Kyrie Irving Tweet -- 1984 Type Scenario

[Anddenex]

Interesting world, and idealogy in America, we are now living within now. Somehow Kyrie is having to pay/donate $500,000 due to a tweet that showed a book that is sold on Amazon. It's also interesting that he is the one being attacked, but not so much. He is outspoken on topics he believes and doesn't let certain things control him. So, it's not surprising.

How does a person get into a difficult situation with a tweet, while Amazon remain unscathed? It's pretty obvious.

Also, from what I could tell the OK sign is now racist and a sign for white power, which is also the same sign used to sign the number 9 in sign language. Some white power in the "deaf" culture now. It will be interesting to see how more closely we will follow 1984 in not so many years.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

It will be interesting to see how more closely we will follow 1984 in not so many years.

I'm not sure why this is 1984.  He CHOSE to donate this as a way of apologizing for what he eventually accepted was a bad move.  It isn't oppressive when people simply give you a guilt trip until you realize you did something stupid.  It is oppressive when they use violent or other "forceful" means to destroy your life if you don't comply.

Some have said that no one can cancel you without their permission.  That's not so.  If you give your permission, then it isn't being cancelled.  It is you giving up.  If you are being defiant, and people with a lot more power than you (be it legal or illegal) begin to force you to do things or prohibit you from doing things...  That isn't about your permission.

That said, there are real 1984 stuff going on today.

• Mike Lindell
• Alex Jones
• Oberlin College slander against the bakery.
• People who are still in prison for protesting at the capital who never had a trial.
• The journalist who disappeared after an FBI raid
• Trump being raided
• The pro-life activist who was SWAT-ed because he set up a table in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic
• BLM & ANTIFA rioters tearing apart an physically destroying a business because the business refused to bow down to the woke mob.

These are signs of 1984 coming to life.  And many more...

And remember that 1984 wasn't just about "oppression."  It was really about government control over our beliefs and thoughts.  They controlled the truth.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Carborendum

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Interesting world, and idealogy in America, we are now living within now. Somehow Kyrie is having to pay/donate $500,000 due to a tweet that showed a book that is sold on Amazon. It's also interesting that he is the one being attacked, but not so much. He is outspoken on topics he believes and doesn't let certain things control him. So, it's not surprising.

He was given multiple opportunities to explain his stance on the book and antisemitism in general and didn't. 

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

How does a person get into a difficult situation with a tweet, while Amazon remain unscathed? It's pretty obvious.

Amazon's taking a lot of heat on social media, which is about as effective as shooting at a tank with a bb gun. They've grown beyond the reach of accountability. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the reality of things. 

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Also, from what I could tell the OK sign is now racist and a sign for white power, which is also the same sign used to sign the number 9 in sign language. Some white power in the "deaf" culture now. It will be interesting to see how more closely we will follow 1984 in not so many years.

Context matters. No one is going to confuse an ASL user for a white supremacist.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure why this is 1984.  He CHOSE to donate this as a way of apologizing for what he eventually accepted was a bad move.  It isn't oppressive when people simply give you a guilt trip until you realize you did something stupid.  It is oppressive when they use violent or other "forceful" means to destroy your life if you don't comply.

Some have said that no one can cancel you without their permission.  That's not so.  If you give your permission, then it isn't being cancelled.  It is you giving up.  If you are being defiant, and people with a lot more power than you (be it legal or illegal) begin to force you to do things or prohibit you from doing things...  That isn't about your permission.

That said, there are real 1984 stuff going on today.

• Mike Lindell
• Alex Jones
• Oberlin College slander against the bakery.
• People who are still in prison for protesting at the capital who never had a trial.
• The journalist who disappeared after an FBI raid
• Trump being raided
• The pro-life activist who was SWAT-ed because he set up a table in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic
• BLM & ANTIFA rioters tearing apart an physically destroying a business because the business refused to bow down to the woke mob.

These are signs of 1984 coming to life.  And many more...

