Kyrie Irving Tweet -- 1984 Type Scenario


Anddenex
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/6/2022 at 11:24 AM, NeuroTypical said:

image.thumb.png.ec5d3baaad0ec957bb0aaf4a9354cf6f.png

 

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.

4-Chan is a *lot* more complicated than this. 

The forum likes to brag that the collective mass of users represents "Weaponized Autism", in that once they set their minds to something they can get significant results. 

The trade-off, however, is that 4-Chan allows itself to be the internet's last remaining "Wild West", with limited moderation and no real breaks to discourage users from engaging in what would typically be regarded as anti-social behavior. 

In some instances, 4-Chan has been motivated to use this power for good. For example, there are numerous reports of users coming together in order to track down criminals and pass the information they've gathered on to law enforcement. They've also used this power to cause considerable mischief, such as finding the various hiding sights for Shia LeBeouf's "He Will Not Divide Us" flags and live performance areas. And as I noted before, they'll sometimes conduct what they regard as "sting" operations in the belief that they're exposing flaws or problems within a system. 

The problem though is that 4-Chan also has a significant reputation for hooliganism due to the same "target acquired" mindset, leading to a lot of users engaging in inexcusable trolling and other behaviors that themselves occasionally rise to criminal levels. 

Most long-time internet users who are aware of 4-Chan treat it as the internet's version of Mos Eisley from "Star Wars", giving the forums a wide berth and carefully evaluating any and all reports regarding the forums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Godless said:

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. 

Right, let's follow this line of thinking. An employer recognizes they hired a "trans" individual. They recognize that this "trans" may cause issues. They have seen some posts they don't agree with, separate from their job responsibilities, so they take action. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known.

An employer recognizes they hired a white male Christian. They have seen some of his posts about loving God and country, which many people hate. Seeing that this might cause some issues, they take action before it turns into something worse. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known.

We now are walking a thin line here and a very slippery slope. This line of thinking seems very similar to Facebook and Twitter's community guidelines. Seems to me once again something can be weaponized against people.

Edited by Anddenex
changed you to we now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Right, let's follow this line of thinking. An employer recognizes they hired a "trans" individual. They recognize that this "trans" may cause issues. They have seen some posts they don't agree with, separate from their job responsibilities, so they take action. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known.

An employer recognizes they hired a white male Christian. They have seen some of his posts about loving God and country, which many people hate. Seeing that this might cause some issues, they take action before it turns into something worse. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known.

We now are walking a thin line here and a very slippery slope. This line of thinking seems very similar to Facebook and Twitter's community guidelines. Seems to me once again something can be weaponized against people.

You've just demonstrated the importance of strong anti-discrimination laws, as well as the reason why many people don't name their employers on social media. I adopted that policy after I got a (very mild) talking to after someone complained to my employer about a Halloween picture that I had posted on my personal FB page (which irked me immensely because it means the complainer was on my friend list). 

Screenshot_20221107_224332.thumb.jpg.8812f64b239a2991c1d32ae61d3c4a5f.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

You've just demonstrated the importance of strong anti-discrimination laws, as well as the reason why many people don't name their employers on social media. I adopted that policy after I got a (very mild) talking to after someone complained to my employer about a Halloween picture that I had posted on my personal FB page (which irked me immensely because it means the complainer was on my friend list).

I'm simply following the lines of your thinking, thought. How far do you want to go. If you say, an employer should address the problem before it starts, then this can include anything and everything.

I'm already good with laws in place, including anti-discrimination -- that would mean against Kyrie, those who aren't vaccinated, etc... But, correct me if I'm wrong, you are/were OK with companies discriminating against people who aren't vaccinated.

If what a person does, affects their work (what they were hired to do), then the company has every right, moral right, to act in their best interest. Easy example, I don't care if you drink and your employer shouldn't also (excluding obvious work places, and we shouldn't have to go into detail if we are being honest with ourselves) unless you come to work drunk, cause a ruckus, and are unable to do the job you are being paid for. Then, this is good means to talk to someone.

