Knicks · OT: Thoughts - Players speaking out politically (page 1)

I posted this on the other forum but want it here as well as we seem to be in a very interesting time...

I'm curious what you guys think about Melo speaking out against the violence and recently against the WNBA for their fines (http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/22...)

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Corporations are mighty powerful these days, as are intelligence agencies, but I think we can overwhelm their centrally controlled media outlets none the less.

The more players start getting active, the more corporations and intelligence agencies are going to try to censor it and manipulate it. This is a little bit like the 1960's in some ways, with the protests and anti war music, but athletes getting active are being broadcast to everyone and I think that really really has the governments eyes. And if it doesn't, they wouldn't be doing "their job".

Should they start editing video and such, then players will have to gather and find a way around this. Only so much video editing can do. Pre-recorded live games anyone? lol

Freedom of Expression is coming your way Corporate America and alphabet agencies,
EMS

its great to speak out if you are in a position like him. Savior of the country?

earthmansurfer wrote:I posted this on the other forum but want it here as well as we seem to be in a very interesting time...

I'm curious what you guys think about Melo speaking out against the violence and recently against the WNBA for their fines (http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/22...)

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Corporations are mighty powerful these days, as are intelligence agencies, but I think we can overwhelm their centrally controlled media outlets none the less.

The more players start getting active, the more corporations and intelligence agencies are going to try to censor it and manipulate it. This is a little bit like the 1960's in some ways, with the protests and anti war music, but athletes getting active are being broadcast to everyone and I think that really really has the governments eyes. And if it doesn't, they wouldn't be doing "their job".

Should they start editing video and such, then players will have to gather and find a way around this. Only so much video editing can do. Pre-recorded live games anyone? lol

Freedom of Expression is coming your way Corporate America and alphabet agencies,
EMS

I think you're giving corporate america and the "alphabet agencies" waaaaay too much credit to assume them capable of controlling the internet/social media, which is the check and balance to the media dystopia you seem to think exists on some level.

The great irony of this sort of view is the people who value freedom seem to invent ways to convince themselves they don't have it, which is an ironic and unfortunate self-imposed limitation.

mreinman wrote:its great to speak out if you are in a position like him. Savior of the country?

Dude, Read what he said. "IT" not "He".
Nothing worse then being a judgemental troll and not taking a moment to digest the statement.

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Nalod has no problem with athletes speaking out. At the same time these guys are not always the sharpest crayons in the box and if they speak up without a base of thought, like MReinman just did, they will experience backlash.
NBA would be fair to detach themselves and if needed, hang a player out to dry.
What if a white blonde/blue eyed player with Aryan views speaks out as well. Say this is an MVP top 5 player in the league. Say our boy KP6 is really this kind of guy. Then what? NBA makes him the face of the league and then he speaks out some nasty diatribe about immigration, racial purity and nightmare solutions. Then what?
The assumption is black athletes speaking out about social injustice, or womens inequity is appealing and morally acceptable. But who sets the agenda? Who determines the subject and the level of intensity?

Personally I have no problem with Melo speaking out, or WNBA as women speaking about empowerment issues. But free speech goes both ways and when you represent a corp entitiy, its gets a bit sticky.
Nalod is allowed to speak freely, but if my statements represent my company in a bad light, then I have damaged the brand.

Thus, while I applaud athletes that speak out, this is an issue that has many sides to it and Im not sure the NBA, or corporate can fully allow its employees freedoms without repercussions.
What would they be? I don't know.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I posted this on the other forum but want it here as well as we seem to be in a very interesting time...

I'm curious what you guys think about Melo speaking out against the violence and recently against the WNBA for their fines (http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/22...)

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Corporations are mighty powerful these days, as are intelligence agencies, but I think we can overwhelm their centrally controlled media outlets none the less.

The more players start getting active, the more corporations and intelligence agencies are going to try to censor it and manipulate it. This is a little bit like the 1960's in some ways, with the protests and anti war music, but athletes getting active are being broadcast to everyone and I think that really really has the governments eyes. And if it doesn't, they wouldn't be doing "their job".