And remember that 1984 wasn't just about "oppression."  It was really about government control over our beliefs and thoughts.  They controlled the truth.

The fact that he is even thinking he needs to pay for a tweet $500K is 1984 type scenario. Whether I agree with this speech or not, doesn't require him to pay $500K. He is only paying because of the woke outrage. So, in this case, we will have to agree to disagree.

Definitely in agreement with the other list.

I understand what 1984 was about, and this is a good sign of it. When a person feels they need to feel sorry for a book they tweet, such that they need to pay $500K, yes that is a form of oppression. It is controlling what you say, which ultimately controls what you think, and then what you feel you can say and do.

EDIT: He is now being suspended because his "apology" or non-apology wasn't good enough (he $500K donation wasn't a good enough sorry)? This is exactly what 1984 is about, and the same with your posts about banks. If you don't fall inline you can't bank with us. PayPal trying to get away with the $2500 fee for misinformation -- or what they claim as misinformation (Biden's son laptop comes to mind with FB and Twitter). This woke society is getting more and more ridiculous.

To add to this the Brooklyn Nets statement, "We have decided that Kyrie will serve a suspension without pay until he satisfies a series of objective remedial measures that address the harmful impact of his conduct and the suspension period served is no less than five games.” If this isn't 1984 in action...then I assume we can agree to disagree.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

44 minutes ago, Godless said:

He was given multiple opportunities to explain his stance on the book and antisemitism in general and didn't. 

Amazon's taking a lot of heat on social media, which is about as effective as shooting at a tank with a bb gun. They've grown beyond the reach of accountability. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the reality of things. 

Context matters. No one is going to confuse an ASL user for a white supremacist.

He doesn't need to explain his post. He can post what he wants, let the whiners go back to bed. He could have been given thousands of opportunities and still denied it. There are tons of books in books stores that are indecent. There are tons of books, videos, etc... that people endorse that are antisemtic. Giving excuses doesn't change what it is.

"No one is going to confuse an ASL user for a white supremacist."
Until it happens. Because we have never seen another human being take something innocent and twist it, right? The OK sign has nothing to do with white power, which is the obvious example of the sign for the number 9 and the sign for OK. Context? You're providing excuses to justify another narrative.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Anddenex

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

When a person feels they need to feel sorry for a book they tweet, such that they need to pay $500K, yes that is a form of oppression. It is controlling what you say, which ultimately controls what you think, and then what you feel you can say and do.

I guess the real question is where it is justified to draw the line.  And I don't have a final answer on that.  But I believe that as a starting point we need to remember old school principles.

• No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
• We are in charge of our own emotions.
• Stick and stones...

I remember telling my dad that my sister "made me mad."  My dad simply responded "No one can MAKE you mad.  You are responsible for how you react."

I'm surprised how this was considered "common sense" when I was a kid.  But today people reject it as a myth.  Where is personal responsibility?

But at some point, there is a tipping point where "outrage" and "words" can hurt like sticks and stones.  Where do we draw the line between "persuasion" (whether gentle or harsh) and "coercion"?

A lot of it has to do with how mature and emotionally/spiritually developed someone is.  It goes back to the 0.35 seconds that I mentioned elsewhere in the forum.  What do we do with that brief moment in time?

[LDSGator]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

He was given multiple opportunities to explain his stance on the book and antisemitism in general and didn't.

It’s worse. He doubled down. But, it’s a blessing in disguise because he showed his true colors. 
 

Like Kanye, the right will try to make him a hero without realizing how unstable he is. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by LDSGator

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s worse. He doubled down. But, it’s a blessing in disguise because he showed his true colors.

Like Kanye, the right will try to make him a hero without realizing how unstable he is. 

You mean he explained a few times what he meant, or did you miss that? What true colors, that he believes he is an original Hebrew? That because you watch a specific document doesn't mean you believe or endorse everything in it?  Did you even take time to listen to his responses?  I can already see Godless didn't. No one is making him a hero, but there are people who want to demonize him -- as it appears with yourself.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

there are people who want to demonize him -- as it appears with yourself.

