ImageImageImageImageImage

OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions

Moderators: Morris_Shatford, DG88, niQ, 7 Footer, lebron stopper, Reeko, Duffman100, HiJiNX, tsherkin

ATLTimekeeper
RealGM
Posts: 44,060
And1: 24,782
Joined: Apr 28, 2008

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#121 » by ATLTimekeeper » Sun Aug 2, 2020 8:14 pm

ItsDanger wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:Disrupt could be defined as drastically alter or destroy the structure of. So destroying or abolishing the family unit. This is a key tenet of the Communist Manifesto and why people label the BLM organization as Marxist (you could argue on the technicalities of marxism vs communism). The purpose is to enhance reliance on the state. Now does this align with Isaac's religious beliefs? I would assume not.


I hope you didn’t pull anything this reach. Lol at the word salad of Communist and Marxist. Just repeating right wing talking points.

At least one of the BLM founders claimed to be a "trained Marxist". That is fact. There are several straight comparisons to Marxism right on their website. That is no reach. Claiming the opposite is a reach. Marx quote: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" From wiki: The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Now, if I am an ordained minister like Isaac, that is offensive. We could argue that BLM isn't strictly Marxist but just has some aspects that are similar (which maybe some of you are). But its really open to interpretation based on your own beliefs. I suspect Isaac has come to his own conclusions. When you hear players say "we want to have our own message", what exactly do you think they are referring to?

Other people could perceive this differently and that is fine. We can have different interpretations. I just think BLM could have worded their mission statement a lot better but apparently chose not to.


You'll have to direct me to the part of their website that invokes Marx' philosophy on religion. There's certainly coding that is Marxist, but there's nothing I've found that suggests they want to take Marxism to the point of eradicating religion. You can find Marxism in a lot of things, including Christianity. So far all I've found is this:

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.


It's pretty open-ended and inclusive.
beanbag
Analyst
Posts: 3,438
And1: 4,647
Joined: Apr 07, 2012

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#122 » by beanbag » Sun Aug 2, 2020 8:22 pm

ATLTimekeeper wrote:
shefcurry wrote:
kj_ wrote:I think that’s way too extreme a reaction to the word “disrupt”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Disrupt means disrupt. This isn't rocket science. They're not claiming it takes a village. This is much stronger than that. It is a political mission statement.


It means that they intend to disrupt the requirement of a nuclear family. That's the part you don't get.


This.

Anyone who reads something else into the meaning of disrupt is either ignorant or willfully misrepresenting that statement.
User avatar
Mack11
RealGM
Posts: 21,322
And1: 57,190
Joined: May 15, 2006

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#123 » by Mack11 » Sun Aug 2, 2020 8:23 pm

Media trying to make up for months of not asking any dumb questions
User avatar
Johnny Bball
RealGM
Posts: 57,859
And1: 62,812
Joined: Feb 01, 2015
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#124 » by Johnny Bball » Sun Aug 2, 2020 9:05 pm

Roco14 wrote:
Johnny Bball wrote:
Roco14 wrote:
Exactly. Thank you. People need to stop interpreting it the way they choose and literally read the words on the website. We disrupt the nuclear family? Doesn't exactly align with Christian values.


What the **** are you talking about. Half the families in either country don't fit the definition of nuclear family for one reason or another, yet you cling to something that isn't reality? Does everyone have to meet your definition of nuclear families? And saying that other people are trying to change and recognize it doesn't exist anymore is reversing progress to the 1700's? The blind hypocrisy is incredible. If it fits you, nobody is taking it away. Ever.

Not once did any of you complain about peoples civil rights being violated over the last year, so you can stop pretending they will be now by a group of people not even in place to do it.


And do you think that's a positive thing? I've got news for you - it's not. Go read up on the statistics of suicide, crime, drug abuse, etc. and how they link to children growing up in single parent homes. It's impossible for everyone to grow up in a healthy family structure, but saying you'll disrupt, obstruct, impede, unsettle, hamper, destroy, or damage (all synonyms) the nuclear family structure does not align with Christian values. Isaac (and everyone else) has every right to not stand for an organization that puts out that message.

An organization that big has every single word proofread meticulously so let's not pretend it's some meaningless text.


I've got news for ... it's reality. And I've got more news for you, obviously the nuclear family isn't the only way or the best way for all or 50% of people would not be divorced. (I won't even mention other non-nuclear reasons that invoke hatred, where kids grow up very normal). I've got more news for you, in your world you would insist that divorce doesn't happen and an entire family is miserable and disaffected. You don't seem to even understand their message and assume it means destroy every nuclear family... because you don't agree with even part of it and won't even listen or are being willfully ignorant.

