Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[logical_art]

I'm tired of LeBron and his virtue signaling. He cares about social issues except when it will cost him (China vs HK). Why doesn't America love us? First, America doesn't love any one group of people. They love individuals though. Like you, and other black athletes who have made fortunes and won the hearts of millions. A few bad cops doesn't change that.

this has been discussed already on this board. you're not only blatantly wrong, but in the process insulting a person who, yes, has sacrificed of himself in an attempt to bring about change. LEBRON ADVOCATING FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY CAN ONLY HURT HIM FINANCIALLY

for christ's sake, we all just watched a documentary about michael jordan and discussed his reticence to even publicly support a black candidate in his home state who was running against a blatant racist. because he thought it would hurt his business prospects. he didn't want to appear divisive in any way

and there's a big difference between putting one's own financial interests on the line as opposed to those of your teammates and everybody else who profits off the nba. THAT's the reason that people in the league were so hesitant to speak out

lebron's not perfect, but he's surely not all about self-interest either

Please. Supporting this cause will not cost LeBron a cent. Look at CK's endorsements as a former mediocre player once he took a BLM stand. Corporate America will eat this up too.

But worse someone who is one of the most beloved figures in America and a one percenter in a league filled with mostly black millionaires should bemoan America not loving us. There are racists in America. Generalizing that fact to the whole country when you are living proof of that not being the case is hypocritical and dumb.

It's the kind of shoddy half baked thinking you get when suddenly athletes and entertainers have an vastly outsized platform compared to their qualifications.

[bullsnewdynasty]

It's about time that we try to trust people with money instead of the government. People know better than the government on how to use money to improve their own life. We need to shift away from this parental mindset and show more trust in people.

Agree 100%.

The only problem is if UBI is implemented incorrectly (as I'm sure you know, there isn't a consensus on which model to use), it would just turn into an ever-expanding bureaucracy.

The beauty of it being Universal is that it would cut down on bureaucracy. The U part of UBI is really important as it, to your point, really simplifies the execution of it and ensures people that need it don't fall through the cracks.

UBI already exists. It's called welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps, and EITC. UBI is just another taking those programs on a far wider scale and giving it a different name.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

People looting and rioting aren't creating any sympathy. They're actually going to turn more people against them. The country doesn't want lawlessness. 3 pm curfews are not sustainable.

Does it really work that way, though? Someone is against police brutality and willing take action to stop it -- but they see people looting at rioting and decide, oh, nevermind?

Yes, because breaking in and looting small businesses has nothing to do with police brutality.

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that it wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

[dice]

LEBRON ADVOCATING FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY CAN ONLY HURT HIM FINANCIALLY

I don't think that's true. Arguing support for the black community is generally viewed as a good thing by major corporations right now and in particular the types of sponsors LeBron would hold. I think his social justice work has been a huge part of his image rehabilitation and helped him tremendously with his sponsorships.

I'm not saying the above because I think he's fake or doesn't mean it or is doing it for self-serving purposes. I don't think that at all. I do think that overall it has been beneficial to him though and not a negative.

for christ's sake, we all just watched a documentary about michael jordan and discussed his reticence to even publicly support a black candidate in his home state who was running against a blatant racist. because he thought it would hurt his business prospects. he didn't want to appear divisive in any way

And a lot has changed in the 25 years since that time (which is great!). I don't think supporting black lives matter or social justice is a sticky issue for an NBA athlete in this day and age.

you're certainly correct that athletes are more comfortable speaking out across the board. i'd love to see some Q rating data or whatever that suggests it's profitable though. tiger woods, for example, one of the most public image conscious athletes around, still plays things very close to the vest in terms of social issues. perhaps that's because he's in a white dominated sport, though

[dice]

I'm tired of LeBron and his virtue signaling. He cares about social issues except when it will cost him (China vs HK). Why doesn't America love us? First, America doesn't love any one group of people. They love individuals though. Like you, and other black athletes who have made fortunes and won the hearts of millions. A few bad cops doesn't change that.

this has been discussed already on this board. you're not only blatantly wrong, but in the process insulting a person who, yes, has sacrificed of himself in an attempt to bring about change. LEBRON ADVOCATING FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY CAN ONLY HURT HIM FINANCIALLY

for christ's sake, we all just watched a documentary about michael jordan and discussed his reticence to even publicly support a black candidate in his home state who was running against a blatant racist. because he thought it would hurt his business prospects. he didn't want to appear divisive in any way

and there's a big difference between putting one's own financial interests on the line as opposed to those of your teammates and everybody else who profits off the nba. THAT's the reason that people in the league were so hesitant to speak out

lebron's not perfect, but he's surely not all about self-interest either

Please. Supporting this cause will not cost LeBron a cent. Look at CK's endorsements as a former mediocre player once he took a BLM stand. Corporate America will eat this up too.