Oh, I plead guilty to that 100%. I AM trying to demonize Kyrie because I think he’s a lunatic. Yup. You got me. 100%. 

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I guess the real question is where it is justified to draw the line.  And I don't have a final answer on that.  But I believe that as a starting point we need to remember old school principles.

• No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
• We are in charge of our own emotions.
• Stick and stones...

I remember telling my dad that my sister "made me mad."  My dad simply responded "No one can MAKE you mad.  You are responsible for how you react."

I'm surprised how this was considered "common sense" when I was a kid.  But today people reject it as a myth.  Where is personal responsibility?

But at some point, there is a tipping point where "outrage" and "words" can hurt like sticks and stones.  Where do we draw the line between "persuasion" (whether gentle or harsh) and "coercion"?

A lot of it has to do with how mature and emotionally/spiritually developed someone is.  It goes back to the 0.35 seconds that I mentioned elsewhere in the forum.  What do we do with that brief moment in time?

Yep, and this experience with Kyrie is a perfect example of the adage stick and stones. It is one thing, although I don't agree with Kyrie, that I have liked about him. He doesn't let the "woke" mob intimidate him. He wasn't intimidated with the woke mob during the force of the vaccine. He still isn't intimidated by a woke newcast who want to demonize him. So, it isn't really a shocker that he is a target by our woke media.

I agree with personal responsibility. As one media outlet mentioned paraphrased, "the interesting thing is I have never heard of this book Kyrie posted. I would have never heard about either because I'm not a follower on Kyrie's twitter account. But now I know all about this book." With all the antisemitism that has come from the left and woke crowd (The Jews are to blame ideology), it is amazing they are attacking Kyrie for the same things they have done and continue to do.

That's a valid point Carb. Where do we draw the line?

[scottyg]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Amazon's taking a lot of heat on social media, which is about as effective as shooting at a tank with a bb gun. They've grown beyond the reach of accountability. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the reality of things. 

Things like this are quite troubling to me. Not a whole lot can be done about it, and in reality, we only have ourselves to blame.

For what it's worth I've started going back to ebay more, as well as a few other independent retailers. This is even less than a BB gun, but I would rather my dollars go to an individual or small business owner than the amazon conglomerate.

[Anddenex]

8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, I plead guilty to that 100%. I AM trying to demonize Kyrie because I think he’s a lunatic. Yup. You got me. 100%. 

Yep, it appears so, "It’s worse."

-- Oh my gosh, its worse, worse, and worse. He was given multiple opportunities to explain himself which he did -- not that he didn't. If people were actually listening.

"He doubled down." 

-- The poor guy did what someone with a backbone does. But, but, but -- "It's worse"!

"But, it’s a blessing in disguise because he showed his true colors."

-- A blessing in disguise, he showed his true colors! That he believes he is an original Hebrew? Those true colors. That he doesn't allow media and the woke crowd to turn yellow.

Yep, yep, looks like you are, what did you say, "A blessing in disguise and showing your true colors." Yes, i think that is about right.

[NeuroTypical]

Since we're talking about it, here: https://george-orwell.org/1984/

If there's ever been a list of must-reads that a human must read, 1984 should be on it, and near the top.  There's the free link - everyone make sure your kids and grandkids read it too.  It isn't popular any more.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Yep, yep, looks like you are, what did you say, "A blessing in disguise and showing your true colors." Yes, i think that is about right.

If my “true colors” are disliking a flat earther       who is too dense to see that if he promotes an anti Semitic documentary on his Twitter his employer might be slightly irritated, then that’s a burden I’ll gleefully carry. 

[Anddenex]

22 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If my “true colors” are disliking a flat earther       who is too dense to see that if he promotes an anti Semitic documentary on his Twitter his employer might be slightly irritated, then that’s a burden I’ll gleefully carry. 

This is what I'm addressing also. Your first statement is an ad-hominem against him -- "flat earther" -- as if that justifies any attack against him. Due to this belief he has become an easy target (coupled with his vaccination decisions).

