TheHartBreakKid wrote:There are so many layers to this problem, and I think focusing on just one area is naive, however I will say this:
To the people whose whole argument has been "the NBA/it's players are hypocrites", with variations of this argument including why certain "outspoken" figures haven't commented on this:
First and foremost, I agree with you that there is some hypocricy going on. I think we can agree to that. But here is the thing: Each act of "social justice" or bringing awareness has it's own consequences and context. We can't simplify everything into "well they are hypocrites for not speaking up for X issue so eff them".
The NBA is far from this perfect, selfless entity that is putting morals ahead of everything else. They also never claimed to be this perfect entity. They are a corporation, and their primary goal is making money. We all know this. However, they have taken some progressive actions and their lack of action in this case shouldn't necessarily void the positive acts/stances that they have taken. Same goes with Kerr/Lebron etc who have not spoken up regarding this; This guys are millionares who are employed by the NBA. No one is claiming that they are selfless pure humanitarians. They have spoken up about some issues, and their lack of response in this case doesn't make any of their previous stances/actions any less valuable.
We all make choices based on a variety of factors; Human's aren't black or white, ethically/morally speaking. The potential consequences of our actions also factor in whether we make a particular action.
The NBA and the "outspoken figures" are lucky enough to operate in the United States, which is far from perfect, but is considerably more "free" and tolerant about expressing one's opinion. As a result, Lebron taking a stance against police brutality won't cost the NBA billions of dollars , and won't be met with a harsh reaction from the league. Lebron taking a stance against the Chinese government would cost the NBA billions of dollars, and could easily be met with a harsh reaction from the league. I think its absolutely silly to say that "Well Lebron doesn't care if he cared he would still do the 'right' thing". That's extremely naive imo.
Lebron could care, and still not speak up because he believes that the consequences are not worth it. That doesn't make him hypocrite or a coward. It makes him human. Just in the same way that I could care about the opressive regime and economic depression going on in (insert my home country here), and I could feel empathy for the people that I know living there, but I'm not quitting my job and moving there to join the protests. Why? because while I do care, I'm simply making the choice to not take that action because I also care about many other things; I care about my career, I care about my freedom, and I care about my family and friends.
I'm not going to generalize everyone, but it seems to me that atleast a good percentage of the people playing the hypocrite angle have their own agenda. I'm simply saying that you can be a "good" person and actually care about certain issues, but choose to not speak up or take action for certain other issues, due to believing that the consequences are not worth it. And I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with that, and that it's human nature. I also believe that this doesn't nullify the impact of their previous actions, or define their motives.
TLDR is this:
The consequences of taking a harsher stance in this situation would be very severe for the NBA and any figure associated with the NBA, compared to the consequences of previous actions regarding domestic issues. We can't simply ignore that fact just because it helps support another agenda.
In general, a great post. But I would like to add something else as well.
A lot of activists do think of the world in black and white and they feel as though they are fighting for the right causes. Moreover, they feel as though their intentions are pure and that they are not acting in self-interest. Basically, the people who think morality is complicated and think in greyish tones do not become activists. The ones who think in terms of black and white become activists.
Having said that, this is a rude awakening moment for a lot of NBA activists. Basically, this situation (playing like an evil hypothetical game regarding how much self-interest would you sacrifice to not speak out against evil) is revealing in the sense that there is a level of self-interest where the instinct is to shut up about their activism and care more about their self-interest. It is easy to claim that you won't be bought off if the situation never presents itself. But it sure is difficult if you are actually in the moment.
So I think some of these activists (I am not singling out who since I don't know who thinks this way) can learn something from an event like this. That is, they are not as pure as they thought they were with their activism. There is a point in which shut up and dribble seems like a more pleasing option. Unlike others, I will not criticize the supposed hypocrisy because I feel like I would act similarly as well, since we can't help but care about our financial well being above everything else.
But I do agree that depending on how this ends, the future activism shown by the NBA players on an issue where their self-interest is not on the line (e.g. police shooting) will I dunno, feel somewhat shallow? Basically, the NBA has lost a lot in terms of their social activism power and I don't see how they can easily get it back. But tis life.