But worse someone who is one of the most beloved figures in America and a one percenter in a league filled with mostly black millionaires should bemoan America not loving us. There are racists in America. Generalizing that fact to the whole country when you are living proof of that not being the case is hypocritical and dumb.

It's the kind of shoddy half baked thinking you get when suddenly athletes and entertainers have an vastly outsized platform compared to their qualifications.

nobody is generalizing anything to the whole country. c'mon. and no, black millionaire athletes are not being hypocritical for pointing out injustices against their community. that's called looking beyond the end of one's nose

[dougthonus]

you're certainly correct that athletes are more comfortable speaking out across the board. i'd love to see some Q rating data or whatever that suggests it's profitable though. tiger woods, for example, one of the most public image conscious athletes around, still plays things very close to the vest in terms of social issues. perhaps that's because he's in a white dominated sport, though

Sport definitely seems to matter. Think of Kaepernick and the NFL vs the anyone and the NBA as well.

[Dresden]

I certainly think it still is a sticky issue for black athletes to be outspoken on political issues. Tiger Woods is a good example. Look at what happened to Kapernick. There was a defensive back, Erik Reid, I think, that also kneeled, and was similarly cut by the team, and I seem to remember having trouble finding another job. Sure, it's fine to say "I support this or that". But to be a leader on the subject, to stand out like Kapernick did, then you will be jeopardizing your career, or your advertising potential.

Michael Jordan actually took a step backwards from the pattern of black athletes speaking out. In the 60's and 70's you had people like Jim Brown, Tommy Smith, Wilt, Bill Russell, Kareem and many, many others who were not afraid to take a stand on civil rights issues. Jordan was part of a new generation, growing up in the time of Reagan, when financial potential of athletes was really taking off, and that started to be a priority for them over being a leader in political movements.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Does it really work that way, though? Someone is against police brutality and willing take action to stop it -- but they see people looting at rioting and decide, oh, nevermind?

Yes, because breaking in and looting small businesses has nothing to do with police brutality.

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that that wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

[League Circles]

nobody is generalizing anything to the whole country. c'mon. and no, black millionaire athletes are not being hypocritical for pointing out injustices against their community. that's called looking beyond the end of one's nose

"Why Doesn’t America Love US!!!!!????TOO"- Lebron James.

If that's not generalizing to the whole country......

Not a big deal, but it is what it is.

[League Circles]

Yes, because breaking in and looting small businesses has nothing to do with police brutality.

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that that wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

The vagueness is understandable by common people who are afraid and hurting due to these problems. It's not really understandable IMO from actual leaders of organizations, especially political organizations. I'm seeing a lot of politicians "making strong statements", "condemning injustice", and "promoting change". Not seeing a lot of legislation being drafted. This is the moment where politicians can finally put up or shut up and be replaced. Inept ass patronizers is what I predict they'll mostly prove to be. I hope I'm wrong.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Yes, because breaking in and looting small businesses has nothing to do with police brutality.

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that that wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

Nah, there are far more specific aims than that. Eliminating qualified immunity for police, for example.

That said, you're not going to find neat consensus around a set of policies. The movement pulls from too diverse a coalition for that. Same was true of the civil rights movement, the labor movement, gay rights, etc.... all of which involved riots, by the way.

[bullsnewdynasty]

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that that wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

Nah, there are far more specific aims than that. Eliminating qualified immunity for police, for example.

That said, you're not going to find neat consensus around a set of policies. The movement pulls from too diverse a coalition for that. Same was true of the civil rights movement, the labor movement, gay rights, etc.... all of which involved riots, by the way.

Riots are not okay just because they've happened before. Riots will divide people and are not productive, which was my original point.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that that wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

The vagueness is understandable by common people who are afraid and hurting due to these problems. It's not really understandable IMO from actual leaders of organizations, especially political organizations. I'm seeing a lot of politicians "making strong statements", "condemning injustice", and "promoting change". Not seeing a lot of legislation being drafted. This is the moment where politicians can finally put up or shut up and be replaced. Inept ass patronizers is what I predict they'll mostly prove to be. I hope I'm wrong.

Well said, LC. It's put up or shut up time, for sure.

A house rep from MN is moving a bill to end qualified immunity, btw. Obviously won't get signed into law under this administration, but it's well worth it to start laying the groundwork.

Read on Twitter

There's also work that can be done at the local level, with or without the support of FOPs (and let's be honest, it's going to be without).

[bullsnewdynasty]

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that that wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

The vagueness is understandable by common people who are afraid and hurting due to these problems. It's not really understandable IMO from actual leaders of organizations, especially political organizations. I'm seeing a lot of politicians "making strong statements", "condemning injustice", and "promoting change". Not seeing a lot of legislation being drafted. This is the moment where politicians can finally put up or shut up and be replaced. Inept ass patronizers is what I predict they'll mostly prove to be. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree, the focus should be on policies and productive changes. Unfortunately that is a widespread government problem.

