or teams you root for but I wouldn't be surprised if they got some kind of tax break, local or state funds for their stadium. So the next time they seek that tell them get politics out of your sport.

I could get your point if they were pushing flat earthers or anti-vaccination. Pushing racial and social justice, ending police brutality, and having more police accountability isn't. When it comes to issues that affect the masses "keep politics out of sports". When it comes to the big money though politics in sports seems to be fine.

The bolded is proving the FinishSniper is right, because you think you're political opinion is okay to be pushed, but another opinion is not.

Since when is bringing to light continued inequality and racism a political opinion? All political opinions are not the same so that both sides argument can kick rocks. Why do you feel athletes talking about social justice and inequality is so controversial?

I didn't say what you interpreted and that's the point, why is it okay for someone to agree with the BLM agenda and why is it not okay to be against vaccination? That's what you are saying and I don't agree with you that, that is any different. Even if someone thinks the earth is flat (which I don't btw) just let him think that. If someone doesn't want to get a vaccination just let him. If someone wants to go on a BLM demonstration just let him (destroying someone elses property isn't included in your right to demonstrate btw). To say you can be against racism but you can't be against vaccinations is not fair. That's the reason I don't think it's okay to be able to wear jerseys with fine selected messages. And that's why it is not okay to laugh about Meyers Leonard because he is acting as his own man.

[dougthonus]

If someone doesn't want to get a vaccination just let him. If someone wants to go on a BLM demonstration just let him (destroying someone elses property isn't included in your right to demonstrate btw). To say you can be against racism but you can't be against vaccinations is not fair. That's the reason I don't think it's okay to be able to wear jerseys with fine selected messages. And that's why it is not okay to laugh about Meyers Leonard because he is acting as his own man.

This seems contradictory to me.

At an individual level, you think it is fine for people to pick and choose what they support.

At a corporate level, even at a mandate by its staff and under threat of work stoppage, you do not believe that same right applies?

Why can't a corporation, again under mandate by its staff and threat of work stoppage, have the same freedom to support one cause and not another? Especially when that cause is obviously directly in line with their core values and beliefs and deeply personal to in insanely high percentage of its staff.

[the ultimates]

The bolded is proving the FinishSniper is right, because you think you're political opinion is okay to be pushed, but another opinion is not.

Since when is bringing to light continued inequality and racism a political opinion? All political opinions are not the same so that both sides argument can kick rocks. Why do you feel athletes talking about social justice and inequality is so controversial?

I didn't say what you interpreted and that's the point, why is it okay for someone to agree with the BLM agenda and why is it not okay to be against vaccination? That's what you are saying and I don't agree with you that, that is any different. Even if someone thinks the earth is flat (which I don't btw) just let him think that. If someone doesn't want to get a vaccination just let him. If someone wants to go on a BLM demonstration just let him (destroying someone elses property isn't included in your right to demonstrate btw). To say you can be against racism but you can't be against vaccinations is not fair. That's the reason I don't think it's okay to be able to wear jerseys with fine selected messages. And that's why it is not okay to laugh about Meyers Leonard because he is acting as his own man.

You're absolutely right destroying property is not included in the right to demonstrate and neither is authorities attacking peaceful demonstrations.

Here is why it fair. Vaccinations have proven through various studies and real-world evidence to be safe and control or eradicate infectious diseases. Being pro-vaccinations is not a political agenda being against them is.

The country fought a war and over the many decades have passed things like the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Opportunity Employment, Act, the Fair Housing Act and many other laws. Over the past two decades there has been reforms in criminal justice. So the country has said equality and social justice really isn't a political agenda. So athletes speaking out about the dubious deaths of black people in police custody should not be seen as a political agenda. Vaccinations shouldn't be controversial and neither should people speaking up about police brutality. What is controversial and what is a political agenda is the constant now's not the right time to talk about it or athletes can't or shouldn't be vocal about social issues. All political positions are not the same.

You can be fore BLM when it comes to equality and social justice and not agree with them on the other things they espouse. You can be Republican and not like Trump, you can be a Republican and not be a fiscal conservative. You can be a Democrat and not like Biden, be as progressive as AOC or as far left as Sanders.

