Kyrie donates $500K to organizations that fight hate. Adam Silver disappointed by Kyrie apology and plans to meet him

[hauntedcomputer]

but he didn't actually hurt anyone

Ah the ultimate privilege of not knowing how privileged you are.

[bargs4mvp]

Free Palestine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strike: Derailing

[shakes0]

These trends you describe... See how they shape speech over time if they continue. Tell me how free things are then. It's semantics. The real important thing is supressing speech, regardless of the means.

But again, that is society. People would throw tomatoes at people and ban them from public squares for saying things they didn't like.

It's not semantics, there's a very clear different.

Government suppression of Free Speech.
Societal disagreement with Speech.

That isn't semantics.

Sure looks like semantics to me.
Ok then, this situation smacks of Societal disagreement with Speech, not to be confused with Government supression of free speech.
Now that that's established, I am concerned about the attacks on Speech (general, not to be confused with Government-sponsored suppression of Free Speech).

so you don't like it that sometimes people don't like what other people say and they get mad about it?



Dude, log off and go back to school.

[shakes0]

Free Palestine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F Palestine

Strike: Trolling/Baiting/Derailing

[bargs4mvp]

Free Palestine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F Palestine

You think genocide is cool ehh! Cool guy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Statlanta]

This is why I made my thread. LeBron at 25 made a fool of himself saying not 1 not 2 not 3. And that was when the media landscape asked normal questions and had less access to players. No way these players Jokic, Anthony Edwards, Meyers Leonard who all got fined/dealt with are gonna say the appropriate things 24/7 with these reporters.

[jokeboy86]

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=GUOjGGFyBbiLNbHRFRde4A

I can actually slight relate. Have a friend who used to be just 'normal' and the last 3 years has gone full into the everything is a conspiracy hole, like extreme, extreme right wing. He's also been in the hole of just YouTube and social media. I don't do it anymore but initially I would ask him to send me his sources and he would send me obscure sites or "couple of people saying this happened" (Facebook posts etc or random social media clips). When I'd poke holes in the source all he'd say is "You don't get it" or just stop talking.

It's very sad.

NY Times had a podcast a couple years ago called Rabbit Hole and it's even scarier now to see that things only get worst. You know how some people say it's not necessarily good or healthy for people to stay in a casino 24/7 the whole day, well I'm starting to wonder were human brains meant to be consuming media and content and all this stuff as much as people do nowadays. At least before smartphones people were forced to separate themselves away from it at some point because it's not as if you could carry a tv or a laptop everywhere you went in your daily lives and absorbed all this information every second. Now it's like just pouring fuel on a fire that will never extinguish and only gets hotter and higher. At this point a massive EMP might not be a bad thing to happen to the world.

[tbhawksfan1]

I think that there a lot of people on here defending Kyrie because in fact, they are really trying to defend the fact that they hold the same views

Maybe not so many people, but a few that just keep coming back with it

[Stalwart]

You repeat this in every thread. This movie contains the negation of the Holocaust. If this is not anti-semitic for you, then I have no idea what you consider as anti-semitic.

I consider anti-semitism to be hatred and racism against Semetic people. I don't view controversial and incorrect takes on history to be antisemitic. That's a huge and damgerous leap to just equate holocaust denial with antisemitism.

There are documentaries, books, videos, lectures, and theories that deny aspects of the transatlantic slave trade. Theres people that claim the whole thing was made up or exaggerated. I don't see this and automatically call them racists. That would be silly. I first consider their point of view based on the information. I then dismiss it or accept it and move on. I don't understand.

Anyone that doesnt believe the transatlantic slave trade happened is racist. There is zero other reasoning to have an opinion that false outside mental illness maybe.

What if its a black person? Still racist?

[semjazy]

Kyrie explained himself and stressed that he wasn't promoting hate or antisemitism. He just posted a link to an interesting documentary. He then stayed quiet and tried to move on. But then the "sports media" went on a witch hunt and whipped up a big controversy. They trashed Kyrie, the Brooklyn Nets, Adam Silver, and the NBA and pressured them to "do something". It got so bad that Kyrie and the Nets thought it was worth ONE MILLION DOLLARS to try and appease the crazed mob. Did it work? Nope. You guys are still trashing him.