Should they start editing video and such, then players will have to gather and find a way around this. Only so much video editing can do. Pre-recorded live games anyone? lol

Freedom of Expression is coming your way Corporate America and alphabet agencies,
EMS

I think you're giving corporate america and the "alphabet agencies" waaaaay too much credit to assume them capable of controlling the internet/social media, which is the check and balance to the media dystopia you seem to think exists on some level.

The great irony of this sort of view is the people who value freedom seem to invent ways to convince themselves they don't have it, which is an ironic and unfortunate self-imposed limitation.

I'm not sure what your message is. Do you feel we have absolute freedom? Do you feel the media, as it is, gives us that?
Have you not heard of audio editing at sporting events? Or of adding applause to political speeches where there was none?

What is the military budget, CIA, NSA, FBI? Do you think that a fair amount of it doesn't go into social media and media control/monitoring and such?
I'm not worried per se, but I'm also not living in a world where I think there is not a lot of influence being imposed on us.
I've witnessed it and in large part, spent a fair amount of time studying it a bit as I was a justice major.

We need to be realists here and not expect anything to be handed to us.
Anyway, I think my point of this post was clear, let's not derail it.
Much rather have it further empower us.

I love it. The criticism of athletes in the past is that "they just get paid and don't give a"

Here's our guy being principled and seemingly leading the charge with NBA players. I love it.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I posted this on the other forum but want it here as well as we seem to be in a very interesting time...

I'm curious what you guys think about Melo speaking out against the violence and recently against the WNBA for their fines (http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/22...)

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Corporations are mighty powerful these days, as are intelligence agencies, but I think we can overwhelm their centrally controlled media outlets none the less.

The more players start getting active, the more corporations and intelligence agencies are going to try to censor it and manipulate it. This is a little bit like the 1960's in some ways, with the protests and anti war music, but athletes getting active are being broadcast to everyone and I think that really really has the governments eyes. And if it doesn't, they wouldn't be doing "their job".

Should they start editing video and such, then players will have to gather and find a way around this. Only so much video editing can do. Pre-recorded live games anyone? lol

Freedom of Expression is coming your way Corporate America and alphabet agencies,
EMS

I think you're giving corporate america and the "alphabet agencies" waaaaay too much credit to assume them capable of controlling the internet/social media, which is the check and balance to the media dystopia you seem to think exists on some level.

The great irony of this sort of view is the people who value freedom seem to invent ways to convince themselves they don't have it, which is an ironic and unfortunate self-imposed limitation.

I'm not sure what your message is. Do you feel we have absolute freedom? Do you feel the media, as it is, gives us that?
Have you not heard of audio editing at sporting events? Or of adding applause to political speeches where there was none?

What is the military budget, CIA, NSA, FBI? Do you think that a fair amount of it doesn't go into social media and media control/monitoring and such?
I'm not worried per se, but I'm also not living in a world where I think there is not a lot of influence being imposed on us.
I've witnessed it and in large part, spent a fair amount of time studying it a bit as I was a justice major.

We need to be realists here and not expect anything to be handed to us.
Anyway, I think my point of this post was clear, let's not derail it.
Much rather have it further empower us.

My point is a simple and straightforward one.

Social media give us the ability to broadcast pretty much whatever the hell we want. The implications come after the fact, not before.

And since the subject is athletes and celebrities, yes, I believe whatever social message they want to give will be delivered.

People with social consciousness and large social media platforms as far as I'm aware have not lodged complaints their messages on any venue are being blocked or edited. The banana boat guys seem to have broadcasted exactly what they wanted to in full context on the ESPYs.

I said social media is a check and balance to freedom OF EXPRESSION, specifically, which is what I understood your post to be about. Apologies if I misunderstood.

If our freedom of expression is actually actively being limited or edited to any degree by intelligence/corporate community, EVERYONE seems in on it and accepting of it, because no one is complaining about it as far as I know.

No one is lodging complaints they something they said was blocked or edited.

I don't understand the accusational rationale "but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like."

Again, if this occurs, a high-profile figure can go to social media and identify that it has occurred. So unless you believe THAT is being blocked as well, and your athletes and actors and social activists are all living public lives but making no attempt to alert us to it, the charge seems logically groundless.

Nalod wrote:

mreinman wrote:its great to speak out if you are in a position like him. Savior of the country?

Dude, Read what he said. "IT" not "He".
Nothing worse then being a judgemental troll and not taking a moment to digest the statement.