But more importantly...Is it a negative thing? Do you feel you have to destroy those children by publicly telling them you disagree with how they are raised and find it appalling? For two unhappy people to have to continue to live together and raise them? Is that your christian values at work? I have a distinct right to be honest and tell you to what I really think of the message you're sending, but we have rules here so I can't.
13th Man
General Manager
Posts: 8,936
And1: 6,118
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#125 » by 13th Man » Sun Aug 2, 2020 9:26 pm

Roco14 wrote:
Read on Twitter


Awesome. The silent majority is growing each day.
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 25,108
And1: 25,240
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#126 » by Pointgod » Sun Aug 2, 2020 9:33 pm

ItsDanger wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:Disrupt could be defined as drastically alter or destroy the structure of. So destroying or abolishing the family unit. This is a key tenet of the Communist Manifesto and why people label the BLM organization as Marxist (you could argue on the technicalities of marxism vs communism). The purpose is to enhance reliance on the state. Now does this align with Isaac's religious beliefs? I would assume not.


I hope you didn’t pull anything this reach. Lol at the word salad of Communist and Marxist. Just repeating right wing talking points.

At least one of the BLM founders claimed to be a "trained Marxist". That is fact. There are several straight comparisons to Marxism right on their website. That is no reach. Claiming the opposite is a reach. Marx quote: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" From wiki: The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Now, if I am an ordained minister like Isaac, that is offensive. We could argue that BLM isn't strictly Marxist but just has some aspects that are similar (which maybe some of you are). But its really open to interpretation based on your own beliefs. I suspect Isaac has come to his own conclusions. When you hear players say "we want to have our own message", what exactly do you think they are referring to?

Other people could perceive this differently and that is fine. We can have different interpretations. I just think BLM could have worded their mission statement a lot better but apparently chose not to.


Please get an ice pack because you definitely pulled something with this stretch. So I’m to assume that Jonathan Isaac has in-depth knowledge about Black Lives Matter and Marxist theory? All this could be true but if it was he could have clarified that in his response to the reporter.

More like Marxist is the next meaningless buzzword on the right like deep state and all the other idiotic crap thrown around. Yes there have been some BLM founders that have studied Marxism and some identify as Marxists but that’s in the context of organizing and building coalitions.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

These days, Marxism usually means analyzing social change through an economic lens, with the assumption that the rich and the poor should become more equal.

In a recently surfaced 2015 interview, one of the three Black Lives Matter co-founders declared that she and another co-founder "are trained Marxists."

But the movement has grown and broadened dramatically. Many Americans, few of whom would identify as Marxists, support Black Lives Matter, drawn to its message of anti-racism.


"We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many Black folks."

We didn’t find that Garza and Tometi have referred to themselves as Marxists. But the book publisher Penguin Random House has said Garza, an author, "describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist."


The project started with a mission "to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes," the group’s website says. "In the years since, we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic and political power to thrive."


Black Lives Matter’s "emphatic support for gender identity politics sets it apart from historical Marxism," and the goals listed on its website "do not appear to be expressly anti-capitalist, which would arguably be a Marxist identifier," Berman added.


In July, the New York Times reported that Black Lives Matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history, as four polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of Floyd and others in recent weeks. (That does not account for similar protests overseas.)

"I am fairly convinced these are mostly attempts to smear anti-racist activists. I think in some media, ‘Marxist’ is dog-whistle for something horrible, like ‘Nazi’, and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them," Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communication, told PolitiFact.


Look at their beliefs and goals on the website. I bet you couldn’t coherently explain how it will lead to Marxism or Communism because there’s no logical connection. Only people that believe idiotic Facebook memes and right wing trolls believe that the fight to save black lives is somehow a bad thing. If we really want to go down the religious route even capitalism is not compatible with the tenets of Christianity.
User avatar
ItsDanger
RealGM
Posts: 30,187
And1: 27,446
Joined: Nov 01, 2008

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#127 » by ItsDanger » Sun Aug 2, 2020 9:56 pm

Pointgod wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
I hope you didn’t pull anything this reach. Lol at the word salad of Communist and Marxist. Just repeating right wing talking points.