And you're doing all this without being able to even explain what was antisemitic about the film or what Kyrie said. You are all being gaslit and radicalized.

You repeat this in every thread. This movie contains the negation of the Holocaust. If this is not anti-semitic for you, then I have no idea what you consider as anti-semitic.

I consider anti-semitism to be hatred and racism against Semetic people. I don't view controversial and incorrect takes on history to be antisemitic. That's a huge and damgerous leap to just equate holocaust denial with antisemitism. Its dehumanizing to label someone an anti-semite. I think there should be a much higher threshold for such an accusation.

There are documentaries, books, videos, lectures, and theories that deny aspects of the transatlantic slave trade, for example. There are people that claim the whole thing was made up or exaggerated. I don't see this and automatically call them racists. That would be silly. I first consider their point of view based on the information. I then dismiss it or accept it and move on. I don't understand.

You should. There is only one reason why they would claim that - they are racists trying to rewrite history.

Just as this Ronald guy. It's not just incorrect take on history. It's incorrect take + view that evil Jews who control the world, stole identity and history of "real jews". If you don't see how that leads to violence towards them, then you are delusional

[PaulieWal]

This is why I made my thread. LeBron at 25 made a fool of himself saying not 1 not 2 not 3. And that was when the media landscape asked normal questions and had less access to players. No way these players Jokic, Anthony Edwards, Meyers Leonard who all got fined/dealt with are gonna say the appropriate things 24/7 with these reporters.

Yeah, the media made Kyrie post a link to a movie with racist garbage in it. The media also made Kyrie support Alex Jones. The media also made Kyrie give non-answers and made him double and triple down.

Not a fan of media either, but it's clear Kyrie is ignorant, racist moron.

Also, you are completely wrong. The media had more access to players in 2010. The media has less access now and so many players have their own podcasts and social media platforms to 'give their side of the story'.

[Grubie024]

But again, that is society. People would throw tomatoes at people and ban them from public squares for saying things they didn't like.

It's not semantics, there's a very clear different.

Government suppression of Free Speech.
Societal disagreement with Speech.

That isn't semantics.

Sure looks like semantics to me.
Ok then, this situation smacks of Societal disagreement with Speech, not to be confused with Government supression of free speech.
Now that that's established, I am concerned about the attacks on Speech (general, not to be confused with Government-sponsored Free Speech).

Well you're wrong, it isn't semantics.

When you invoke a declaration of "He doesn't have Free Speech". The term "Free Speech" holds 100s if not 1000s of years of back history. Monarchies, churches, etc. All using tactics to suppress ideas that could shake or alter the foundation on which their power lies. Hence why one of the core foundations of the United States is based on Free Speech.

Freedom of societal impact or repercussions is an entirely different story. If society doesn't like what you have to say and you lose out financially because of it... well... tough? You had the freedom to say what you said without being imprisoned or executed. That's all we can really ask for.

Respectfully disagree. This is arguing semantics because we're debating on whether or not the government must be involved for this to qualify as official "freedom of speech". What's the ACTUAL topic here? It's that his speech is being restricted, not whether the government is involved. Therefore... it's semantics.

Interestingly, to tie back to your comment earlier about the concept/potential of "infiltration of government into social media, the impact that has on Free Speech"...
Who's to say the government isn't fully involved in this via media? That's up for debate, so you know what, even by stringent definition of freedom of speech, I could still be accurate.

Whatever, it doesn't matter... Kyrie posted a pretty messed up documentary, he SHOULD acknowledge the issues there, but I respect his right to post it and don't think he should be destroyed for it, even if it is bad stuff.

[Grubie024]

But again, that is society. People would throw tomatoes at people and ban them from public squares for saying things they didn't like.

It's not semantics, there's a very clear different.

Government suppression of Free Speech.
Societal disagreement with Speech.

That isn't semantics.