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Nalod has no problem with athletes speaking out. At the same time these guys are not always the sharpest crayons in the box and if they speak up without a base of thought, like MReinman just did, they will experience backlash.
NBA would be fair to detach themselves and if needed, hang a player out to dry.
What if a white blonde/blue eyed player with Aryan views speaks out as well. Say this is an MVP top 5 player in the league. Say our boy KP6 is really this kind of guy. Then what? NBA makes him the face of the league and then he speaks out some nasty diatribe about immigration, racial purity and nightmare solutions. Then what?
The assumption is black athletes speaking out about social injustice, or womens inequity is appealing and morally acceptable. But who sets the agenda? Who determines the subject and the level of intensity?

Personally I have no problem with Melo speaking out, or WNBA as women speaking about empowerment issues. But free speech goes both ways and when you represent a corp entitiy, its gets a bit sticky.
Nalod is allowed to speak freely, but if my statements represent my company in a bad light, then I have damaged the brand.

Thus, while I applaud athletes that speak out, this is an issue that has many sides to it and Im not sure the NBA, or corporate can fully allow its employees freedoms without repercussions.
What would they be? I don't know.

touche

misread that ... I am a dumb jock though

SupremeCommander wrote:I love it. The criticism of athletes in the past is that "they just get paid and don't give a"

Here's our guy being principled and seemingly leading the charge with NBA players. I love it.

+1

I think it's great. I've never believed that you can "not be political" or that famous people shouldn't get political, because I think not speaking out about a crime or injustice is a political statement too

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I posted this on the other forum but want it here as well as we seem to be in a very interesting time...

I'm curious what you guys think about Melo speaking out against the violence and recently against the WNBA for their fines (http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/22...)

Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such.

Corporations are mighty powerful these days, as are intelligence agencies, but I think we can overwhelm their centrally controlled media outlets none the less.

The more players start getting active, the more corporations and intelligence agencies are going to try to censor it and manipulate it. This is a little bit like the 1960's in some ways, with the protests and anti war music, but athletes getting active are being broadcast to everyone and I think that really really has the governments eyes. And if it doesn't, they wouldn't be doing "their job".

Should they start editing video and such, then players will have to gather and find a way around this. Only so much video editing can do. Pre-recorded live games anyone? lol

Freedom of Expression is coming your way Corporate America and alphabet agencies,
EMS

I think you're giving corporate america and the "alphabet agencies" waaaaay too much credit to assume them capable of controlling the internet/social media, which is the check and balance to the media dystopia you seem to think exists on some level.

The great irony of this sort of view is the people who value freedom seem to invent ways to convince themselves they don't have it, which is an ironic and unfortunate self-imposed limitation.

I'm not sure what your message is. Do you feel we have absolute freedom? Do you feel the media, as it is, gives us that?
Have you not heard of audio editing at sporting events? Or of adding applause to political speeches where there was none?

What is the military budget, CIA, NSA, FBI? Do you think that a fair amount of it doesn't go into social media and media control/monitoring and such?
I'm not worried per se, but I'm also not living in a world where I think there is not a lot of influence being imposed on us.
I've witnessed it and in large part, spent a fair amount of time studying it a bit as I was a justice major.

We need to be realists here and not expect anything to be handed to us.
Anyway, I think my point of this post was clear, let's not derail it.
Much rather have it further empower us.

My point is a simple and straightforward one.

Social media give us the ability to broadcast pretty much whatever the hell we want. The implications come after the fact, not before.

And since the subject is athletes and celebrities, yes, I believe whatever social message they want to give will be delivered.

People with social consciousness and large social media platforms as far as I'm aware have not lodged complaints their messages on any venue are being blocked or edited. The banana boat guys seem to have broadcasted exactly what they wanted to in full context on the ESPYs.

I said social media is a check and balance to freedom OF EXPRESSION, specifically, which is what I understood your post to be about. Apologies if I misunderstood.

If our freedom of expression is actually actively being limited or edited to any degree by intelligence/corporate community, EVERYONE seems in on it and accepting of it, because no one is complaining about it as far as I know.

No one is lodging complaints they something they said was blocked or edited.

I don't understand the accusational rationale "but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like."