Or maybe, let's continue down this rabbit hole. Employer knows you drink alcohol. This isn't an organization, a private Church (including a Muslim, Christian, etc...). Employer knows that drinking has lead to many issues -- death for one. Employer pulls employee in and says, I notice you drink. We are going to suspend you without pay because you drink, and we have seen the result of what drinking "can" lead to -- not that it does. If you want to continue working and get paid you will need to stop drinking.

How far do you want to take this? Is it OK to discriminate against Kyrie for his beliefs, it appears you say it is, but then you will say they can't -- anti-discrimination.

EDIT: I didn't notice what the heck that costume was! Lol, took me a moment. I would say your employer and friend I suppose online needs to have a sense of humor. It's a costume.

Now, if you had dressed like a hooker (unable to figure out strike through), sorry, I mean lady of the night, with a g-string, and bunny ears I might say the employer is on to something when talking to you, but that is only if you were a model and you modeled lingerie and you were modeling a competitors line of clothing.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

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. 

Well, he is doing better than Lebron (Nets have a better record this year), and gets paid less than Lebron. So, he is out performing the self-proclaimed "GOAT" of basketball. Seems like he is doing his job.

Now we are talking about something solid, with meat. If you are hired to do a job and are unable to do it, well, that goes without saying. I doubt anyone here, including myself, would complain if they let him go or suspended him to some degree/level if he played 45 minutes and only scored 3 points. That seems like a legit reason to go over ones contract who is making roughly 35 million a year.

These really aren't comparable. Suspended for a post about a book. Suspended for not doing your job. Seems one is right and the other is reactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Right, let's follow this line of thinking. An employer recognizes they hired a "trans" individual. They recognize that this "trans" may cause issues. They have seen some posts they don't agree with, separate from their job responsibilities, so they take action. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known.

An employer recognizes they hired a white male Christian. They have seen some of his posts about loving God and country, which many people hate. Seeing that this might cause some issues, they take action before it turns into something worse. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known.

We now are walking a thin line here and a very slippery slope. This line of thinking seems very similar to Facebook and Twitter's community guidelines. Seems to me once again something can be weaponized against people.

Let's take it another direction.

Should a private corporation or company or even individual be FORCED to pay someone they don't want to pay.  Should they be FORCED to retain someone they want to fire. 

If they are going to be forced to hire and keep someone who they cannot fire, even if they have various rules that would say they could fire them from the company, what reason does that company have to even stay in business. 

When the government takes so much control as to say laws that only apply to the government now must apply to the business to the point the government can dicate to the business who is to be hired, who is to be fired, and what they must or must not allow their employee to do...what reason does the business owner even have to stay in business.

Yet, here...we are saying that the government should dictate to a business that is NOT a government entity, but combines other business entities with OWNERS what they can or cannot do, who they must hire, who they can't fire, and how they SHOULD handle their own employees to the point that we will dictate every move.

There are some areas which the US dictates these things today, but thus far it hasn't gone THAT far where we dictate every move a company has to make or make it illegal for them to put an employee on a PIP if they feel they need to do so. 

In your above example, in an at-will state, a business or company could fire both individuals just because they feel like it and it is a bad match and won't have to even say why.  One could try to prove that it was for discrimination, but in most cases good luck with that.

In states with more protections, they may have problems as research would show there could be a possible connection where a business is unable to discriminate due to sex, gender, religion, race, or other aspects of employment law.  The firing is already illegal, though PIPs or other things are not in many cases. 

The best bet is if you are religious and are employed by a company hostile to your religion, it may be a good idea to start searching for a job elsewhere if in the US.  A smart company would start looking for reasons to fire for cause (rather than discrimination) and document such things to try to say they had a reason to fire you, even if we all knew the REAL reason was due to race/religion/sex or gender/etc....