Sure looks like semantics to me.
Ok then, this situation smacks of Societal disagreement with Speech, not to be confused with Government supression of free speech.
Now that that's established, I am concerned about the attacks on Speech (general, not to be confused with Government-sponsored suppression of Free Speech).

so you don't like it that sometimes people don't like what other people say and they get mad about it?



Dude, log off and go back to school.

Not mad dude. GL out there.

[Stalwart]

You repeat this in every thread. This movie contains the negation of the Holocaust. If this is not anti-semitic for you, then I have no idea what you consider as anti-semitic.

I consider anti-semitism to be hatred and racism against Semetic people. I don't view controversial and incorrect takes on history to be antisemitic. That's a huge and damgerous leap to just equate holocaust denial with antisemitism. Its dehumanizing to label someone an anti-semite. I think there should be a much higher threshold for such an accusation.

There are documentaries, books, videos, lectures, and theories that deny aspects of the transatlantic slave trade, for example. There are people that claim the whole thing was made up or exaggerated. I don't see this and automatically call them racists. That would be silly. I first consider their point of view based on the information. I then dismiss it or accept it and move on. I don't understand.

You should. There is only one reason why they would claim that - they are racists trying to rewrite history.

Just as this Ronald guy. It's not just incorrect take on history. It's incorrect take + view that evil Jews who control the world, stole identity and history of "real jews". If you don't see how that leads to violence towards them, then you are delusional

Well, that's ridiculous. The words close minded and intolerant come to mind.

[Slax]

Kyrie explained himself and stressed that he wasn't promoting hate or antisemitism. He just posted a link to an interesting documentary. He then stayed quiet and tried to move on. But then the "sports media" went on a witch hunt and whipped up a big controversy. They trashed Kyrie, the Brooklyn Nets, Adam Silver, and the NBA and pressured them to "do something". It got so bad that Kyrie and the Nets thought it was worth ONE MILLION DOLLARS to try and appease the crazed mob. Did it work? Nope. You guys are still trashing him.

And you're doing all this without being able to even explain what was antisemitic about the film or what Kyrie said. You are all being gaslit and radicalized.

You repeat this in every thread. This movie contains the negation of the Holocaust. If this is not anti-semitic for you, then I have no idea what you consider as anti-semitic.

I consider anti-semitism to be hatred and racism against Semetic people. I don't view controversial and incorrect takes on history to be antisemitic. That's a huge and damgerous leap to just equate holocaust denial with antisemitism. Its dehumanizing to label someone an anti-semite. I think there should be a much higher threshold for such an accusation.

There are documentaries, books, videos, lectures, and theories that deny aspects of the transatlantic slave trade, for example. There are people that claim the whole thing was made up or exaggerated. I don't see this and automatically call them racists. That would be silly. I first consider their point of view based on the information. I then dismiss it or accept it and move on. I don't understand.

Sure, labeling someone an antisemite is dangerous and dehumanizing, and a behavior we have to carefully guard against. Unlike denying the reality that millions of Jews were systematically eradicated in Nazi Germany, which is just a totally innocuous good faith argument over a modestly interesting bit of history completely detached from any form of anti-Jewish bigotry.

[Dirk]

Free Palestine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F Palestine

You think genocide is cool ehh! Cool guy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You two are killing any chance of this topic staying a live. Just drop it.

[BlazersBroncos]

I consider anti-semitism to be hatred and racism against Semetic people. I don't view controversial and incorrect takes on history to be antisemitic. That's a huge and damgerous leap to just equate holocaust denial with antisemitism.

There are documentaries, books, videos, lectures, and theories that deny aspects of the transatlantic slave trade. Theres people that claim the whole thing was made up or exaggerated. I don't see this and automatically call them racists. That would be silly. I first consider their point of view based on the information. I then dismiss it or accept it and move on. I don't understand.

Anyone that doesnt believe the transatlantic slave trade happened is racist. There is zero other reasoning to have an opinion that false outside mental illness maybe.

What if its a black person? Still racist?

Mentally ill.

Flat Earth level insanity.

[Dirk]

There are documentaries, books, videos, lectures, and theories that deny aspects of the transatlantic slave trade, for example. There are people that claim the whole thing was made up or exaggerated. I don't see this and automatically call them racists. That would be silly. I first consider their point of view based on the information. I then dismiss it or accept it and move on. I don't understand.

