tiderulz wrote:esvl wrote:tiderulz wrote:Why cant this be my opinion? because you dont agree with it? and where did I attack him? i said it is a pattern that if he doesnt address it, could cost him millions. So answer me, which of those recent incidents are not true? I can keep an open mind. Which of those incidents did not happen? or did not happen in the way that was described?
Irving - he didnt threaten anyone, just had an unpopular opinion.
Brooks - no off court issues that I know of. not sure how he is included in something like this. he will be signed by someone in the off season.
its not herd mentality, it is just not an opinion you agree with. which is fine, but it doesnt make it any less valid
Let’s the marrow down what we disagree on:
1. We aren’t disputing facts, though I am not sure they are correct. You don’t know them first hand either. Ja is not allowed to even explain his angle.
2. We aren’t disputing that Ja can loose millions.
3. We aren’t disputing there is the contract between Ja and NBA.
4. I am glad this opinion is yours.
What I am concerned with is that NOBODY here dared to challenge the NBA position. I am alone on that. That’s where you smells the herd sheep mentality. There is no fair discussion here why the NBA has any issues with Ja, like there was no such discussion in the case of Irving.
first of all, it wasnt the NBA that suspended JA, it was his direct employer the Grizzlies. Again, Ja likely has some clause that allows this. NFL contracts do also. That is the counterpoint to having guaranteed contracts, so that you are paid if even if you get injured. Teams and lawyers dont want to get stuck paying for a player that becomes radioactive, basically because they were dumb. though i do have points back.
1 - what facts are you not sure are correct? about the only one i can see any dispute on is the laser point from the car. it was definitely meant to intimidate. now was it from a gun, or just a plain laser sight, who know. But all the other incidents had multiple witnesses.
you say no one "dared challenge" the NBA position. you notice, not even a single former NBA player is supporting Ja, because Ja is dumb and doing this to himself. They all know there are provisions in their employment contract that outline what type of behavior you cant do. sometimes it is high level, like this might be. Sometimes it is very descriptive, like No gambling on NBA games. it feels like im debating one of his posse or a family member. you feel strongly about it, but when you are on an island, maybe it is you that is wrong and not everyone else. when not a single former or current player is supporting him, that should tell you something
Let’s guess why no player go public against corporations. Imagine anyone expressing any unacceptable political views in public? Your comrades would be first to demand cancelling them. There is no value of open discussion anymore. You go with the narrative, otherwise, you are punished. And make no mistake, you have shaped this environment. With all my respect to the level of your arguments.