These cases can be won, but they tend to be harder to prove at times unless the employer was flagrant about it or just didn't know enough to hide their tracks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Godless said:

That's a bad analogy. In Minority Report, people were arrested before doing anything wrong.

That is the very argument you're making.  Not me.

20 hours ago, Godless said:

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. 

You've just made a perfect argument for racist hiring policies of the past.

9 hours ago, Godless said:

You've just demonstrated the importance of strong anti-discrimination laws, as well as the reason why many people don't name their employers on social media. I adopted that policy after I got a (very mild) talking to after someone complained to my employer about a Halloween picture that I had posted on my personal FB page (which irked me immensely because it means the complainer was on my friend list).

This is a real curiosity.  You cannot fire someone for causing psychological harm to themselves and others around them while at work (flamboyant transgenderism).  But you can fire someone for making a political statement on their own time.

I'll have to digest that for a while.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I'm already good with laws in place, including anti-discrimination -- that would mean against Kyrie, those who aren't vaccinated, etc... But, correct me if I'm wrong, you are/were OK with companies discriminating against people who aren't vaccinated.

In the case of vaccines, there was a clear liability concern. Unvaxxed employee gets COVID, brings it to the workplace and infects another unvaxxed employee, who dies as a result. The employer could have prevented this with a vaccine mandate. Personally, I don't necessarily think the employer should be held liable, but the courts may disagree. The vaccine issue carries a burden of public safety that the statuses protected by Title VII do not.

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

If what a person does, affects their work (what they were hired to do), then the company has every right, moral right, to act in their best interest. Easy example, I don't care if you drink and your employer shouldn't also (excluding obvious work places, and we shouldn't have to go into detail if we are being honest with ourselves) unless you come to work drunk, cause a ruckus, and are unable to do the job you are being paid for. Then, this is good means to talk to someone.

Or maybe, let's continue down this rabbit hole. Employer knows you drink alcohol. This isn't an organization, a private Church (including a Muslim, Christian, etc...). Employer knows that drinking has lead to many issues -- death for one. Employer pulls employee in and says, I notice you drink. We are going to suspend you without pay because you drink, and we have seen the result of what drinking "can" lead to -- not that it does. If you want to continue working and get paid you will need to stop drinking.

How far do you want to take this? Is it OK to discriminate against Kyrie for his beliefs, it appears you say it is, but then you will say they can't -- anti-discrimination.

EDIT: I didn't notice what the heck that costume was! Lol, took me a moment. I would say your employer and friend I suppose online needs to have a sense of humor. It's a costume.

 

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is a real curiosity.  You cannot fire someone for causing psychological harm to themselves and others around them while at work (flamboyant transgenderism).  But you can fire someone for making a political statement on their own time.

I'll have to digest that for a while.

To expand further on the situation with my former employer (my boss thought the costume was hilarious, FWIW), that company has new hires sign a series of agreements regarding behaviors that could result in discipline or termination. Among those was an online activity agreement. If something you posted online (or a viral video/image of you taken by someone else) put the company's public image at risk, you could be written up or terminated, even if you weren't on the clock when the online activity took place. In a time when people are seen on the news and on Facebook videos burning down police stations and breaking windows at the US Capitol, employers are often finding themselves on the defensive regarding the people they employ and their extracurricular activities. Tolerance is thin for off-the-clock behavior that causes PR problems for the company in today's outrage culture. Because of that, even though I wasn't technically in trouble for my photo, I was advised to remove my employer's name from my social media if I was going to post things that might rub people the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

In the case of vaccines, there was a clear liability concern. Unvaxxed employee gets COVID, brings it to the workplace and infects another unvaxxed employee, who dies as a result. The employer could have prevented this with a vaccine mandate. Personally, I don't necessarily think the employer should be held liable, but the courts may disagree. The vaccine issue carries a burden of public safety that the statuses protected by Title VII do not.