If you listened to his words you will recognize he said multiple times, I'm not promoting anything that you say I am (paraphrased). He even called out the journalist who was seeking to stir the pot.

Employer, that is part of being and living in America. The freedom of thought/belief. Imagine if every employer started fining and suspended employees due to a different belief? When you talk of lunacy or being dense, that is a good example of it.

A good and honest employer would say, "We don't endorse Kyrie Irving's post. We respect his right to have his beliefs." Ended it there. There is no difference if a non-member posted the Book of Mormon, and then an employer suspended his employee for such because the Book of Mormon talks about color, one good and one bad. Although he doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon but there are aspects in their that vibe with him.  He's not promoting everyone to be a member of the Church. He's not promoting that everyone should be baptized and that all principles in there are correct (from his perspective). Is that a burden you will also gleefully carry?

Edited November 4, 2022 by Anddenex

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is what I'm addressing also. Your first statement is an ad-hominem against him -- "flat earther" -- as if that justifies any attack against him. Due to this belief he has become an easy target (coupled with his vaccination decisions).

If you listened to his words you will recognize he said multiple times, I'm not promoting anything that you say I am (paraphrased). He even called out the journalist who was seeking to stir the pot.

Employer, that is part of being and living in America. The freedom of thought/belief. Imagine if every employer started fining and suspended employees due to a different belief? When you talk of lunacy or being dense, that is a good example of it.

A good and honest employer would say, "We don't endorse Kyrie Irving's post. We respect his right to have his beliefs." Ended it there. There is no difference if a non-member posted the Book of Mormon, and then an employer suspended his employee for such because the Book of Mormon talks about color, one good and one bad. Although he doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon but there are aspects in their that vibe with him/her.

Yup, we’re vastly far apart on this with no agreement.  
 

Calling him a “flat earther” is not a personal attack at all. He’s admitted that’s what he believes. So, it’s using his own words to describe him. You don’t like it and I’m sorry, but that’s what he said. What’s a PC word for flat earther? Sphere denier? 
 

A “good employer” needs to take a nuanced view of her company and realizes that if people think her company is anti-Semitic it’ll destroy that company, leaving to hundreds of layoffs. Especially if that company is in the entertainment world. When you sign the paychecks for thousands of people you’ll begin to realize what a burden it is. 

If I ran a company that had a large LDS base of customers and an employee started Tweeting about how much he hates LDS, I’d fire him immediately. 
 

Kyrie absolutely has the right to free speech. If the government told him to shut his mouth I’d march in the streets with you demanding he be allowed to speak. This has nothing to do with 1984. Which most people claim to have read but few grasp. 
 

If Kyrie didn’t realize the controversy this would create, then yes, he is dense. It does not take a commanding intellect to see how controversial this would be. Heck, I’m the dumbest guy alive and I could see this was a bad idea. 
 

Kyrie does not have the right to force Twitter (or any other private company) to give him a platform. He also has no right to force the Nets to pay him or endorse his views. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

Re: employee stupidity. 
 

Google “Coleman Bonner Gatlinburg”. This degenerate took glee in the Gatlinburg fires that killed people because they were “Trump supporters”. His employer fired him in three seconds, as they should have. And this was on a vastly smaller scale. 
 

https://www.al.com/news/2016/12/alabama_man_loses_job_for_call.html

 

Update-it appears he might have passed away due to mental health issues. As tragic as it is, hate always turns inward. It’s a mathematical certainty. It’s my prayer that God has more compassion than Coleman did. 
 

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/coleman-bonner-obituary?id=36931793

Edited November 4, 2022 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Like Kanye, the right will try to make him a hero without realizing how unstable he is. 

How do you define "hero"?

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you define "hero"?

Fair question. Someone to rally around, admire, use as an example. Not a perfect definition but one I’m comfortable with. 