Again, if this occurs, a high-profile figure can go to social media and identify that it has occurred. So unless you believe THAT is being blocked as well, and your athletes and actors and social activists are all living public lives but making no attempt to alert us to it, the charge seems logically groundless.

I don't think you misunderstood me, perhaps you are taking my statement as an absolute. There is no way I see "them" stopping "us". I'm just saying resistance is a coming. e.g. Facebook was removing posts related to the recent shootings.

When I think of checks and balances I think of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. And how has that worked out for us regarding things
like war, social injustice, etc? Social media is pretty much for profit corporations. Sites like Reddit used be really free, now there are tons of sockpuppet accounts that truly destroy conversations and direct things in other directions. Control is often more about steering rather than absolute control.

With things like Wiki-Leaks, Bitcoin, decentralized platforms/tech e.g. Steemit, etc. I have more than hope - I see "them" losing control. I guess we can throw a lot of social media in the mix as a help anyway. I do think we are going in the right direction. I see no (open) dystopia coming, though transparency for us and privacy for NSA/CIA/Military/etc. needs to be changed - Guess that is just a part of the process.

Anyway, I do think we will overwhelm the system. I'm just saying I see resistance increasing (in the forms of control of social media), but that 100th monkey, so to speak is fast approaching.

earthmansurfer wrote:I don't think you misunderstood me, perhaps you are taking my statement as an absolute. There is no way I see "them" stopping "us". I'm just saying resistance is a coming. e.g. Facebook was removing posts related to the recent shootings.

I don't think the question ever was will EVERY post, every video, see the light of day, but unlike some societies where they've never had this sort of freedom (North Korea) you can't put the genie back in the bottle here. Freedom of IDEAS is pretty much guaranteed at this stage.

More to the point, are there individual parties with vested interests in trying to influence the dialogue on social media? Of course (though I'd say these interests are more of a commercial rather than political nature) .

Is decorum always going to be an issue requiring social media platforms to self-moderate, making highly motivated people feel like they've been censored? Of course.

But necessary to conspiracy theories is always the imagining of a centralized illuminati, who have the singular vision, oversight and resources to spread their vast influence across what's now thousands of different platforms and growing and yet we don't see any real evidence of their existence and their influence other than vague-ish theory based on the idea you'd be naive if you think they didn't exist.

In another thread someone posted a video of a CNN reporter who delivering a remote broadcast and was saying something that could be perceived as critical to Clinton and was cut off, offering it was evidence that censorship is afoot, as if CNN doesn't put people highly critical of Clinton and the left for hours every day.

These theories are based on the anecdotal (micro), ignoring the macro - that there is NO shortage of access to material specific to the point the CNN reporter was making - the IDEA has not been removed from public view.

ALL the major networks, cable networks and social media platforms just broadcast a four-day anti-Clinton infomercial, including Chris Christie's speech, yet somehow in their head a CNN reporter getting cut-off making a minor point is evidence of censorship.

It doesn't make sense in the big picture.

As I understood (and I hope properly) the sort of idea you're advancing is the trees and the nature of global media access in 2016 is the forest.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I don't think you misunderstood me, perhaps you are taking my statement as an absolute. There is no way I see "them" stopping "us". I'm just saying resistance is a coming. e.g. Facebook was removing posts related to the recent shootings.

I don't think the question ever was will EVERY post, every video, see the light of day, but unlike some societies where they've never had this sort of freedom (North Korea) you can't put the genie back in the bottle here. Freedom of IDEAS is pretty much guaranteed at this stage.

More to the point, are there individual parties with vested interests in trying to influence the dialogue on social media? Of course (though I'd say these interests are more of a commercial rather than political nature) .

Is decorum always going to be an issue requiring social media platforms to self-moderate, making highly motivated people feel like they've been censored? Of course.

But necessary to conspiracy theories is always the imagining of a centralized illuminati, who have the singular vision, oversight and resources to spread their vast influence across what's now thousands of different platforms and growing and yet we don't see any real evidence of their existence and their influence other than vague-ish theory based on the idea you'd be naive if you think they didn't exist.

In another thread someone posted a video of a CNN reporter who delivering a remote broadcast and was saying something that could be perceived as critical to Clinton and was cut off, offering it was evidence that censorship is afoot, as if CNN doesn't put people highly critical of Clinton and the left for hours every day.