Good, let's run with this thought, how far do you want this to go then. Your concern here is death, with the "assumption" it could happen. Let's continue with someone who drinks. We know that people who drink are more likely to drive drunk. Company recognizes this, recognizes the person they hired -- who is driving into work -- might actually be drunk. This might look bad on the company. This means they decide to fire or not hire someone who drinks alcohol because they might drive drunk and kill someone on their way to work. Drinking while driving carries a burden of public safety.

Easy examples, Taxi drivers, truck drivers, anyone who may or potentially drive a car (car rental places that pick people up). If I follow your line of thinking, because of a known cause of death, the company can now discriminate against hiring and firing an employee for simply "drinking."

1 hour ago, Godless said:

To expand further on the situation with my former employer (my boss thought the costume was hilarious, FWIW), that company has new hires sign a series of agreements regarding behaviors that could result in discipline or termination. Among those was an online activity agreement. If something you posted online (or a viral video/image of you taken by someone else) put the company's public image at risk, you could be written up or terminated, even if you weren't on the clock when the online activity took place. In a time when people are seen on the news and on Facebook videos burning down police stations and breaking windows at the US Capitol, employers are often finding themselves on the defensive regarding the people they employ and their extracurricular activities. Tolerance is thin for off-the-clock behavior that causes PR problems for the company in today's outrage culture. Because of that, even though I wasn't technically in trouble for my photo, I was advised to remove my employer's name from my social media if I was going to post things that might rub people the wrong way.

I don't mind this, you signed the contract. If Kyrie signed a contract, and was asked to remove something (which he eventually did) that solves the issue right there. Making things up, creating a "reprogramming" course, so that you have to think the way they do...it appears you would be good if your company had done that to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Good, let's run with this thought, how far do you want this to go then. Your concern here is death, with the "assumption" it could happen. Let's continue with someone who drinks. We know that people who drink are more likely to drive drunk. Company recognizes this, recognizes the person they hired -- who is driving into work -- might actually be drunk. This might look bad on the company. This means they decide to fire or not hire someone who drinks alcohol because they might drive drunk and kill someone on their way to work. Drinking while driving carries a burden of public safety.

Easy examples, Taxi drivers, truck drivers, anyone who may or potentially drive a car (car rental places that pick people up). If I follow your line of thinking, because of a known cause of death, the company can now discriminate against hiring and firing an employee for simply "drinking."

As I said, I personally don't believe that an employer should be held liable in the vaccination scenario. Because you're right, it opens up a lot of other hypotheticals. Technically, though, none of that matters because "at will" employment is more or less the law of the land. So long as Title VII and state AD laws aren't broken, an employer can terminate you for drinking, smoking, gambling, or having a bad haircut. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the reality of labor laws in this country.

12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I don't mind this, you signed the contract. If Kyrie signed a contract, and was asked to remove something (which he eventually did) that solves the issue right there.

The contract was a courtesy to employees to let us know how the company feels about making them look bad. Legally speaking, it probably wasn't necessary. 

12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Making things up, creating a "reprogramming" course, so that you have to think the way they do...it appears you would be good if your company had done that to you?

No, I would have quit. Kyrie has that option too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Godless said:

No, I would have quit. Kyrie has that option too.

He doesn’t want to quit playing basketball. The one thing he dislikes more than anything is being ignored. 
 

He is so arrogant that he not only thinks he’s smarter than you, he thinks the peons are missing out by not hearing and obeying him. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 8:52 PM, Vort said:

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.

Being a resident of that mission, allow me to clarify that this is not widely accepted. The vast majority of black Christianity in this area is still heavily influenced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That form of black supremacy doesn't fly around here.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find practicing black ministers that perpetuate that belief.  My impression from living here is that those who are most likely to subscribe to that idea are those that are working political angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:
On 11/6/2022 at 5:52 PM, Vort said:

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.

Being a resident of that mission, allow me to clarify that this is not widely accepted. The vast majority of black Christianity in this area is still heavily influenced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That form of black supremacy doesn't fly around here.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find practicing black ministers that perpetuate that belief.  My impression from living here is that those who are most likely to subscribe to that idea are those that are working political angles.