What documentaries, books and videos deny the transatlantic slave trade?

[Duffman100]

Sure looks like semantics to me.
Ok then, this situation smacks of Societal disagreement with Speech, not to be confused with Government supression of free speech.
Now that that's established, I am concerned about the attacks on Speech (general, not to be confused with Government-sponsored Free Speech).

Well you're wrong, it isn't semantics.

When you invoke a declaration of "He doesn't have Free Speech". The term "Free Speech" holds 100s if not 1000s of years of back history. Monarchies, churches, etc. All using tactics to suppress ideas that could shake or alter the foundation on which their power lies. Hence why one of the core foundations of the United States is based on Free Speech.

Freedom of societal impact or repercussions is an entirely different story. If society doesn't like what you have to say and you lose out financially because of it... well... tough? You had the freedom to say what you said without being imprisoned or executed. That's all we can really ask for.

Respectfully disagree. This is arguing semantics because we're debating on whether or not the government must be involved for this to qualify as official "freedom of speech". What's the ACTUAL topic here? It's that his speech is being restricted, not whether the government is involved. Therefore... it's semantics.

Interestingly, to tie back to your comment earlier about the concept/potential of "infiltration of government into social media, the impact that has on Free Speech"...
Who's to say the government isn't fully involved in this via media? That's up for debate, so you know what, even by stringent definition of freedom of speech, I could still be accurate.

Whatever, it doesn't matter... Kyrie posted a pretty messed up documentary, he SHOULD acknowledge the issues there, but I respect his right to post it and don't think he should be destroyed for it, even if it is bad stuff.

If you're invoking capitalized Freedom of Speech, then no it's not semantics. But otherwise sure... I dont' really care to argue it further.

I've been giving thought to the government involvement in social media lately. And potentially using back channels and algorithms to craft messaging. Which obviously can (and probably definitely being done) to an extent. And when you start to consider how we're all vulnerable and somewhat helpless to these algorithms.

So while you still have freedom to speech via any medium, the societal repercussions may in fact be tilted. That opens up some really interesting and tough questions.

[Texas Chuck]

Sure looks like semantics to me.
Ok then, this situation smacks of Societal disagreement with Speech, not to be confused with Government supression of free speech.
Now that that's established, I am concerned about the attacks on Speech (general, not to be confused with Government-sponsored Free Speech).

Well you're wrong, it isn't semantics.

When you invoke a declaration of "He doesn't have Free Speech". The term "Free Speech" holds 100s if not 1000s of years of back history. Monarchies, churches, etc. All using tactics to suppress ideas that could shake or alter the foundation on which their power lies. Hence why one of the core foundations of the United States is based on Free Speech.

Freedom of societal impact or repercussions is an entirely different story. If society doesn't like what you have to say and you lose out financially because of it... well... tough? You had the freedom to say what you said without being imprisoned or executed. That's all we can really ask for.

Respectfully disagree. This is arguing semantics because we're debating on whether or not the government must be involved for this to qualify as official "freedom of speech". What's the ACTUAL topic here? It's that his speech is being restricted, not whether the government is involved. Therefore... it's semantics.

Interestingly, to tie back to your comment earlier about the concept/potential of "infiltration of government into social media, the impact that has on Free Speech"...
Who's to say the government isn't fully involved in this via media? That's up for debate, so you know what, even by stringent definition of freedom of speech, I could still be accurate.

Whatever, it doesn't matter... Kyrie posted a pretty messed up documentary, he SHOULD acknowledge the issues there, but I respect his right to post it and don't think he should be destroyed for it, even if it is bad stuff.

What are you on about mate? Has anyone prevented Kyrie from speaking? Not one little bit. Again consequences for your speech is not the same as not having freedom to make it.

What you seem to want is some nirvana where you can say whatever wild **** you want with no consequences whatsoever. Which is fine to antt, ignorant as hell, but fine to not understand all the negative implications of what you think you want. But it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which Mr. Irving continues to enjoy.