[Ironhold]

16 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Also, from what I could tell the OK sign is now racist and a sign for white power, which is also the same sign used to sign the number 9 in sign language. Some white power in the "deaf" culture now. It will be interesting to see how more closely we will follow 1984 in not so many years.

A few years ago, members of controversial internet forum 4-Chan came to question whether or not a number of media outlets that identified as politically progressive were actually doing their due diligence or if they were just reporting whatever came their way as truth. 

To this end, they decided to test matters by fabricating a story - the use of the "OK" hand gesture as a white power signal - and feeding it to several of these outlets to see who would take the bait.

The Root, an outlet that focuses on producing content for black audiences, grabbed it hook, line, and sinker. 

Once they ran their piece on the story, other outlets picked up on it and ran it as well, seemingly no one questioning the story or what was happening. 

By the time anyone at 4-Chan publicly revealed what had taken place, *actual* white power groups had adopted the symbol.  

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Yup, we’re vastly far apart on this with no agreement. 

Calling him a “flat earther” is not a personal attack at all. He’s admitted that’s what he believes. So, it’s using his own words to describe him. You don’t like it and I’m sorry, but that’s what he said. What’s a PC word for flat earther? Sphere denier? 
 

A “good employer” needs to take a nuanced view of her company and realizes that if people think her company is anti-Semitic it’ll destroy that company, leaving to hundreds of layoffs. Especially if that company is in the entertainment world. When you sign the paychecks for thousands of people you’ll begin to realize what a burden it is. 

If I ran a company that had a large LDS base of customers and an employee started Tweeting about how much he hates LDS, I’d fire him immediately. 
 

Kyrie absolutely has the right to free speech. If the government told him to shut his mouth I’d march in the streets with you demanding he be allowed to speak. This has nothing to do with 1984. Which most people claim to have read but few grasp. 
 

If Kyrie didn’t realize the controversy this would create, then yes, he is dense. It does not take a commanding intellect to see how controversial this would be. Heck, I’m the dumbest guy alive and I could see this was a bad idea. 
 

Kyrie does not have the right to force Twitter (or any other private company) to give him a platform. He also has no right to force the Nets to pay him or endorse his views. 

Yup, we’re vastly far apart on this with no agreement. 

As pertaining to what is happening with Kyrie, yes, this is probably accurate. As to your examples, we agree to a point, which is very different than what is happening to Kyrie. An ad-hominem can even be used, and is often used when a person describes them as a particularly thing. I am a member of the Church.

The whole concept surrounding an ad-hominem is exactly that, using what the person identifies as while ignoring their claim. The ad-hominem is how we use what a person identifies as or believes in. Its the attack that is important to character or belief.

Example 1: If I ran a company that had a large LDS base of customers and an employee started Tweeting about how much he hates LDS, I’d fire him immediately. 

We differ in our decisions here. As a boss I would look to his output. If he did his job. Worked with the employees who were LDS soundly. If he were a manager and I could see he promoted both LDS and non-LDS. I would keep him -- good employee. This is America. He can choose to hate, love, or anything in between as long as he -- personally -- doesn't threat any personal injury or harm.

Example 2: "Good employer" --

We agree. Response to example 1 already addresses this.

Example 3: Kyrie absolutely has the right to free speech.

I'm not sure you would honestly. I haven't seen you come out -- and I admit I only know you here -- with regards to pronouns. The force of pronouns is exactly that. Are you coming out and marching at all against it?

This has everything to do with 1984, which those who profess to have read it but few grasp (see what I did there?). One of the most important characters is not the main character, nor the individual who slyly caught him. It was the woman highlighted, screaming, throwing tantrum, booing, etc... The government can not gain control without the aid of that type of individual, which is exactly what we see with Kyrie. The "woman" booing, screaming, falling down, pretending offense, or making something offensible that isn't offensive.

Example 4: If Kyrie didn’t realize the controversy this would create, then yes, he is dense.

This isn't accurate also. We all post many things we don't know or realize what it might create or result from. A good example, Lindsay Stirling who wore a dress that was human skin toned, but looked like a risque dress (immodest). Due to the crowd she follows, there was frustration. She didn't think it would cause a stir, in her mind, still modest and technically she was right. I wouldn't call her dense.