These theories are based on the anecdotal (micro), ignoring the macro - that there is NO shortage of access to material specific to the point the CNN reporter was making - the IDEA has not been removed from public view.

ALL the major networks, cable networks and social media platforms just broadcast a four-day anti-Clinton infomercial, including Chris Christie's speech, yet somehow in their head a CNN reporter getting cut-off making a minor point is evidence of censorship.

It doesn't make sense in the big picture.

As I understood (and I hope properly) the sort of idea you're advancing is the trees and the nature of global media access in 2016 is the forest.

I remember while studying Justice in college, this FBI statistic came up, forget it exactly now, but something along the lines of 30% or more of all crimes are conspired. I guess that was at the Federal level. But the word conspiracy theory now = no further discussion. But it is ok to talk about Saudia Arabia conspiring with Al Quida to fund 911, but not to actually investigate 911, lol.

If you are curious as to how a group could lead or direct, control might be too strong of a word, I'd look into Carroll Quigley's writings, most notably Tragedy and Hope. It is just too big a read though. He was a historian/scholar and was privy to a group of these powerful elites, they were his friends. (No, not illuminati). He wrote about them at their request and spent a lot of time around them as they were friends. And he didn't object to their goal, just the means (anything to arrive at the goal). You might recognize his name as Bill Clinton mentioned him in one of his speeches, as he was Bills Mentor. That before mentioned book is just plain 95% history. But the other 5%, setting up non profit groups and getting "the network" laid out, is all quite plainly written. Nothing crazy, just some rich and powerful folk who have a vision for the masses and don't want mob by rule (my words).
Free shortened version done by Joe Plummer. http://joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-m...

Regardless of whether or not we believe in society being directed by a group of people, I think it is pretty clear that there have been special interests at play. No doubt, I'm talking about just a few trees. But they are giants and in key parts of the forest. I think they are coming down though.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I don't think you misunderstood me, perhaps you are taking my statement as an absolute. There is no way I see "them" stopping "us". I'm just saying resistance is a coming. e.g. Facebook was removing posts related to the recent shootings.

I don't think the question ever was will EVERY post, every video, see the light of day, but unlike some societies where they've never had this sort of freedom (North Korea) you can't put the genie back in the bottle here. Freedom of IDEAS is pretty much guaranteed at this stage.

More to the point, are there individual parties with vested interests in trying to influence the dialogue on social media? Of course (though I'd say these interests are more of a commercial rather than political nature) .

Is decorum always going to be an issue requiring social media platforms to self-moderate, making highly motivated people feel like they've been censored? Of course.

But necessary to conspiracy theories is always the imagining of a centralized illuminati, who have the singular vision, oversight and resources to spread their vast influence across what's now thousands of different platforms and growing and yet we don't see any real evidence of their existence and their influence other than vague-ish theory based on the idea you'd be naive if you think they didn't exist.

In another thread someone posted a video of a CNN reporter who delivering a remote broadcast and was saying something that could be perceived as critical to Clinton and was cut off, offering it was evidence that censorship is afoot, as if CNN doesn't put people highly critical of Clinton and the left for hours every day.

These theories are based on the anecdotal (micro), ignoring the macro - that there is NO shortage of access to material specific to the point the CNN reporter was making - the IDEA has not been removed from public view.

ALL the major networks, cable networks and social media platforms just broadcast a four-day anti-Clinton infomercial, including Chris Christie's speech, yet somehow in their head a CNN reporter getting cut-off making a minor point is evidence of censorship.

It doesn't make sense in the big picture.

As I understood (and I hope properly) the sort of idea you're advancing is the trees and the nature of global media access in 2016 is the forest.

I remember while studying Justice in college, this FBI statistic came up, forget it exactly now, but something along the lines of 30% or more of all crimes are conspired. I guess that was at the Federal level. But the word conspiracy theory now = no further discussion. But it is ok to talk about Saudia Arabia conspiring with Al Quida to fund 911, but not to actually investigate 911, lol.

