Kyrie Irving Tweet -- 1984 Type Scenario

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

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.

Truly an excellent book, though I find that its message is often applied incorrectly to current situations.

[Vort]

17 hours ago, Godless said:

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

But they might confuse someone who uses the "okay" sign with a white supremacist. Is that somehow better?

[Carborendum]

41 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

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

I believe there is room to allow it.  Let me explain why I felt justified in using the term in this instance.  And you can correct me if my assumptions are incorrect.

Usually, SWAT is only called in when there is serious threat of highly deadly resistance at the subject location, and it is usually for a grievous offense.  Correct? 

Whether it was a fraudulent call from some anonymous source, or an appointed government official, I see it as the intentionally highly overpowered use of (if you'll forgive this) the "jack-booted thug" tactics by some overzealous individual whose worst crime appeared to equate to spitting on the sidewalk.

And both are politically motivated.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Carborendum

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

But they might confuse someone who uses the "okay" sign with a white supremacist. Is that somehow better?

I'd call it a teachable moment. It's not like the OK sign is the first symbol or gesture to have its meaning turned nefarious. Heck, the OK symbol (along with the thumbs up) itself has been considered offensive in some parts of the Middle East for years.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'd call it a teachable moment. It's not like the OK sign is the first symbol or gesture to have its meaning turned nefarious. Heck, the OK symbol (along with the thumbs up) itself has been considered offensive in some parts of the Middle East for years.

How is it not then a "teachable moment" when some idiot mistakes someone who signs the ASL number nine for a white supremacist? What is the difference?

You do realize that the "white supremacist" OK sign thing is a sheer fabrication, embraced by fools and furthered by those with an agenda. Right?

[NeuroTypical]

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, Godless said:

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

Does that mean if we teach everyone ASL, there won't be any more white supremacists?

(Sorry, this is of course in jest.  I know what you're saying @Godless.  In reality, nothing is ever that easy.)

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe there is room to allow it.  Let me explain why I felt justified in using the term in this instance.  And you can correct me if my assumptions are incorrect.

Usually, SWAT is only called in when there is serious threat of highly deadly resistance at the subject location, and it is usually for a grievous offense.  Correct? 

Whether it was a fraudulent call from some anonymous source, or an appointed government official, I see it as the intentionally highly overpowered use of (if you'll forgive this) the "jack-booted thug" tactics by some overzealous individual whose worst crime appeared to equate to spitting on the sidewalk.

And both are politically motivated.

Swatting is:  the action or practice of making a prank call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address.

 

Much different than being arrested by SWAT.

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Swatting is:  the action or practice of making a prank call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address.

 

Much different than being arrested by SWAT.

I hope that “prank” is a felony. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 11/3/2022 at 8:33 PM, Anddenex said:

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.

 

I looked into this today after reading your post.  It does not appear that he is being suspended because of his apology, but because he doubled down on his original statement.

Originally he supported an anti-Semitic film about the people of African ancestry being the true Jews with the others being fake.  That those we call Jews today culturally appropriated the term and are not really Jews.  It called the Jews various racist items and said that they were conspiring to put Black people down and other such things.  It also had holocaust denial and various other items which are extremely distasteful. 

After Kyrie Irving expressed this statement, he was talked about and asked on whether this was or was not something he actually believed.  In an interview he refused to disavow any of it.  He issued a semi apology saying he was an Omnist and was NOT suspended. 

Quote

I am an OMNIST and I meant no disrespect to anyone’s religious beliefs

The ‘antisemitic’ label that is being pushed on me is not justified and does not reflect the reality or truth I live in everyday. I embrace and want to learn from all walks of life and religions.

However, Charles Barkley (who is Conservative from what I understand) complained about this as well as his cohost Shaquille O'Neill.  This occurred on Nov. 1.

ON Novemeber 2 the Nets issued the following

Quote

The Nets announced on November 2 that the team and Irving would donate $500,000 each "toward causes and organizations that work to eradicate hate and intolerance in our communities" and will be working with the Anti-Defamation League to "develop education programming" to "combat all forms of antisemitism and bigotry." Irving later revealed that he never met with the ADL.

He was finally suspended in response to an interview done on November 3rd.  In it asking about the items that he had stated in the past and if he supported those types of items which were clearly anti-semitic he answered...

Quote

“I cannot be antisemitic if I know where I come from.”  

This was the point which the Commission and the Nets had enough and decided that he was going to support his original statements with out any remorse.  Their response...

