The NBA Thread.

I agree. Every single thing that has come up since has clarified what he meant initially - that Morey’s comments negatively impacted a lot of people and put a lot of people in bad situations.

I do hate that they’ve all clearly fallen in line with the “no criticism of China” bs so quickly. Makes Silver’s words about freedom of expression seem even more disingenuous.

 

I like Silva, and this China episode has further shown exactly how good he is, and why the NFL tried to hire him away.

Of all involved, he’s easily got both the worst job and has the most to lose. If he doesn’t continuously and fully support the free exercising of expression, and which I think he truly and personally supports, he’s going to lose the faith of both his players and large swaths of his fan base, and cause harm to the NBA.

Simultaneously, if he doesn’t respond to the reality that China is easily the NBA’s most burgeoning and prized market, and worth billions of dollars to the league and its owners, he’ll cause harm to the NBA. And it’s these same owners who each have their own in/tolerance for placing social interests ahead of financial ones, and who are undoubtedly pressuring Silva to achieve and protect profits over protests. And it’s these same owners who can and surely are pressuring Silva to protect the China market / revenue stream - no one buys an NBA team to lose money - albeit privately, and while enjoying a level of anonymity that Silva, as the league commissioner, does not similarly enjoy.

And, not to spoil the ending for anyone...but it won’t be the successful social stances that Silva will be judged on, but the continued growth and profitability of the league, instead.

I hate the NBA and don’t watch it, but Silva’s handling of this explosive issue has been masterful, thus far, IMO.

 

it is entirely hypocritical to chastise others' free speech saying he can [uck fay] off. it isn't demonizing to tell the bald truth of it regarding lebron, the NBA, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc etc. etc. They do not care about people, liberty, or democracy. their decisions are entirely monetary, and thus will literally sell out anyone.

I understand how this could be disorienting for someone who sees capitalism as interchangeable to freedom. it clearly is not, and that disorientation is cognitive dissonance.

 

If there wasnt $ involved, Lebron wouldnt have said jack shit.

 

His criticism, while wildly unpopular, was both true and fair. What is a better or more apt use of free speech, than this?

That you want and support Lebron in his speaking out about about American social issues, but now disavow him in giving this opinion, seemingly based solely on what you prefer and agree, speaks more to your hypocrisy, than his.

You’ve made an obvious and substantial error in assuming that the overwhelmingly vast number of companies are formed to promote and advance social issues or a political agenda, and not to make profits, instead. How, exactly, do you think those companies that you mentioned are financing the sort of socially conscious programs that you prefer, or have attained both the following and support so as to lead anyone to know or care about them?

Profits, IP. Cold hard cash. That’s both how and why.

I don’t conflate capitalism with freedom. I get that it’s easy to accuse me of that, but it’s lazy and lacks the convenience of truth. What I do understand is basic economics, what businesses are primarily in business for, and the difference between tangible reality and pure fantasy, however wishfully sentimental and sincere.

Perhaps you should look to individuals, elected officials and legislatures to be the agents of social justice and change that you now mistakenly wish these companies to be.

 

it is not hypocritical to agree on some things and completely disagree on others. I hope this helps.

that it isn't a company's duty to have any values is precisely my point and you have simply reiterated it. I notice that you have differentiated between these enterprises and actual people, so it looks like we agree on that as well.

 

I strongly support the Citizens United ruling, as established by SCOTUS.

Let me go ahead and defuse that land mine now, for whenever it appears.

 

ah, so you DON'T see a distinction after all.

You've got cracks in your facade in this area. I'm not clever enough to work them, but they are there.

 

I believe that corporate donations are legally classified as free speech, as SCOTUS ruled.

I think that businesses can choose to make political donations, charitable contributions or to speak out in the advancement or opposition of cause(s) which are important to them, and as they wish to do.

