NBA games postponed today p14 Players decide to resume Playoffs

[musiqsoulchild]

quitting really wouldn't of solved anything unless all the major nba hitters got together after and became a leading voice in the blm movement. I think the short time to show support was a beneficial move and any decision in the moment was obviously not going to be the most clear headed one.

Curious what happens if there is another cop shooting situation. Even the most optimistic person knows these changes will take a long time.

And that's why " How do we solve this problem?" Is NOT the right approach.

How can I listen to you better and understand you?....that's the need of the hour. And probably for the next few years.

It's in SHARP contrast to " I will protect our democratic lead cities by sending in the National Guard to keep these thugs in check"

[TimHonks]

Of course the Bulls actually make significant change right before the league became unwatchable. I've been a fan my whole life and haven't missed many Bulls games the past 10+ years, even when they have been terrible. I'm officially done and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I get it. Don't let the door hit me...., but there seems to be a narrative that only MAGAers who don't care about basketball anyway are annoyed about how political everything has become. I don't like Trump or politics in general and am a true NBA fan that has no interest in returning.

Wouldn't be surprised if the NFL is next, but they have a much better product so it won't hurt them as much. NBA is on its way to becoming the NHL.

[drosestruts]

For the "what was accomplished crowd"

The Wisconsin legislature is reconvening, they were scheduled to not gather again until after the election.

Multiple NBA arenas have signed on to become voting sites for the election and are doing so for early voting and election day voting.

The owners, and others with a vested interest in the NBA (and other sports) now know the players will walk-away from games. I think this knowledge will make the continued efforts of owners more likely.

[musiqsoulchild]

Let's also not forget that the Clippers hired Doc Rivers specifically as a way to show that they had turned a new corner after the craziness of their prior owner who thought he was running a plantation.

I can completely empathize why the Clippers will want to boycott the season. Especially given their racist owners past.

It's the principled thing to do anyway.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Read on Twitter

Holy$hit! That is crazy. I can't believe he is charge of running the police department in any city, let alone such a diverse one like Kenosha. Those statements are just very wrong on every level.

I saw this and do not think it's racism. But I will say this man genuinely wants to help, but his profession has allowed him the opportunity to see some of the worst people in society and has distorted his view.

Giving his response was mainly about how young children are given poor parental examples. A couple of ideas showing children future and people who they can relate to what life after 18 can be, provide programs at schools where teamwork is required, and bring more social workers into the schools cause some of the children just need real therapy.

He’s a racist. These are classic dog whistles. None of us were born yesterday. We all know who he’s talking about because these tropes have been around forever.

[League Circles]

Whenever a person who identifies as a Muslim commits an act of terror, they are pretty much universally condemned by Muslims across social media and in reality. Especially Western Muslims.

Whenever a cop commits an act of extreme police brutality, their organization attempts to cover their asses, make excuses for them, is reluctant to punish them, and attempts to get them off easier.

I don't think ACAB. I think there are only a handful of truly evil, violent cops. However the fact that the entire organization seems to rally to protect those evil violent cops is a huge issue, and rots it to its core.

Islam/Muslims is/are not a concrete organization. Neither are tattooed people. Police forces are.

Regarding the first bolded.....except when they are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes against civilians, which happens, so no, not "whenever".

Regarding your last point, no, police forces are not at all a concrete organization.

The only reason that so many people cannot help themselves but to morally evaluate people based on group identity is because it's a convenient categorisation mechanism in our psychology. It's not warranted on a moral level and it's severely logically flawed. It's also completely unnecessary for any practical purposes.

When I see a police uniform that automatically signals to be that I am dealing with a Cop.

Cops have hiring practices , internal affairs, budgets, HR, Unions, Pensions and Lobbying groups.

What am I missing?

How is that not a concrete institution?

"When I see a person who identifies as a muslim (funny cause I happen to be muslim) that automatically signals to be that I am dealing with a Muslim."

Muslims have prayer practices , places of worship with budgets, hiring mechanisms, PR, Unions, Pensions and Lobbying groups. How is that not a concrete organization?"

I'll tell you how with a quick google paste:


"There are more than 17,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States, ranging in size from one officer to more than 30,000"

At best it's 17,000 concrete organizations. Do you see now?

[jc23]

so clips and lakers will not be returning?

[CBS7]

It's like me giving an example of something negative a tattoo'd person did or a Muslim did, and saying "see, I guess they're all this way"

Whenever a person who identifies as a Muslim commits an act of terror, they are pretty much universally condemned by Muslims across social media and in reality. Especially Western Muslims.

Whenever a cop commits an act of extreme police brutality, their organization attempts to cover their asses, make excuses for them, is reluctant to punish them, and attempts to get them off easier.

I don't think ACAB. I think there are only a handful of truly evil, violent cops. However the fact that the entire organization seems to rally to protect those evil violent cops is a huge issue, and rots it to its core.