Quote

“We were dismayed today, when given an opportunity in a media session, that Kyrie refused to unequivocally say he has no antisemitic beliefs, nor acknowledge specific hateful material in the film. This was not the first time he had the opportunity — but failed — to clarify,” the Nets said in a statement. “Such failure to disavow antisemitism when given a clear opportunity to do so is deeply disturbing, is against the values of our organization, and constitutes conduct detrimental to the team. Accordingly, we are of the view that he is currently unfit to be associated with the Brooklyn Nets.”

 

It was the suspension that apparently finally had him at least acknowledge that he may have hurt people.  ONLY AFTER the suspension did he finally say this morning...

Quote

To All Jewish families and Communities that are hurt and affected from my post, I am deeply sorry to have caused you pain, and I apologize. … I had no intentions to disrespect any Jewish cultural history regarding the Holocaust or perpetuate any hate. I am learning from this unfortunate event and hope we can find understanding between us all.

It seems that the anti-defamation league was so horrified by his actions and statements that his 500K "donation" was refused.  I do not know where he has/is donating that 500K next, or at least attempting to.

The Reason they rejected his donation was stated as

Quote

“cannot in good conscience accept his donation” as it was “clear that Kyrie feels no accountability for his actions.”

As his suspension goes it appears that this is what it contains...

Quote

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."

 

Part of that is to actually meet with some of the Jewish leaders and see who they are and how they really are in person. 

Edit: I should also add that it appears that the NETS ALSO paid out 500K in part for their responsibility as Irving is their player.  It does not say that their payment was rejected.  They ALSO are working with the ADL as they had originally expected Irving to do with them to show their responsibility in all of it as he was playing for them, or so it appears.

Edited November 5, 2022 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Swatting is:  the action or practice of making a prank call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address.

 

Much different than being arrested by SWAT.

There was an article recently that said Marjorie Taylor Greene had been swatted six times!  I don't care what you think of someone politically, that's just evil to do to someone. 

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There was an article recently that said Marjorie Taylor Greene had been swatted six times!  I don't care what you think of someone politically, that's just evil to do to someone. 

Amen. 

[Carborendum]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:33 PM, Anddenex said:

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

Here is where I'd say, YES.  It is oppression.

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Originally he supported an anti-Semitic film about the people of African ancestry being the true Jews with the others being fake....

The film you are speaking of is related to the post he tweeted. The film is based from the book he posted. There are plenty of other books in book stores that do the same thing.

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This was the point which the Commission and the Nets had enough and decided that he was going to support his original statements with out any remorse.  Their response...

Nothing Kyrie has done is deserving of the treatment he is receiving. Lebron James has tweeted far worse things (especially toward LEO without any punishment, and I don't remember any apology from his team nor payment to the LEO for his words). Why then is Kyrie receiving such backlash from donating money to even the team donating money? He is an easy target due to his beliefs and ideology. If Kyrie fell inline like Lebron, we wouldn't be seeing what we are right now.

He doesn't need to have any remorse. He simply posted a book. How many people have posted, read, or endorsed books that are really no different than H2N?

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It was the suspension that apparently finally had him at least acknowledge that he may have hurt people.  ONLY AFTER the suspension did he finally say this morning...

This isn't accurate. You will need to watch what he said previously. He clearly stated his post was not meant to hurt, he even said just because you post a book or documentary it does not mean you believe or support everything in it -- and that is clearly true. How often do I hear a member Democrat say, "I can still be a Democrat and not support everything in it." He also clearly stated he wasn't antisemitic himself, by saying what you already quoted.

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It seems that the anti-defamation league was so horrified by his actions and statements that his 500K "donation" was refused.  I do not know where he has/is donating that 500K next, or at least attempting to.

That's good. Kyrie has money back in his pocket that he shouldn't have ever felt the need to give. He can give that 500K to a more deserving entity if he wants now. The ADL appears to be another erroneous group of individuals, seems similar to the BLM.

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

As his suspension goes it appears that this is what it contains...

Part of that is to actually meet with some of the Jewish leaders and see who they are and how they really are in person. 

And this is what is called "reprogramming." He shouldn't need to apologize. I admire Kyrie for not backing down and doubling down against a progressive form of oppression. Something to consider, look at the difference with Kyrie and Lebron. What did Kyrie post, and what did Lebron post?  Whose tweet was a verbal threat and whose wasn't. How did each team respond? How did Lebron's team handle Lebron and his hateful defamation? Any money? Any true apology to the officer and LEO? Any payment from the team to the LEO for a true written/verbal threat? Any reprogramming for Lebron until he could correctly apologize for a verbal threat to a PO? I can't find any.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

This is great, in light of the irony, and maybe @Godless can give Obama one of those "teaching moments" he is talking about.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

This is great, in light of the irony, and maybe @Godless can give Obama one of those "teaching moments" he is talking about.

