Regarding closure of playoff threads

[whozit]

No, the vast majority are not for police brutality. But there is no one definition of police brutality. Qualified immunity allows police to do as they please. When no one ever sees consequences for actions taken by police, there is no baseline of where that police brutality line is. So it allows people to be able to justify violence as they see fit in order to stay consistent with their personal views.

See, we aren't necessarily that far apart. I think qualified immunity needs clarification for when and where it applies. There was a good article, if accurate, on the history of it. And another on what parts of the country it is more readily given. Both of those were done by Reuters. They have a different take than either the liberal or conservative stations.

They also had one on the contracts given. Nothing like a powerful union. How do you balance employment privacy like what the average joe has in regards to who can see what is in your personal file and issues that should be available to any future law enforcement employers that the individual may apply at? Subordination, probably not because some bosses are simply incompetent or plum ass wipes. Excessive force? Should be but isn't. I don't know how to balance those.

 

[kb02]

Comical when guys fall for lebrons bull crap
The media tried to paint him as some leader the past couple days I knew it was bull crap. He just wants to look “wok” and look good for his worshippers and some people actually buy it. Of course he was mad at the Bucks for not announcing there plans to boycott he wanted to do it first it was and always will be about “the king” to him

This happens each generation within families. The transition is almost always awkward. Sounds like that's the case now. And as it relates to Lebron, it's not that he's a bad leader, it's that he's on an island within an island--dude is the best in the world (his own island) and is also the last of his generation (Wade is retired, Melo should be retired, CP is really from the generation after him).

That said, Lebron has always been on a tight rope. He has billions and can walk away. A bunch of young bucks are still living pay check to pay check--despite their millions. Effectively, he's the old man telling others to get off his lawn.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Why do you think everyone needs to see it the way those presenting it want you to and no other way?

How I think people should see things is not important. The point is, that nobody is the villain of their own story. And nobody who supports what I would call police brutality thinks that they are supporting police brutality, because they're not drawing the line on where 'police brutality' starts in the same place that I am. That's why I said what I said: you responded to a comment of "If we all agreed that there should be zero acts of police brutality, then the issue would be resolved" with "I am not sure anybody supporting police brutality." What I am saying is that the reason why the issue won't be resolved any time soon is because we don't all agree that there should be zero acts of police brutality. It's just that the people who support police brutality would never say that, in public. Whether that's because they don't think of it as police brutality, or because they simply have enough "sense" to not say the quiet part out loud... I can't read minds, so I can't say.

I can accept what and why something is done doesn't mean I have to approve of them doing it.

I find these statements to be incongruous; we may not be working from the same definition of "accept."

In fact, when did I ever lose the right to be offended? To find something disrespectful even if I can accept that that is their choice AND right to do so.

Whose right to do what? Engage in police brutality? Isn't that what we're talking about, here?

My child is making choices that I don't approve of, me accepting those choices doesn't mean I approve of them.

Do the choices that you don't approve of your child making cause physical or material harm to anyone other than your child? Because I hope that what isn't happening here is somebody taking an issue, and presenting it in a manner that dilutes or removes all of the nuance and context from that issue, and then holding another issue next to it, and asking, "Well, aren't these two things the same?" Because I can't imagine what bearing your child's behavior could have on a conversation about police brutality, unless your child is a police officer, who has been charged and/or accused of engaging in police brutality.

 

[burekijogurt]

How I think people should see things is not important. The point is, that nobody is the villain of their own story. And nobody who supports what I would call police brutality thinks that they are supporting police brutality, because they're not drawing the line on where 'police brutality' starts in the same place that I am. That's why I said what I said: you responded to a comment of "If we all agreed that there should be zero acts of police brutality, then the issue would be resolved" with "I am not sure anybody supporting police brutality." What I am saying is that the reason why the issue won't be resolved any time soon is because we don't all agree that there should be zero acts of police brutality. It's just that the people who support police brutality would never say that, in public. Whether that's because they don't think of it as police brutality, or because they simply have enough "sense" to not say the quiet part out loud... I can't read minds, so I can't say.


I find these statements to be incongruous; we may not be working from the same definition of "accept."


Whose right to do what? Engage in police brutality? Isn't that what we're talking about, here?