If you are curious as to how a group could lead or direct, control might be too strong of a word, I'd look into Carroll Quigley's writings, most notably Tragedy and Hope. It is just too big a read though. He was a historian/scholar and was privy to a group of these powerful elites, they were his friends. (No, not illuminati). He wrote about them at their request and spent a lot of time around them as they were friends. And he didn't object to their goal, just the means (anything to arrive at the goal). You might recognize his name as Bill Clinton mentioned him in one of his speeches, as he was Bills Mentor. That before mentioned book is just plain 95% history. But the other 5%, setting up non profit groups and getting "the network" laid out, is all quite plainly written. Nothing crazy, just some rich and powerful folk who have a vision for the masses and don't want mob by rule (my words).
Free shortened version done by Joe Plummer. http://joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-m...

Regardless of whether or not we believe in society being directed by a group of people, I think it is pretty clear that there have been special interests at play. No doubt, I'm talking about just a few trees. But they are giants and in key parts of the forest. I think they are coming down though.

Let's circle back to your first post. You argued Melo's new found social activism, that this sort of grassroots movement by influential figures could be a societal "savior" of sorts, but you also worry some powerful interests can edit video or remove things from the internet to suppress or alter messages to suit them.

"Personally, I think it can be the saviour of the country, but I have a feeling they will edit video or use software to remove what they don't like. There are many examples of this going back years. Things like adding in crowd noise to take out "bad" chants and such."

Staying micro to illustrate the problem with this is Melo has nearly 9m followers on Twitter alone. During the months of October-May, 4 times a week he has cameras from multiple outlets put in his face for 10 minutes.

There are hundreds of daily LIVE radio broadcasts he could call into and get air time in real time whenever he wanted.

I just don't see a scenario in which ANY efforts are made to suppress or alter what he has to say where he isn't aware of it and doesn't blow the whistle on it.

It just doesn't pass the logic test.

Let's see if the players start getting more vocal, to the point of pissing some off. (I'm waiting for that point with the NFL and medical Marijuana.)
Then we will have the answer. Until then I think no harm has been done, no one pissed off, etc.

Logic tells me a multi trillion dollar industry of Military/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. spends a lot of money at home to keep the State intact and they don't wait till the last minute to do so.
We are a ways from probably having them care much about this but on the radar for sure. A lot of people are pissed off in the States, sensitive times.

earthmansurfer wrote:Let's see if the players start getting more vocal, to the point of pissing some off. (I'm waiting for that point with the NFL and medical Marijuana.)
Then we will have the answer. Until then I think no harm has been done, no one pissed off, etc.

Logic tells me a multi trillion dollar industry of Military/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. spends a lot of money at home to keep the State intact and they don't wait till the last minute to do so.
We are a ways from probably having them care much about this but on the radar for sure. A lot of people are pissed off in the States, sensitive times.

The stability of the State is the Law not the law enforcement.
And the Law has to many foundations in this country to be shaken but one man, or one group of man.
It is quite difficult to make a small change so change the direction is almost impossible.
And this is very good. Bad peace better that good war.
Melo ans Co better collect money and hire layers to open law suits against against police, municipalities, and state for every case of police brutality . And get every victim and their family compensated mightily.
Money talks loudly that words in this country.
You want someone to stop doing something hit him in the pocket.

earthmansurfer wrote:Let's see if the players start getting more vocal, to the point of pissing some off. (I'm waiting for that point with the NFL and medical Marijuana.)
Then we will have the answer.

Answer to what? How some bogeyman is going to get around logic?

I've made a clear case about the pragmatic difficulty of what you're suggesting. Again, using Melo as an example, lets pretend he does become more vocal and pisses somebody off.

How does shutting him up actually work, specifically?

Are you talking fatal car "accident"?

Melo gets mysterious visit to his home late one night and he suddenly stops being vocal?

Logic tells me a multi trillion dollar industry of Military/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. spends a lot of money at home to keep the State intact and they don't wait till the last minute to do so.

Does logic tell you whether these organization are centrally run and have some sort of singular voice/vision at their collective head?

Because the facts say otherwise.

We are a ways from probably having them care much about this but on the radar for sure. A lot of people are pissed off in the States, sensitive times.

Exactly, and central and necessary to conspiracy theories like yours is the requirement that we're always just on the brink of this happening but never actually cross the line. People are pissed, but not quite pissed enough... yet...

Times are really sensitive, but not quite sensitive enough for the star chamber to actually act, we just know they're out there waiting.