At least one of the BLM founders claimed to be a "trained Marxist". That is fact. There are several straight comparisons to Marxism right on their website. That is no reach. Claiming the opposite is a reach. Marx quote: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" From wiki: The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Now, if I am an ordained minister like Isaac, that is offensive. We could argue that BLM isn't strictly Marxist but just has some aspects that are similar (which maybe some of you are). But its really open to interpretation based on your own beliefs. I suspect Isaac has come to his own conclusions. When you hear players say "we want to have our own message", what exactly do you think they are referring to?

Other people could perceive this differently and that is fine. We can have different interpretations. I just think BLM could have worded their mission statement a lot better but apparently chose not to.


Please get an ice pack because you definitely pulled something with this stretch. So I’m to assume that Jonathan Isaac has in-depth knowledge about Black Lives Matter and Marxist theory? All this could be true but if it was he could have clarified that in his response to the reporter.

More like Marxist is the next meaningless buzzword on the right like deep state and all the other idiotic crap thrown around. Yes there have been some BLM founders that have studied Marxism and some identify as Marxists but that’s in the context of organizing and building coalitions.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

These days, Marxism usually means analyzing social change through an economic lens, with the assumption that the rich and the poor should become more equal.

In a recently surfaced 2015 interview, one of the three Black Lives Matter co-founders declared that she and another co-founder "are trained Marxists."

But the movement has grown and broadened dramatically. Many Americans, few of whom would identify as Marxists, support Black Lives Matter, drawn to its message of anti-racism.


"We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many Black folks."

We didn’t find that Garza and Tometi have referred to themselves as Marxists. But the book publisher Penguin Random House has said Garza, an author, "describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist."


The project started with a mission "to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes," the group’s website says. "In the years since, we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic and political power to thrive."


Black Lives Matter’s "emphatic support for gender identity politics sets it apart from historical Marxism," and the goals listed on its website "do not appear to be expressly anti-capitalist, which would arguably be a Marxist identifier," Berman added.


In July, the New York Times reported that Black Lives Matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history, as four polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of Floyd and others in recent weeks. (That does not account for similar protests overseas.)

"I am fairly convinced these are mostly attempts to smear anti-racist activists. I think in some media, ‘Marxist’ is dog-whistle for something horrible, like ‘Nazi’, and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them," Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communication, told PolitiFact.


Look at their beliefs and goals on the website. I bet you couldn’t coherently explain how it will lead to Marxism or Communism because there’s no logical connection. Only people that believe idiotic Facebook memes and right wing trolls believe that the fight to save black lives is somehow a bad thing. If we really want to go down the religious route even capitalism is not compatible with the tenets of Christianity.

That is your interpretation and I stated people could interpret these things differently based on their own beliefs. Devout Christians may interpret BLM statements from their own perspective.

Weak insults have no impact on me. I explained the connection in my post already. Lenin supposedly coined the phrase "useful idiots", I'd look that up if want you a deeper counter to Politifact.
Organization can be defined as an organized body of people with a particular purpose. Not random.
User avatar
Johnny Bball
RealGM
Posts: 57,859
And1: 62,812
Joined: Feb 01, 2015
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#128 » by Johnny Bball » Sun Aug 2, 2020 10:23 pm

ItsDanger wrote:Weak insults have no impact on me. I explained the connection in my post already. Lenin supposedly coined the phrase "useful idiots", I'd look that up if want you a deeper counter to Politifact.


The irony here is just funny. The Nazi's coined the term Good German, I'd look that up if you want a good counter to following without question.
User avatar
ItsDanger
RealGM
Posts: 30,187
And1: 27,446
Joined: Nov 01, 2008

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#129 » by ItsDanger » Sun Aug 2, 2020 10:31 pm

Johnny Bball wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:Weak insults have no impact on me. I explained the connection in my post already. Lenin supposedly coined the phrase "useful idiots", I'd look that up if want you a deeper counter to Politifact.


The irony here is just funny. The Nazi's coined the term Good German, I'd look that up if you want a good counter to following without question.


These terms aren't the same but whatever.
Organization can be defined as an organized body of people with a particular purpose. Not random.
ATLTimekeeper
RealGM
Posts: 44,060
And1: 24,782
Joined: Apr 28, 2008

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#130 » by ATLTimekeeper » Sun Aug 2, 2020 10:48 pm

You didn't explain the connection. You planted a Marx quote that doesn't resonate in the website and claimed a devout Christian like Isaac would be offended by that. Instead, there's text showing that they are inclusive to all religions.
simmons21
Junior
Posts: 370
And1: 472
Joined: Jul 22, 2006
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#131 » by simmons21 » Sun Aug 2, 2020 11:31 pm

I'm not going to judge Jonathon Isaac, he can do what he feels is right. But this whole thing has me perplexed, how many red-pillers are here and on r/nba? Like you realize what league you follow right? Why don't you watch NHL or some ****. There's a few hundred guys that "play the right way" or "bring their hard hat ever game" in that stupid sport.