Allow me to clarify: By "widely accepted", I didn't necessarily mean a majority believe that. I don't know the percentages. Rather, my point was that this is not some cockamamie idea dreamed up by Kyrie Irving or his friends, or even believed only by a tiny minority of paranoid conspiracy theorists. This at least was my son's impression. I know that pictures of "Black Jesus" are common in that area, even in the LDS meetinghouse in Chicago that, until recently, my son attended with his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

paranoid conspiracy theorists.

I agree totally with you that the belief Kyrie is throwing around is a delusional conspiracy theory. 
 

What I find fascinating is how we would react if someone tried to dismiss what we believe as “delusional conspiracy theories.” One man’s version of truth is another man’s version of delusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Allow me to clarify: By "widely accepted", I didn't necessarily mean a majority believe that. I don't know the percentages. Rather, my point was that this is not some cockamamie idea dreamed up by Kyrie Irving or his friends, or even believed only by a tiny minority of paranoid conspiracy theorists. This at least was my son's impression. I know that pictures of "Black Jesus" are common in that area, even in the LDS meetinghouse in Chicago that, until recently, my son attended with his family.

Black Jesus in art is very different animal though. There most definitely has been an increase in representations of Christ outside of the Caucasian Jesus that is prevalent in religious are in the public domain (and for a long time, a lot of the art the Church used was used because it was in the public domain). These representations have more to do with helping Christians recognize that the mission of Christ is multi-cultural and multi-racial. The Historical Jesus, so to speak, is of less significance than the Jesus that understands and relates to my cultural background. Personally, I find it it be a beautiful and inspiring thing. 

I know I risk harping on this; I just don't want to see this awesome cultural trend get swept up in the same breath as the Black Jesus Conspiracy theory.  They really are two very different things.

For some fun, I went looking through the art work in the past few iterations of the Church's international art competition.  I was able to find two instances of Arabic Jesus (here and here) and one of Mexican Jesus (here) and another with darker skin, though I'm not sure if any racial/ethnic representation was intended (here). Still, the majority of the renditions of Jesus in those are shows are very pale (even when accounting for limitations of the medium). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
42 minutes ago, Vort said:

paranoid conspiracy theorists.

I agree totally with you that the belief Kyrie is throwing around is a delusional conspiracy theory. 
 

What I find fascinating is how we would react if someone tried to dismiss what we believe as “delusional conspiracy theories.” One man’s version of truth is another man’s version of delusion. 

I think you misread my post, which attempted to state that the idea of black Jewry was not merely a paranoid conspiracy theory.

That is to say, it is a conspiracy theory, and it is most certainly paranoid. But it's not only that, just some fringe idea. Rather, it appears that a sizeable number of African Americans believe it. Or perhaps not; MOE is not convinced. But in any case, that was my point.

And I think we know the attitude toward us of those who loathe Joseph Smith, or for that matter Russell Nelson or Dallin Oaks. I care as much about their opinions as I expect most "black Jewry" believers care about mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a multi-faceted, interesting situation for thought. I have a few questions for consideration:

1. Do we, as Latter-day Saints, not believe the tribes of Israel were scattered and ancestors of various races the world over at some level? Heck, don't we believe the Native Americans to be Hebrews? Is that not the same theory the book proposes of Africans? Do we not accept that potential reality?

2. Is it anti-Christian to point out that that Christians engaged in certain things? (Like the Crusades or the inquisition burning witches). No one calls someone anti-Christian for merely pointing out that Christians actually engaged in those things. So is it or is it not fair that if someone suggests Jews engaged in certain things it is labelled immediately anti-Semitic? This is really interesting to consider. Obviously the difference is the oppression and hatred the Jews have faced, with similar accusations (false or not) being leveled as justification. But the implication of saying, the Christians once engaged in burning people as witches unfairly -- doesn't read as, "so let's kill them all in retribution". But suggesting the Jews engaged in any given thing does, indeed, read as just such. Which could be used, in theory, as a suppression of fact/truth.