Sorry, I offered a real world example of the logical fallacy of what you're suggesting, and you didn't refute it, just retorted that it hasn't happen yet.

I'm still waiting for a simple, logical explanation of how it ever could.

arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Let's see if the players start getting more vocal, to the point of pissing some off. (I'm waiting for that point with the NFL and medical Marijuana.)
Then we will have the answer. Until then I think no harm has been done, no one pissed off, etc.

Logic tells me a multi trillion dollar industry of Military/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. spends a lot of money at home to keep the State intact and they don't wait till the last minute to do so.
We are a ways from probably having them care much about this but on the radar for sure. A lot of people are pissed off in the States, sensitive times.

The stability of the State is the Law not the law enforcement.
And the Law has to many foundations in this country to be shaken but one man, or one group of man.
It is quite difficult to make a small change so change the direction is almost impossible.
And this is very good. Bad peace better that good war.
Melo ans Co better collect money and hire layers to open law suits against against police, municipalities, and state for every case of police brutality . And get every victim and their family compensated mightily.
Money talks loudly that words in this country.
You want someone to stop doing something hit him in the pocket.

I am not saying one man will shake the foundations of law, but history has shown us that one man can make many men rise, and on and on.
In a simple way, they might just be trying to manage things before they get out of hand.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Let's see if the players start getting more vocal, to the point of pissing some off. (I'm waiting for that point with the NFL and medical Marijuana.)
Then we will have the answer.

Answer to what? How some bogeyman is going to get around logic?

No, just an answer as to how they will respond. A precedence of sorts regarding some of the current social unrest.

Knickoftime wrote:I've made a clear case about the pragmatic difficulty of what you're suggesting. Again, using Melo as an example, lets pretend he does become more vocal and pisses somebody off.

How does shutting him up actually work, specifically?

Are you talking fatal car "accident"?

Melo gets mysterious visit to his home late one night and he suddenly stops being vocal?

It doesn't matter if what I am saying appears difficult. How difficult has it been for Clinton to get away with the email thing? Where there is a will and resources, there is a way.

I don't think I said they would shut him up. I'm saying something quite small and you are taking that to extremes. I am merely talking about putting pressure on an individual using the structure of the existing system. (primarily)

Late visits? That is not for me to say (but extreme again), and looking at some history via FOIA requests, we can see the FBI has been VERY VERY involved in any social uprisings.

Knickoftime wrote:

Logic tells me a multi trillion dollar industry of Military/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. spends a lot of money at home to keep the State intact and they don't wait till the last minute to do so.

Does logic tell you whether these organization are centrally run and have some sort of singular voice/vision at their collective head?

Because the facts say otherwise.

All of these organizations are heirarchical, so essentially, yes, they are centrally run. There are some checks and balances but it only takes a few key people in specific positions to bring pressure down in an essentially illegal way. How exactly did they legally go about beating up Occupy Wall St. protesters? How did they go about beating up hundreds of protesters years ago during the protests in Washington (or in that area) regarding the WTO? The list goes on. (Oh, and to answer my question, the reasons would probably fall under "National Security" and not be allowed to be looked into.)

Knickoftime wrote:

We are a ways from probably having them care much about this but on the radar for sure. A lot of people are pissed off in the States, sensitive times.

Exactly, and central and necessary to conspiracy theories like yours is the requirement that we're always just on the brink of this happening but never actually cross the line. People are pissed, but not quite pissed enough... yet...

Times are really sensitive, but not quite sensitive enough for the star chamber to actually act, we just know they're out there waiting.

Sorry, I offered a real world example of the logical fallacy of what you're suggesting, and you didn't refute it, just retorted that it hasn't happen yet.

I'm still waiting for a simple, logical explanation of how it ever could.

Let's back off of using words like "conspiracy theory" because that essentially is just a way to shut down a talk. It is too weighted these days.

I am not sure where you are running with this. I made a point that I thought pressure would come down on the players if they started speaking out. You have taken that and turned it into something much larger.

Your real world example is but one, I listed some as well. We can go back and forth on it.