[MrSparkle]

More Perfect is a great podcast about the Supreme Court. It’s neat hearing about the evolution and affect that their rulings have had in history. It's worth checking out just to hear some landmark decisions on black/women rights, corporate rights, political and partisan shaping, etc.

I realize that there’s a “be careful what you wish for” type of dilemma with a lot of things that seem to be good ideas at first, but in general, I think we’ve always been a two-party system at war with each other, and the Supreme Court is just an extension of partisan politics. A lot definitely "worked" and has maintained a stable society, but when you really look at the challenges the US has faced, they pale in comparison to the other 3 main continents' (including Africa of course).

My philosophy is that the Constitution was a great document, but fundamentally flawed due to the year it was written. So like the Bible, it’s open to interpretation. Which has its strengths. But it also allows a ridiculous flexibility to the point of illogical and impractical ridiculousness.

Ultimately IMO people overweigh the strength of the Constitution and government, and under-weigh the significance of the USA’s rich resources, land isolation, melting pot at the dawn of the industrial age, and the strategical advantage being separated from Asia and Europe by the two largest oceans during the worst world wars of all time.

Today’s US government, their strategic, economic, military stockpile — just plain benefitted from so many factors. It’s tiring hearing that the laws written in the 1700s were flawless, and it’s tiresome hearing their interpretations as they benefit partisan interests.

So fundamentally I’m fine with BLM asking for radical change. I will also say that VeRY radical change is a recipe for anarchy and instability that benefits nobody. I think it mutually helps to have a big organization like the NBA get really involved - they of course have corporate interests, so they wouldn't propel a party that full-on asks for a Marxist revolution.

It’s more of a Marvel comic book fantasy to think you have a big angry charged movement and wake up with green grass and flowers. But the US gov is long due to progressively reform into the 21st century. Again, I think it's great that the NBA took the forward initiative here. It would be to BLM's benefit to get less radical, and to become more political than "revolutionary" (as in, run Democratic OR even Republican candidates if you happen to have a conservative economic or social agenda - of course it doesn't make a lot of sense but hey, there seem to be a lot of black folk not willing to vote for Biden). The one thing about our government is your vote DOES count contrary to the millennial and Gen-Z pessimism. The turnout for the last few IL and Chicago elections has been ****ing pitiful. It's a lot of work researching candidates (particularly local/district-level) and weeding out the bad ones, yes -- but don't try and tell me your vote doesn't count.

So I'd like to see BLM enter politics at the local level. With clear, practical goals and agendas. "De-fund the police" doesn't work for me if you don't have a solution or alternative. But I am 100% in support of reforming police and re-organizes where the money goes and training methods. As always though, if you want to play chess, then you simply begin training great young leaders to take political positions. There are SO MANY congressional districts in Illinois, let alone the entire country. Where is the black representation on the local level? Often I see religious leaders gaining traction in the black communities, appealing to their churches. There has to be more. Religious leaders don't have solutions for everybody, and they come from a system built on "blind faith" which doesn't work in the nit and grit world of politics and community planning, where every dollar and budget plan does count.

IMO Marxism, Communism, Capitalism... these are debates and ideological debates best left to the 20th century. Obviously you can’t fix an economy successfully in a world of varying skills and abilities. It’s nonsense; why would you pay Kornet and Lebron the same salary? But there are concepts from Marxism that are beneficial in a time of the largest income disparity ever (due to tech). But it's such a tired and irrelevant accusation, fear mongering, to bring up the word "communism." Due to the internet's efficiency and global reach, there has NEVER EVER been anybody remotely as wealthy as individuals like Bezos, and no bodies private groups ever as rich and influential as private equities and hedge funds. There needs to be a practical discussion about restoring some order and balance to worker salary. And black oppression (financial and social). That needs to be addressed and settled strongly, so that more proactive work can be put towards uniting people in the on-coming challenges of the 21st century, which will involve pandemics, worsening climate, food supply, and more erratic and aggressive diplomacy as resources become scarcer and money concentrates in fewer parties' hands.

But I want to see BLM maintain its strong social agenda while becoming a plausible, more moderate/votable political party. AOC did it on her own. I want to see BLM get involved politically in a way that doesn't scare off every other voter.