Do the choices that you don't approve of your child making cause physical or material harm to anyone other than your child? Because I hope that what isn't happening here is somebody taking an issue, and presenting it in a manner that dilutes or removes all of the nuance and context from that issue, and then holding another issue next to it, and asking, "Well, aren't these two things the same?" Because I can't imagine what bearing your child's behavior could have on a conversation about police brutality, unless your child is a police officer, who has been charged and/or accused of engaging in police brutality.

isn't whozit talking about kneeling and not police brutality? The quoted paragraphs make more sense if he is talking about kneeling.

 

[whozit]

How I think people should see things is not important. The point is, that nobody is the villain of their own story. And nobody who supports what I would call police brutality thinks that they are supporting police brutality, because they're not drawing the line on where 'police brutality' starts in the same place that I am. That's why I said what I said: you responded to a comment of "If we all agreed that there should be zero acts of police brutality, then the issue would be resolved" with "I am not sure anybody supporting police brutality." What I am saying is that the reason why the issue won't be resolved any time soon is because we don't all agree that there should be zero acts of police brutality. It's just that the people who support police brutality would never say that, in public. Whether that's because they don't think of it as police brutality, or because they simply have enough "sense" to not say the quiet part out loud... I can't read minds, so I can't say.


I find these statements to be incongruous; we may not be working from the same definition of "accept."


Whose right to do what? Engage in police brutality? Isn't that what we're talking about, here?


Do the choices that you don't approve of your child making cause physical or material harm to anyone other than your child? Because I hope that what isn't happening here is somebody taking an issue, and presenting it in a manner that dilutes or removes all of the nuance and context from that issue, and then holding another issue next to it, and asking, "Well, aren't these two things the same?" Because I can't imagine what bearing your child's behavior could have on a conversation about police brutality, unless your child is a police officer, who has been charged and/or accused of engaging in police brutality.

Yes, we are probably talking two different definitions of accept. I can accept

isn't whozit talking about kneeling and not police brutality? The quoted paragraphs make more sense if he is talking about kneeling.

Yes, I was talking about kneeling. Thank you.

I was also bringing my daughter up to try to make the distinction between accepting and approving. I obviously failed.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

isn't whozit talking about kneeling and not police brutality? The quoted paragraphs make more sense if he is talking about kneeling.

So, they took a throwaway line, at the end of my post, and responded as if that had been my entire thesis?

You know what? Whatever. Given my track record on this message board, I can't even be mad.

 

[steelevt]

https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-nbpa-announce-that-playoffs-will-resume-on-saturday-165315102.html
Season restarts Saturday. Is anyone really surprised?

 

[Kings_of_California]

So much endless rambling going on in this thread.

 

[whozit]

So, they took a throwaway line, at the end of my post, and responded as if that had been my entire thesis?

You know what? Whatever. Given my track record on this message board, I can't even be mad.

Throwaway line? Hardly. You linked 'those same people who view kneeling' .... to those who support police brutality. I find kneeling disrespectful but I do not support police brutality. I accept why one might kneel and they do have that right but I still do not approve because I find it disrespectful. Can you not accept that for some/many it is offensive? I am not saying approve of someone else being offended just accept that they are and have a right to be. It was efficient in bringing the issue to the forefront because of the shock value but I am not sure of the effectiveness because of the shock value.

In terms of police brutality, I have stated some of my concerns for when in the normal course of duty. And those concerns are something that needs to be addressed. They are not uniform across the country.

If by police brutality you are talking about during the rioting, I am not sure that aspect has really been addressed. I would say simply, there is a line neither side needs to cross. That goes for both sides. Don't give the other the excuse.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... I accept why one might kneel and they do have that right but I still do not approve because I find it disrespectful. Can you not accept that for some/many it is offensive?

No. I can't. Because the reason why they claim to be offended by it is based on a lie.

 

[whozit]

No. I can't. Because the reason why they claim to be offended by it is based on a lie.

What? Didn't you have military service? Personally, I didn't give a reason I'm offended. I find it disrespectful to kneel. And no, I was never in the military. I was not eligible.

And even if it were based on a lie doesn't change the fact for whatever reason they are offended. But appears that if you reject their reasoning you don't have to accept they have a different position. How convenient.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

What? Didn't you have military service?

Yup.