3. Is it really reasonable to believe that in the entire history of time, since the killing of Jesus, that the Jews have never engaged in anything fishy? (I'm not saying they have or have not. I'm just thinking through the implications here.)

4. Does saying that "some-group" engaged in something automatically mean every member of "some-group" did it? As in, "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is a factually true statement. Is saying that anti-Mormon? I think we tend to take it that way with Jews though. (I suppose in our sensitive moments, and in context, we take that sort of thing as anti-Mormon too...so....)

"The Jews did such-n-such" is automatically read as ALL Jews were engaged in some sort of hive-mind action and they're all to blame. For example, you'll often see the theoretically anti-Semitic idea that Jews control certain industries. And factually they likely do. But saying so is taken to mean the universal "Jews" rather than some Jews. It's really interesting to consider. (I'm not suggesting right or wrong here...just thinking through things.)

5. So the book proposes that "the Jews" suppressed the truth of the Hebrew roots of the literally Semitic tribes in Africa. And because of the history of Jew-blame leading to horrific things, this is immediately written off as being unworthy of consideration because it's anti-Semitic (ignoring the fact that Semitic is a much broader term than "Jew") because it must mean all Jews and will lead to horrific things, the implication being Jews are evil or something. And the truth of anti-Jew sentiment has, historically, done exactly that. and therefore, the response is understandable. But is truth, in  such cases, potentially being suppressed at times because of that sort of response?

I don't claim to have answers to all of this. And I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be highly wary of things that are critical of "the Jews". But having a certain group that is entirely above criticism for any reason strikes me as dangerous. Alternatively embracing any criticism of the Jews feels....you know...dangerous.

As for Kyrie Irving, he clearly stated he didn't embrace everything in the book. What interested him was the Hebrew thread to Africa. Which is, as I pointed out, something we believe too.

The fact that some are translating that thread to mean Blacks are Jews is semantic ignorance. It would be like us trying to claim Native Americans are Jews. Hebrew is not synonymous with "Jew". And neither is Semitic. It seems Semitic is a broader term than even Hebrew. And Hebrew is broader than Jew. Just because your chihuahua is a dog doesn't make it a Golden Retriever. But pointing out that your chihuahua is a "dog" and that some people consider Golden Retrievers to be the only real "dogs" and that chihuahuas are rats rather than dogs is not anti-Canine. (Which is exactly what is being said when they state "I can't be anti-Semitic". They are saying they are Semitic too.) Note: Just to be clear, the chihuahua/Golden Retriever was a totally random choice and is not meaning to compare any race to a specific breed of dog. It was meant only to discuss the language in an easy to understand way. Jews are Hebrews who are Semitic, just as chihuahuas are dogs who are canines. That doesn't work the other way. All Semitic people are not Hebrews and all Hebrew people are not Jews. Even then it doesn't work perfectly as an example, because I'm comparing language classifications to racial classifications, which is exactly the comparison I'm trying to make. Yes, I'm overexplaining this, but that's because I've found historically that people either willfully or ignorantly misunderstand analogies and expect someone to reply, "How dare you suggest black people are rat dogs!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The fact that some are translating that thread to mean Blacks are Jews is semantic ignorance.

Semitic ignorance.

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But pointing out that your chihuahua is a "dog" and that some people consider Golden Retrievers to be the only real "dogs" and that chihuahuas are rats rather than dogs is not anti-Canine.

But perhaps anti-Canaanite, which would be anti-Semitic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another YouTube video that highlights what is happening also with Kyrie.

I have seen few videos from this woman. and what she has shared is very interesting. If sincere, and I can't say otherwise, when someone from North Korea points out ideologies that are prevalent in America -- resembling a communist country -- it is a little concerning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2022 at 8:50 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

4. Does saying that "some-group" engaged in something automatically mean every member of "some-group" did it? As in, "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is a factually true statement. Is saying that anti-Mormon? I think we tend to take it that way with Jews though. (I suppose in our sensitive moments, and in context, we take that sort of thing as anti-Mormon too...so....)