Second, this was a published book by a publisher -- not just Amazon -- and probably a smaller company. Where is the outrage for this publishing company? Where is the outrage for those who produced the film? Why all of a sudden is their outrage when this book appears to be a top 10 seller on Amazon the last I read? Nope, but they have chosen a victim who posted the book in a tweet.

"Heck, I’m the dumbest guy alive and I could see this was a bad idea. " -- something you don't really believe, tongue in cheek comment. It's why you let your voice known, because you don't think you are dumb. Similar to Huge Fly Fisherman's hat "I suck at fly fishing" which he totally doesn't believe but will use it when people direct a comment toward something he said.

Example 5: Kyrie does not have the right to force Twitter (or any other private company) to give him a platform. He also has no right to force the Nets to pay him or endorse his views. 

He's not getting paid to endorse his views by the Nets. He's getting paid to play basketball which he is very good at. I don't see anywhere where Kyrie is forcing Twitter or any other company to endorse his views. Can you show me an statement where he has made such a comment? The Nets playing him isn't endorsing anything he does, just as if I worked for Donald Trump doesn't mean I endorse him as a "good" person. I worked for Warren Buffet, does this mean I somehow endorse everything Mr. Buffet does? No. That should be pretty clear, unless someone is really dumb and dense. (Yes, simile face is indicate I'm being snarky with last comment and example 4 ending comment.)

If Kyrie was being paid for what he posted, for the Nets, then the Nets have a right to act against that as that is what they are paying him to do.

Example 6: Google “Coleman Bonner Gatlinburg”. This degenerate took glee in the Gatlinburg fires that killed people because they were “Trump supporters”. His employer fired him in three seconds, as they should have. And this was on a vastly smaller scale. 

And rightfully so with this employer. Did Kyrie post about being gleeful for the Holocaust (did I miss something here?) But, we aren't just talking about posting a book here. This would be like a Church employee who then suspends or fires a non-member for posting a anti-Mormon literature book. And yes I have read some that would like all members to be killed, and I have read comments from anti-Mormons who have said, "I wish all Mormons would die."

But as an employer, a good employer, why would I fire a good employee whose views are different than mine because he posted an anti-Mormon book that is "hateful." I would as a good employer look to his actions at work, not his posts online. Suspense or firing needs to be related to the work he is providing, and how well he/she works with their team or fellow employees.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I'm not sure you would honestly. I haven't seen you come out -- and I admit I only know you here -- with regards to pronouns. The force of pronouns is exactly that. Are you coming out and marching at all against it?

You lost me with this-I don’t follow you. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Fair question. Someone to rally around, admire, use as an example. Not a perfect definition but one I’m comfortable with. 

So I'd say that my concept of a hero is someone who's willing to sacrifice for a greater cause. I'd say Kanye fits.

But let's take your definition. Rally around? Well, yeah...you have a point. Kanye's probably not a great one to rally around. But there's no question that there are those who do rally around him. So... Admire? Well that I don't think can be taken as a whole. It's not just yes or no. It's kind of per thing. I don't admire a lot of what Kanye does. I very much admire some of the things he's doing. Use as an example? Same thing. When it comes to his willingness to stand up against the celebrity narrative and speak his mind, he is a really great example to follow.

I'm not arguing Kanye is a hero. But I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that he is, in many ways. But, yeah...he's pretty messed up (unstable) in other ways. I just don't know the two things are mutually exclusive.

Edited November 4, 2022 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not arguing Kanye is a hero. But I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that he is, in many ways. But, yeah...he's pretty messed up (unstable) in other ways. I just don't know the two things are mutually exclusive.

Understand. Those are all legit points.

[mirkwood]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

• The pro-life activist who was SWAT-ed because he set up a table in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic

 

Factual correction.  He was NOT SWAT-ed, that is entirely different event than being arrested by SWAT.