If you want more examples, first look into how they shut down the Occuply protests, WTO protests, etc. There are many.
But that is not where I wanted to go as Melo and other players speaking out is small and helping to calm people down rather than rile them up. (at this point any way.)

earthmansurfer wrote:

arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Let's see if the players start getting more vocal, to the point of pissing some off. (I'm waiting for that point with the NFL and medical Marijuana.)
Then we will have the answer. Until then I think no harm has been done, no one pissed off, etc.

Logic tells me a multi trillion dollar industry of Military/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. spends a lot of money at home to keep the State intact and they don't wait till the last minute to do so.
We are a ways from probably having them care much about this but on the radar for sure. A lot of people are pissed off in the States, sensitive times.

The stability of the State is the Law not the law enforcement.
And the Law has to many foundations in this country to be shaken but one man, or one group of man.
It is quite difficult to make a small change so change the direction is almost impossible.
And this is very good. Bad peace better that good war.
Melo ans Co better collect money and hire layers to open law suits against against police, municipalities, and state for every case of police brutality . And get every victim and their family compensated mightily.
Money talks loudly that words in this country.
You want someone to stop doing something hit him in the pocket.

I am not saying one man will shake the foundations of law, but history has shown us that one man can make many men rise, and on and on.
In a simple way, they might just be trying to manage things before they get out of hand.

Totally agree with that and with premise that people have to stand up for their rights in peaceful and constructive way.
And solid leadership is the key to this.
This leader or leaders have to come up with very specific platform and propositions on how to move forward.
I don't see this by now. A lot of anger and placing blame for sure but not to much of constructive proposals if any.
All this police brutality cases must be brought to courts in public process of highest visibility when all aspect of actions of all sides are under microscope and all machine of society should be engaged in the process of putting this in our society rear mirror same as slavery and segregation went.

Players can speak out all they want, but the issue is when. When they are on the court, they are on someone else's stage.
Like I said, we assume its all a message of social progress or protesting something that most americans find OK with.
But when Abdul Rauf (Formally Chris Jackson) sat during the national anthem, well didn't we all go nuts? That was his protest. The point is I think any player has his rights as a citizen to make a statement but not always at work. If Melo, or any other player wants to do a magazine article, thats not a problem, or a TV interview, no problem. If they are a person of interest who wants to use their celebrity to further a cause, that is and has always been fine. When you use the Basketball court as your stage, then it crosses a line. Its not the players event, its the NBA's event paid by fans and sponsors and the players while they are stars, are employees.

I suppose the ultimate protest was Tommie smith and John Carlos raising their fists in defiance with a black glove during the 1968 olympics is the ultimate form of expression. Many black athletes had boycotted those olympics. Personally I am sympathetic to their aftermath, also often forgotten was the third man on the podium, a white austrialian who backed them and was ostracized in his own country. Lets put it this way, if they did not face punishment there was no sacrifice and thus the importance of their message would have been diluted. What I mean is if every player now had a "Message" every time they stepped on the floor, it would dilute the importance of it. People have died for what they believe in, that is the ultimate sacrifice. If a player wants to break the rules and gets fined, its a sacrifice. Mr Smith and Mr Carlos paid a big price for their act, it was a measurement of how important the message was and it got noticed BIG TIME. It raised the conscience of message and in time they are recognized for the heroic act. To work hard your whole life and give away your medal

My point is a sporting event is not owned by the player. they are paid to play a game for entertainment by the fans, ad sponsors and their endorsement. If they wish to sacrifice pay or their career for a cause, they are free to do that. the greater the sacrifice the greater the attention is paid to the message.

Michael Jordan never spoke out, and still won't regarding anything political or social. He is unwilling to use his celebrity to promote anything but his brand.
In contrast, Muhammad Ali sacrificed great for what he believed in. It was not just a protest to further an injustice, it was a core personal value! If the WNBA girls find it so unbearable to play in the face of the injustice, then they should boycott. Thousands of fans will not be happy and TV will have empty slot to fill, and perhaps the players will be suspended or fired. Its not right, but they are using someone else's stage for their cause.

History has shown people have been willing to sacrifice their lives or forfeit symbols of achievement (gold metals!)in what they believe in. If nothing is lost, then how great is the act of protest? We can all wear those ribbons or rubber bracelets for all the causes. If players wear T-shirts before every game, it too will reduce their message.

Nalod is bringing this point for discussion, not to protest a player or players message.