This is the only part I would have a different opinion with as a result of actually speaking with anti-Mormons, and how these anti-Mormons have used this.

Mormon, represents a group of people, its teachings, and its organization. This group has a leader. If the leader -- President Young -- had authorized the attack, then the statement "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is factually correct. When a "Mormon" decided to do something on his own accord the statement no longer is factually correct because it wasn't "The Mormons" it was an individual who belonged to the Mormon Church that acted outside of its teachings and against its leader.

Let me clarify, when I used to engage in debate/argument on YouTube with anti-Mormons and those I wouldn't consider anti but didn't agree with the Church I came across an interesting post/comment, "I hate the Mormons! The Mormons raped my friend"! In the same light, this isn't factually correct.

To say "The Mormons" you are tying the comment to the Church, it's beliefs, its people as a whole organization. In both cases this is an individual or individuals who professed to belong to the Church but did not abide by it's teachings.

So, if someone says, "The Mormons...." I will definitely consider that person "anti" depending on the scenario. They are seeking to paint a small group of individuals as the whole Church -- which isn't factually accurate.

A different example. In high school a friend of mine was gunned down by a black gang -- drive by shooting. If I started using this as a tool to show how "bad" black people are -- then yes -- a person has every right to consider me "anti" black. Especially if I said, "The blacks killed my friend." Factually this is incorrect. He may have been killed by a number of black man, but it wasn't "The blacks" who killed my friend. I'm likening a small group or individual to a whole population, which would be factually incorrect and wrong to do.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize the NBA is NOT a government entity.  It is a business.

Right?

The great thing about the US is that PEOPLE (including BUSINESSES that are OWNED by people) have more freedom to do what they want, rather than be dictated what they have to do.

I see MANY who WANT the government to dictate to people who own businesses what they MUST do.

There is a BIG difference between a business and the  people who own it doing what they WANT to do (including telling an employee [who can quite if they wish rather than being put in prison or executed] to stop doing something or if that employee wants to stay as an employee or be hired what they must do to remain so) and being DICTATED what they MUST do by a government.

It still happens in the US, but to compare it to N. Korea or other places is not something that is really logical.

I see there are many out there that are confused WHY businesses can actually DO things that they WANT to do.  Many of these people want to take away the FREEDOM of these businessmen in ORDER to force them to do certain things.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences, but freedom to say what you want without the government coming and killing you or giving you long lengthy prison sentences.

Kyrie can stop playing basketball anytime he wants without fear of being executed or a life long stay in prison.  This is one of the wonderful things about the United States that many places do not have. 

In addition, the business owner can set limitations on their employees in a freer manner than almost anywhere else in the world (limitations normally revolve around safety and discrimination) without fear of being executed (such as what happens in China when business owners don't do what the government tells them, perhaps Kyrie would feel more at home there...of course...he wouldn't have the freedom to say what he wants either...but he could get the business owners executed if they wanted to do what they do here as well) or sent to long prison sentences (also China).

Why is it that you stand for trying to say Irving is being persecuted, but seem to want to do so by abridging the rights of a LOT of other citizens in the United States.

The United States is a nation which allows a LOT of freedom, and it is NOT just limited to a certain group of people.  If I start a business and then make it a corporation, I have a LOT more freedom to say and do what I want with that business than many other places around the world.  That is because such actions are protected in the United States.

Even when people do not like my actions and call for my freedom to be abridged, luckily I would still be able to do as I WANT with MY business, even if it is a corporation in which I only own a majority of stock.

However, it does not mean people have to buy what I am producing, or making.  Freedom allows them to choose as well.

IF WE force the abridgment of other's freedoms to do what they want with their businesses, eventually it will funnel back into where WE, individually, ALSO may lose freedoms. 