Islam/Muslims is/are not a concrete organization. Neither are tattooed people. Police forces are.

Regarding the first bolded.....except when they are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes against civilians, which happens, so no, not "whenever".

I mean sure.. eventually. After mountains of backlash and public outcry .They have proved it time and time again in pretty much every recent high profile case that their first instinct is to cover it up and hope it blows over, while letting the bad cops roam around freely for days, weeks, or months after their crime.

Regarding your last point, no, police forces are not at all a concrete organization.

I mean.. they are. They aren't all one organization, sure. But they are all concrete organizations that are stems of the same tree.

[CBS7]

Regarding the first bolded.....except when they are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes against civilians, which happens, so no, not "whenever".

Regarding your last point, no, police forces are not at all a concrete organization.

The only reason that so many people cannot help themselves but to morally evaluate people based on group identity is because it's a convenient categorisation mechanism in our psychology. It's not warranted on a moral level and it's severely logically flawed. It's also completely unnecessary for any practical purposes.

When I see a police uniform that automatically signals to be that I am dealing with a Cop.

Cops have hiring practices , internal affairs, budgets, HR, Unions, Pensions and Lobbying groups.

What am I missing?

How is that not a concrete institution?

"When I see a person who identifies as a muslim (funny cause I happen to be muslim) that automatically signals to be that I am dealing with a Muslim."

Muslims have prayer practices , places of worship with budgets, hiring mechanisms, PR, Unions, Pensions and Lobbying groups. How is that not a concrete organization?"

I'll tell you how with a quick google paste:


"There are more than 17,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States, ranging in size from one officer to more than 30,000"

At best it's 17,000 concrete organizations. Do you see now?

If 100 (or 10 or 25 or 50 or whatever) US Sunni mosques started harboring and defending terrorists that were members of those mosques, and there was no public outcry from US Sunni Muslims, you could start saying that all the silent Muslims are bad.

(I am Muslim too, salaam bro)

[League Circles]

Whenever a person who identifies as a Muslim commits an act of terror, they are pretty much universally condemned by Muslims across social media and in reality. Especially Western Muslims.

Whenever a cop commits an act of extreme police brutality, their organization attempts to cover their asses, make excuses for them, is reluctant to punish them, and attempts to get them off easier.

I don't think ACAB. I think there are only a handful of truly evil, violent cops. However the fact that the entire organization seems to rally to protect those evil violent cops is a huge issue, and rots it to its core.

Islam/Muslims is/are not a concrete organization. Neither are tattooed people. Police forces are.

Regarding the first bolded.....except when they are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes against civilians, which happens, so no, not "whenever".

I mean sure.. eventually. After mountains of backlash and public outcry .They have proved it time and time again in pretty much every recent high profile case that their first instinct is to cover it up and hope it blows over, while letting the bad cops roam around freely for days, weeks, or months after their crime.

Regarding your last point, no, police forces are not at all a concrete organization.

I mean.. they are. They aren't all one organization, sure. But they are stems of the same tree.

Maybe those cases are high profile BECAUSE they sadly required that public backlash and pressure. Maybe you don't know about a bunch of cases where that wasn't necessary because they then didn't become high profile enough to get your attention?

[CBS7]

Regarding the first bolded.....except when they are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes against civilians, which happens, so no, not "whenever".

I mean sure.. eventually. After mountains of backlash and public outcry .They have proved it time and time again in pretty much every recent high profile case that their first instinct is to cover it up and hope it blows over, while letting the bad cops roam around freely for days, weeks, or months after their crime.

Regarding your last point, no, police forces are not at all a concrete organization.

I mean.. they are. They aren't all one organization, sure. But they are stems of the same tree.

Maybe those cases are high profile BECAUSE they sadly required that public backlash and pressure. Maybe you don't know about a bunch of cases where that wasn't necessary because they then didn't become high profile enough to get your attention?

Conversely, how about cases that were successfully covered up? There could be even more than we know.
But I apologize for my wording. I should not have written "whenever". I acknowledge that there probably are a bunch of cases where a PD acted swiftly and appropriately to reprimand one of their own. Their behavior during the high profile cases is still scary and problematic though.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Just remove the ability of police to collectively bargain. That's by far the best possible outcome to actually fixing the root cause of the policing issue.

This makes me curious. What groups of workers are allowed to collective bargain and which group of workers are not?

Police are a union. Professional athletes are a union.

What's the threshold?

The most straightforward threshold is public vs private. Private unions compete with private owners for a pool of revenues/profits. You can consider it a somewhat healthy tension between labor/capital.

That's not the case in public unions.

I believe the above in a vacuum, but America has a problem where one of the major political parties has a stated interest in gutting government to the bare minimum. The existence of public unions is an imperfect check against that.

So if a person decides to work for the public sector, they do not receive the same benefit of those working in the private sector. Is this your thesis?

[League Circles]

When I see a police uniform that automatically signals to be that I am dealing with a Cop.