But neither the ability nor legality of any in/activism alters the fundamental and inalterable fact that most - almost all - businesses are founded and exist for the accumulation of market share, wealth and profits. In fact, these are the lifeblood of any for-profit business, and the absence of which renders the issue of in/activism moot, because unprofitable businesses won’t be in business for very long, and it won’t matter what they want / think, once bankrupt.

If businesses must be profitable in order to survive (they must), but may be in/activists or not (they may be), then it should be instinctively clear as where their loyalty will lie - and should lie -when profitability and activism conflict.

It is naive and misguided to expect that company’s would ever risk profits for activism, as the former is necessarily preeminent and the latter simply isn’t.

So, my original point stands: your disappointment stems from your own mistaken assumption as to why companies are in business, and your belief that anything is preeminent to profits.

 

your and their mistake is thinking profits now has no effect on profits later. there are finite and immutable forces in the universe that don't give a shit about profits or people, and they will inevitably come to bear if ignored. I'm sure the last great chiefs of Easter Island thought rolling their stone carvings on the last logs from the last trees was really important too.

 

We’re actually in close agreement, IP.

You’re just surprised, disappointed and angry when businesses / brands ultimately choose profit over everything else, and I am not. I’m more surprised when they do, however temporarily it may be.

What this should serve to remind everyone of, and I’m sure that you’ll want to take it with a grain of salt because I’m saying it, is that you can’t and shouldn’t count on corporations and celebrities to go any further down any path of activism beyond where the money allows. Some of y’all started to believe that these left-leaning folks were some exception to these rules, and they aren’t at all.

It should also be a shocking wake-up call about how insidiously powerful China has become in the American economy - and which has been 100%, completely, indefensibly and knowingly perpetuated by pure and simple greed, alone, and by both businesses and consumers, alike. Whether Democrat, Independent or Republican, and no matter who is in the White House, China is a menace that must be confronted, rebuffed and too quick to talk about it. The time of selling out, and of coddling them, is over. If they want to rule the world economy - and they certainly do - it damned sure shouldn’t be with our help, our intellectual property, our money or our agreement. Hillary, Bernie, Trump, whomever it takes, it must be done.

If those cats continue and further their already sizable sway on our economy and in this country, none of this other shit that we’ve amused ourselves in arguing about will ultimately matter.

 

https://theundefeated.com/features/lebron-james-missed-an-opportunity-with-his-comments-about-china/

 

Somewhat similar to what I was thinking this morning. If LeBron really was making the extremely narrow point that Morey's tweet threw the players into an uncomfortable situation and he probably didn't think about that, fine. It's hard to really argue with that, but just say it the first time. After several days to think about it, a players-only meeting with the commissioner, a statement, and a tweet clarifying the statement, he still needed yet ANOTHER tweet to get to his point. For someone who usually has a pretty well-constructed public persona ("The Decision" notwithstanding), this was more of a mess than it needed to be.

 

it sounds like this is mostly about how China could effect you. Is this why you applauded negotiations and concessions to a far more brutal authoritarian state like North Korea? Because of their smaller economic footprint?

 

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27871567/china-denies-asking-nba-daryl-morey-firing-tweet

 

Cartman definitely quotes LeBron verbatim in the latest South Park episode....

 

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...-china-issues-closed-door-meeting-adam-silver

 

An entirely fair question.

North Korea lacks China’s potential and desire to dominate the world, both financially and socially.

North Korea is ran by a maniacal tyrant, with a nuclear arsenal at his disposal (you can thank China for that, too) and who wouldn’t hesitate to use it to destroy the world if his rule was threatened. Or, because they simply felt like it.

Different methods are necessarily required in order to safeguard and control each.

I’m for the advancement and preservation of peace, IP, at almost any cost. Almost.

 

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/dip...er-adam-silver-will-face-retribution-defaming

China with their usual defiance towards logic; "You will pay retribution for portraying us as unforgiving tyrants!". They sure proved him wrong.

 

Wish they’d all just tell China to pound sand.