 

PS: When posting items from Yeonmi Park, why not use HER youtube channel instead of a anti-science organization that has rejected that smoking was bad for health as well as working hand in hand with tobacco companies in the few decades to promote smoking as healthy and reject the science behind showing smoking causes cancer in second hand smoke and other such items in the past?

In the video it appears she is addressing the "woke" ideas that are perpetuating in the university/education systems today.  This is not necessarily businesses, though it obviously is applicable seeing that Columbia university is a private university and not a government run institute. 

Her youtube channel is located (if I got the link correct) here.

Voice of North Korea

This would be her Youtube channel.

In that regards, once again, when wondering WHY businesses may cater to such groups as the "Woke" crowd...the same freedoms apply again.

The consequences of NOT catering may be more costly than catering to them.  Freedom to choose does not mean freedom from consequence.  By choosing NOT to cater to them it could mean lost sales and less money.  Just as a business is free to make choices and decisions, so are customers.  They can choose to buy, support, or spend their money how they like.

Why...

Because this is America, and we have more freedom here than most places in the world.

People get confused between freedom of speech and action, and freedom of consequences all the time.  Freedom of speech means that the government cannot go and punish you for making or dong things.  It cannot force you to say or do things in that same manner.

However, that freedom is not just for one person or one class, it applies to everyone.  That includes businessmen as well as employees, employers as well as employees.  We DO have limitations set on businesses and those who own them so they are not as free as others in the nation already (they are not allowed to discriminate for example), but they STILL have many freedoms that we probably should not abridge lest we start down that dark path towards the abridgment of everyone's freedoms.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This is the only part I would have a different opinion with as a result of actually speaking with anti-Mormons, and how these anti-Mormons have used this.

I don't disagree with this. I just think it's interesting to ponder. Saying "The Mormon's...." is actually quite in line with the idea of saying, "The Jews..." or saying "The blacks..." or the like. It's really just a question of whether it always should be taken as anti-whatever. Maybe it should. I'm certainly not arguing it shouldn't. I'm just posing the question as food for thought on these issues. But I can see how someone (perhaps foolishly) in saying such a thing may not have actually meant it in a racist way. See Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue jokes on the matter. "Two words one should never say together.... 'the' and 'Jews'...."

Saying "the" and anything runs the risk of being a statement of stereotyping. The Mormons. The Blacks. The Jews. The Baptists. The White Men. The Chinese. But you can solve most of that by swapping the word "the" for the word "some" or a "a few". But often, even then, it's still taken as racist/prejudice, particularly with Jews. I think saying, "Some Jews....." or even "A few Jews..." would be looked at as just as anti-Semitic as as saying "The Jews..."

In other words, the broad point I'm trying to make is that certain things are more sensitive than others due to historical prejudice, and that sensitivity, while understandable, can make it difficult to speak of things frankly and factually in certain instances, which is a theoretical problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You realize the NBA is NOT a government entity.  It is a business.

Right?

Mindblown, NBA is not a government entity? Dang I was taught the wrong thing in school!

Columbia University, government or private?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 but they STILL have many freedoms that we probably should not abridge lest we start down that dark path towards the abridgment of everyone's freedoms.

Already heading down that dark path -- and why shouldn't those freedoms be abridged -- if others can be abridged and you are OK with it, why not others?

Are we going to realize what has been lost sooner, or be like the Germans who found out to late? If you are OK with some abridgements, what makes then your opinion on what others shouldn't be abridged as valid? What if someone disagrees and then it is abridged? Will you stand for it?

What I have noticed is that individuals who make excuses for one thing will make excuses just as easily for another as long as they can justify the decision logically and rationally. Look at the riots as a perfect example, and hearing people "justify" the actions.

We live in a world where calling a woman a woman and a man a man is now hate speech an exciting violence. Yes, already down this dark path dear brother where good is evil and evil is good. We will sadly see more of this as time passes on, as God begins to make the dark deeds apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share