It's not that easy though. Police are already understaffed and underpaid, now people want to implement new regulations that will deter anyone from wanting to become a police officer if liability is increased substantially.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

Nah, there are far more specific aims than that. Eliminating qualified immunity for police, for example.

That said, you're not going to find neat consensus around a set of policies. The movement pulls from too diverse a coalition for that. Same was true of the civil rights movement, the labor movement, gay rights, etc.... all of which involved riots, by the way.

Riots are not okay just because they've happened before. Riots will divide people and are not productive, which was my original point.

They haven't just 'happened before'. They've been part of nearly every significant social movement in this country going back to the founders. I wish that it didn't have to be that way, but wishing doesn't make it so.

[League Circles]

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

The vagueness is understandable by common people who are afraid and hurting due to these problems. It's not really understandable IMO from actual leaders of organizations, especially political organizations. I'm seeing a lot of politicians "making strong statements", "condemning injustice", and "promoting change". Not seeing a lot of legislation being drafted. This is the moment where politicians can finally put up or shut up and be replaced. Inept ass patronizers is what I predict they'll mostly prove to be. I hope I'm wrong.

Well said, LC. It's put up or shut up time, for sure.

A house rep from MN is moving a bill to end qualified immunity, btw. Obviously won't get signed into law under this administration, but it's well worth it to start laying the groundwork.

Read on Twitter

There's also work that can be done at the local level, with or without the support of FOPs (and let's be honest, it's going to be without).

Nice! I don't have time to thoroughly read at the moment but that letter makes the immunity clause sound absolutely absurd and in need of immediate change. Unfathomable that it's been around since 1967. Smh. How has it not been challenged before now? Where the **** were you Joe Biden (and countless others, he's just particularly relevant due to his tenure and pres candidacy)?

Anyways this and a bunch of other concrete, specific actions like it may be our best hope.

[League Circles]

The "movement" you're talking about is loosely defined and there's no agreement upon actual objectives other than eliminating racism, which will never happen completely given that there are bad people in every profession.

The vagueness is understandable by common people who are afraid and hurting due to these problems. It's not really understandable IMO from actual leaders of organizations, especially political organizations. I'm seeing a lot of politicians "making strong statements", "condemning injustice", and "promoting change". Not seeing a lot of legislation being drafted. This is the moment where politicians can finally put up or shut up and be replaced. Inept ass patronizers is what I predict they'll mostly prove to be. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree, the focus should be on policies and productive changes. Unfortunately that is a widespread government problem.

It's not that easy though. Police are already understaffed and underpaid, now people want to implement new regulations that will deter anyone from wanting to become a police officer if liability is increased substantially.

That's why you gotta PAY THEM WAY MORE. If racists are afraid of being overscrutinized, I'm sure people like me will be happy to take their jobs. I'd be a Chicago PD Officer tomorrow for what I'm making now.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Nah, there are far more specific aims than that. Eliminating qualified immunity for police, for example.

That said, you're not going to find neat consensus around a set of policies. The movement pulls from too diverse a coalition for that. Same was true of the civil rights movement, the labor movement, gay rights, etc.... all of which involved riots, by the way.

Riots are not okay just because they've happened before. Riots will divide people and are not productive, which was my original point.

They haven't just 'happened before'. They've been part of nearly every significant social movement in this country, going back to the founders. I wish that it didn't have to be that way, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Which will continue to divide the country, because people don't think the same way you do.

Lots of people don't like riots. As in, the vast majority of the country.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Riots are not okay just because they've happened before. Riots will divide people and are not productive, which was my original point.

They haven't just 'happened before'. They've been part of nearly every significant social movement in this country, going back to the founders. I wish that it didn't have to be that way, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Which will continue to divide the country, because people don't think the same way you do.

Lots of people don't like riots. As in, the vast majority of the country.

'Liking' riots isn't the point. They're about the powerless jolting people awake. You may not like what you see, but you can't ignore it.

Sure, lots of people get upset. But others get radicalized.

[DuckIII]

Does it really work that way, though? Someone is against police brutality and willing take action to stop it -- but they see people looting at rioting and decide, oh, nevermind?

Yes, because breaking in and looting small businesses has nothing to do with police brutality.

I'm skeptical that people flip from actively helping the movement to rejecting it because of riots/looting. Maybe it happens. I've never personally encountered it.

If we're talking about losing people's passive approval, I'd argue that it wasn't worth a whole lot in the first place.

Every person I personally know who is focused more on the looting rather than the underlying institutional issue loves Trump and hates Kaepernick. Nuff said.