From Business Insider:

😉

Edited November 5, 2022 by Godless

[NeuroTypical]

 

People keep missing the importance of 4chan.  The importance, is that 4chan is a cesspool of trollers and kids who like to make people freak out over nothing, and when you hear 'it came from 4chan', that's supposed to be your cue as a thinking human to put LESS weight in it, not more.

Edited November 6, 2022 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, the “blacks are the REAL Hebrews” bit is part and parcel of black supremacy.  
 

I don’t know anything about this particular player, and don’t have a huge amount of knowledge about the book he linked to.  But I have no problem, in principle, with a private association/employer setting terms of behavior/participation on its members/employees, including terms that are intended solely to preserve the “good name” of the association/employer (however the organization chooses to define “good name”).  And if the book is as odious as most other black supremacist stuff I’ve read, I have no problem with NBA players being sanctioned for using their influence to help give it legs.

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, the “blacks are the REAL Hebrews” bit is part and parcel of black supremacy.  
 

I don’t know anything about this particular player, and don’t have a huge amount of knowledge about the book he linked to.  But I have no problem, in principle, with a private association/employer setting terms of behavior/participation on its members/employees, including terms that are intended solely to preserve the “good name” of the association/employer (however the organization chooses to define “good name”).  And if the book is as odious as most other black supremacist stuff I’ve read, I have no problem with NBA players being sanctioned for using their influence to help give it legs.

There is a fine line here that needs to be highlighted:

If a business (like the NBA) realizes that they are losing money because fans are refusing to come to the games because one player did something stupid, then the business can look at the income, salary, and consumer activity and say,"Hey, look.  You're making us look bad.  Can you tone it down?"  And if he doesn't, then they make a financial decision.  An economic decision.  A business decision.

That's quite different than a business saying,"I don't like what he said when speaking his own mind on his own time.  Let's fire him."

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, the “blacks are the REAL Hebrews” bit is part and parcel of black supremacy.

One of my sons served his mission in the Kentucky Louisville mission, and was mostly in southern Indiana. Most of his contacts were black (African American). According to him, this idea of Jewry being black (including Jesus Christ) and having been usurped from this position by conspiring white people is common among African Americans. Obviously, I think this is a beyond-ridiculous conspiracy theory, but I think it's false to claim it's just a lunatic fringe idea. I believe this is actually widely accepted among urban blacks in America. I'm not speaking from a position of authority or personal knowledge, but that is how things have been portrayed to me. Since the NBA is by far majority black and has seen little reason ever to curb anti-white sentiment (witness Lebron James' endless mouth), I find it hard -- read "impossible" -- to believe that this is the first the NBA has ever heard of this, or that Kyrie Irving is the first player ever to believe or even vocalize this.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

There is a fine line here that needs to be highlighted:

If a business (like the NBA) realizes that they are losing money because fans are refusing to come to the games because one player did something stupid, then the business can look at the income, salary, and consumer activity and say,"Hey, look.  You're making us look bad.  Can you tone it down?"  And if he doesn't, then they make a financial decision.  An economic decision.  A business decision.

Why not address the problem before it potentially starts causing financial headaches? 

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Why not address the problem before it potentially starts causing financial headaches? 

Minority Report?

Do we fire a person because he "might" be a problem?  That's not how business operates.

I said that they need to make a business decision, not a political one.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

13 hours ago, Godless said:

Why not address the problem before it potentially starts causing financial headaches? 

Any team that hires Kyrie to play basketball has no right to complain. He’s shown his true colors again and again. 
 

If a team hires him and is shocked about the drama he creates-well, don’t marry a women who has cheated on all five of her husbands thinking she'll be loyal to you this time. 
 

I’m not sure that the champions of free speech understand that while you are free to speak your mind, you are not free to choose how people react to it. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

Another interesting thing here: Kyrie has failed to do his job, which is to help his team win games. If you fail to do your job but enjoy tweeting controversial things, your boss has every right to tell you to clean out your desk too. 

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Minority Report?

Do we fire a person because he "might" be a problem?  That's not how business operates.

I said that they need to make a business decision, not a political one.

That's a bad analogy. In Minority Report, people were arrested before doing anything wrong. There's usually a small window between the time that an unsavory act is committed (or made public) and the resulting fallout. A good example of this would be Jon Gruden's hasty exit from the Raiders organization after troubling emails from him were made public. Gruden gets cancelled and the Raiders avoid a PR disaster. Getting ahead of a problem is good for business. It's also morally right (a rare trait in the corporate world) to address a problem before people start sharpening their pitchforks.