Cops have hiring practices , internal affairs, budgets, HR, Unions, Pensions and Lobbying groups.

What am I missing?

How is that not a concrete institution?

"When I see a person who identifies as a muslim (funny cause I happen to be muslim) that automatically signals to be that I am dealing with a Muslim."

Muslims have prayer practices , places of worship with budgets, hiring mechanisms, PR, Unions, Pensions and Lobbying groups. How is that not a concrete organization?"

I'll tell you how with a quick google paste:


"There are more than 17,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States, ranging in size from one officer to more than 30,000"

At best it's 17,000 concrete organizations. Do you see now?

If 100 US Sunni mosques started harboring and defending terrorists that were members of those mosques, and there was no public outcry from US Sunni Muslims, you could start saying that all the silent Muslims are bad.

(I am Muslim too, salaam brother)

Salaam brother.

Thing is, it's not the case that there is no public outcry from members of police forces, and IMO, silence on an issue like doesn't necessarily make someone bad. We all have limitations in what we can apply our efforts towards. I get your point though. People should definitely speak out against injustice, especially among organizations they are part of, including their own families. Including their own selves.

[dougthonus]

I understand you aren't arguing with me but I gotta say again, its different because "muslim" or "Islam" is not a concrete organization unlike PDs. And when a Muslim commits an undeniably evil and vile act, Muslims everywhere speak out against it. If they were part of a Muslim organization (at least a Western one), it is unlikely that that organization would scramble to defend the person. If they did, that organization could correctly be considered evil on some level.

It's pretty easy to just replace the Muslim religion with Islamic Priest that is encouraging terrorism. Does that make all Islamic priests bad?

When a police officer commits an evil and vile act, the PD [img]seems[/img] to scramble to cover it up, defend the person, make excuses, justify the act, and let them off easily.

People are unhappy that it is just so hard to bring the bad cops to justice because the system is designed to protect them.

I agree, and that is why I agree the system needs to change.

However, you do not need to throw every good cop under the bus to state the system needs to change. When you DO change the system, you will need all those good cops to lead and make those changes work. You shouldn't demonize them and lump them in with the bad ones.

Saying the system needs to change is completely accurate IMO, but saying that all cops are bad, and it's okay to say whatever you want about them because they choose to become cops (which is the literal argument people have made) is awful, unproductive, and will inhibit change not encourage it.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about not grouping innocent people with guilty people because they share a profession or making wide assumptions about people because they have a profession. That really seems like first grade level common sense and doesn't mean that there aren't systemic problems which need to be resolved or the existence (maybe in great quantity) of bad actors that need to be removed from the profession.

[TheSuzerain]

This makes me curious. What groups of workers are allowed to collective bargain and which group of workers are not?

Police are a union. Professional athletes are a union.

What's the threshold?

The most straightforward threshold is public vs private. Private unions compete with private owners for a pool of revenues/profits. You can consider it a somewhat healthy tension between labor/capital.

That's not the case in public unions.

I believe the above in a vacuum, but America has a problem where one of the major political parties has a stated interest in gutting government to the bare minimum. The existence of public unions is an imperfect check against that.

So if a person decides to work for the public sector, they do not receive the same benefit of those working in the private sector. Is this your thesis?

I think there are differences between working in the private sector vs being a civil servant. Not really much of a thesis.

[dougthonus]

The whole point of BLM is to get other groups not affected by the issue to take interest and make changes. It’s tough to ask others to support your plight while undermining another’s similar plight, and even tougher when the only reason you aren’t supporting that other plight is because it would hurt your millionaire bottom line.

Quite literally, in the past six months, I have not heard a single person care about this issue, nor do I know a single person who takes any meaningful steps towards fixing it. The only time it is ever referenced is when people are attacking the BLM movement. I have not heard it come up in any other context whatsoever.

It is my opinion that it is a completely irrelevant issue to virtually everyone in this country, something that if pushed in our faces we say "that is awful" and then proceed to do nothing to help afterwards or care about. I could be wrong about that of course, but that's my experience. Beyond that, those complaining about people not supporting China are universally also taking no steps to support China either but just are yelling at others for being hypocrites.

As far as I can tell the China comparison only exists for people whom are against the BLM movement in order to undermine the BLM movement as I have not heard it referenced in any other way at all since the riots were a big news item for a week or so.

[dougthonus]

Anyway, I'm going to exit this thread, anyone arguing with me, feel free to have the last word

[JohnnyTapwater]

You have to break a dollar to make change.

Now what does that mean? They have to break the NBA? How should the NBA be changed?

Do you understand whats going on objectively?

[DorO]

Bunch of lame bastards in bubble, disappointed with the weakest boycott of all time.

[cjbulls]

You have to break a dollar to make change.

Now what does that mean? They have to break the NBA? How should the NBA be changed?

Do you understand whats going on objectively?

I do, just trying to figure out why you think platitudes are helpful at all. Explain yourself if you think there is some value there.