And even if it were based on a lie doesn't change the fact for whatever reason they are offended. But appears that if you reject their reasoning you don't have to accept they have a different position. How convenient.

People have the right to be offended by anything they want, for whatever reasons they can think of. And no, I am not, in fact, obliged to accept it, or give it any legitimacy, whatsoever.

Once again, for the record, people get to be offended by whatever they want. But I often find what offends them, and why, to be revelatory.

 

[dude12]

Sheesh. I personally want to just watch playoff basketball

 

[whozit]

Yup.


People have the right to be offended by anything they want, for whatever reasons they can think of. And no, I am not, in fact, obliged to accept it, or give it any legitimacy, whatsoever.

Once again, for the record, people get to be offended by whatever they want. But I often find what offends them, and why, to be revelatory.

Okay. This goes back to accept and approve. Accept does not give legitimacy. Approval would. Accept in a way recognizes a right to a choice. Approval gives agreement at least to a degree.

You do realize on this board you play the role of the police officer. Is that why you are so adamant? Knowing yourself. And for the record, I only know you by your board persona not you as a person. Likewise, you me.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Are... you... accusing me of police brutality?

You do realize on this board you play the role of the police officer.

I play the role of Paul Blart.

 

[VF21]

So much endless rambling going on in this thread.

While that might be true, the bottom line is that people are exchanging thoughts without (for the most part) rancor, vitriol, etc. I'm kind of proud of KF in that regard.

 

[hrdboild]

I just like to remind people who may not be aware of the genesis of this that the kneeling started with one player sitting on the bench during the national anthem in a pre-season game because he didn't feel like it was the right thing for him to do to stand and salute a flag that is supposed to stand for liberty and justice for all. Many people before him have come to the same conclusion. He wasn't calling attention to himself, he was just making an individual protest in a quiet and non-confrontational way. When he was informed that sitting during the national anthem could be seen as disrespectful to the military he switched to taking a knee which was suggested to him by former Green Beret Nate Boyer as a more respectful way for him to make the same point. So I agree with Mr. Slim about this. Colin Kaepernick deliberately took a knee out of respect for the military.

In addition, protest is baked into the origin story of this country. It is why the United States and that flag exist at all. I don't see how anyone can view that man's non-violent protest (and subsequent donation of millions of dollars to organizations that work to combat police brutality and uphold equal treatment under the law to all citizens) as unpatriotic. Protest in the name of individual liberty may be the most innately American activity any person can engage in.

 

[whozit]

I just like to remind people who may not be aware of the genesis of this that the kneeling started with one player sitting on the bench during the national anthem in a pre-season game because he didn't feel like it was the right thing for him to do to stand and salute a flag that is supposed to stand for liberty and justice for all. Many people before him have come to the same conclusion. He wasn't calling attention to himself, he was just making an individual protest in a quiet and non-confrontational way. When he was informed that sitting during the national anthem could be seen as disrespectful to the military he switched to taking a knee which was suggested to him by former Green Beret Nate Boyer as a more respectful way for him to make the same point. So I agree with Mr. Slim about this. Colin Kaepernick deliberately took a knee out of respect for the military.

In addition, protest is baked into the origin story of this country. It is why the United States and that flag exist at all. I don't see how anyone can view that man's non-violent protest (and subsequent donation of millions of dollars to organizations that work to combat police brutality and uphold equal treatment under the law to all citizens) as unpatriotic. Protest in the name of individual liberty may be the most innately American activity any person can engage in.

I was not aware of him sitting on the bench prior. Puts a different light on him. With Kaepernick and the NFL, and no I didn't like the kneeling, my biggest problem was the league and how they handled it. They lost a customer and that was my form of protest although I didn't matter because I was a customer in name only. Stopped being a customer in that i turned it off and left it off. No spending other than time involved.

He ultimately paid a huge price for his stance. The fact it appears (most likely true) he was blacklisted reinforces my disdain for the league.

I know others disagree but I feel the Magic and the NBA as a league squandered the statement the Bucks were trying to make. Forfeiting the game would always be in the records and if the Magic would have won the next two, the season would have an asterisk. Postponing the game for two days, insignificant and easily forgotten.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Note: Playoff threads are now re-opened for playoff discussion. Sorry for the delay on that, slipped my mind.