You love the game of basketball but you just wish that everyone that plays it was white? I don't get it.
Metallikid
RealGM
Posts: 10,723
And1: 9,974
Joined: Mar 10, 2010

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#132 » by Metallikid » Mon Aug 3, 2020 12:09 am

He just had a season ending injury by the looks of it.
User avatar
ash_k
RealGM
Posts: 16,587
And1: 9,236
Joined: Apr 14, 2010
         

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#133 » by ash_k » Mon Aug 3, 2020 12:17 am

strange ending...interesting..he should have just said "knee soreness/brace thus I cant kneel" :-?
Sinant wrote:I treat the Phoenix/Cleveland/Boston Shaqs like I do Wizards MJ. Never happened.
dgr81
General Manager
Posts: 7,665
And1: 10,889
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#134 » by dgr81 » Mon Aug 3, 2020 12:31 am

sad to see him get hurt but the raps now have to lock up the 2nd seed so they can get orlando/brooklyn in the first round.
User avatar
MixxSRC
General Manager
Posts: 8,051
And1: 14,094
Joined: Aug 01, 2013
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#135 » by MixxSRC » Mon Aug 3, 2020 12:35 am

He's very talented. I hate injuries. Hope he recovers.
User avatar
TheBoi10
General Manager
Posts: 9,553
And1: 11,893
Joined: Apr 13, 2018
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#136 » by TheBoi10 » Mon Aug 3, 2020 12:45 am

A day later, ironic
User avatar
Jcity08
RealGM
Posts: 13,266
And1: 18,624
Joined: May 06, 2018
       

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#137 » by Jcity08 » Mon Aug 3, 2020 12:49 am

TheBoi10 wrote:A day later, ironic


No chill.
Image
Image

Signed with team T.W.O for the 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 season.
User avatar
Raps in 4
RealGM
Posts: 68,884
And1: 64,573
Joined: Nov 01, 2008
Location: Toronto
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#138 » by Raps in 4 » Mon Aug 3, 2020 1:04 am

Roco14 wrote:
Read on Twitter


They never had the middle. Nor do they want them. You don't compromise on values.
User avatar
Raps in 4
RealGM
Posts: 68,884
And1: 64,573
Joined: Nov 01, 2008
Location: Toronto
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#139 » by Raps in 4 » Mon Aug 3, 2020 1:11 am

simmons21 wrote:I'm not going to judge Jonathon Isaac, he can do what he feels is right. But this whole thing has me perplexed, how many red-pillers are here and on r/nba? Like you realize what league you follow right? Why don't you watch NHL or some ****. There's a few hundred guys that "play the right way" or "bring their hard hat ever game" in that stupid sport.

You love the game of basketball but you just wish that everyone that plays it was white? I don't get it.


Half of North America, at least, is conservative. Reddit has a particularly large population.
User avatar
Raps in 4
RealGM
Posts: 68,884
And1: 64,573
Joined: Nov 01, 2008
Location: Toronto
 

Re: OT: Jonathan Isaac answers media (unecessary) questions 

Post#140 » by Raps in 4 » Mon Aug 3, 2020 1:15 am

shefcurry wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:Disrupt could be defined as drastically alter or destroy the structure of. So destroying or abolishing the family unit. This is a key tenet of the Communist Manifesto and why people label the BLM organization as Marxist (you could argue on the technicalities of marxism vs communism). The purpose is to enhance reliance on the state. Now does this align with Isaac's religious beliefs? I would assume not.


Not just "could be defined". That's literally what it means.

Black Lives Matter to most people is just a statement saying that they support black people in their fight for social justice. Which is what 99.9% of people think they're supporting when they say Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter the organization is a political advocacy organization whose mandate is much, much larger than simply racial justice. It just happens to (cleverly) share a name with the dominant choice of words that people use to express support for the black community. Likely only one in 10,000 actually knows about what the political advocacy organization is about or trying to do.

This is a bit unfortunate because Isaac is put into a position where he's in favor of the former, but against the latter, and since 99.9% of people don't know the difference, it creates a lot of this kind of confusion.


Marxist ideology aligns with the racial justice movement. Right wing ideologies don't.

The fact that you are trying to discredit a movement with Cold War fear mongering is sad.

Return to Toronto Raptors