Knicks · Around the NBA 2022-23 (page 12)

jskinny35 wrote:I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

Based on your previous statements in this paragraph, it does seem like you are incredibly out of touch. Quite frankly it’s mind boggling to me.

martin wrote:Uhhhh so last night Jazz beat Memphis, King over Miami, Hornets beat Warriors in OT, Indiana beat Brooklyn, and Thunder beat Mavs.

What the heck is going on?!?!

Tonight, Spurs top Minny and GS loses to Detroit.

NardDogNation wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

wargames wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Kyrie showing he isn’t just wacky but also loathsome. All the more reason to enjoy a Nets “fail.”

Hilarious to me how Kookie Kyrie couldn't go a full 2 weeks before creating more drama.

But seriously, can he be that stupid and misinformed believing the bs he promotes? I think he does it for attention.

Promoting nonsensical antisemitic propaganda in New York City -- brilliant.

I think Sports media is doing a way better job of promoting "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America" than Irving ever did.

I didn't even KNOW about it until ESPN reported on it on Thursday, all day Friday, all day Saturday and now Sunday morning.

You actually have a point. Kyrie is a nut job but while they are going after him, all they’ve done is promote that dvd the vast majority of people didn’t know exists. More people know about it now than would have ever known about it based on a Kyrie tweet.

Honestly it’s a off topic, but from the sounds of it Musk is going to make Twitter basically a social media Chan site because there will not be any moderation. That always leads to idiots and racist coming to Pg ether. It’s going to get really nasty before people come to terms with that and deplatform. Kyrie was just ahead of the curve.

And we'll be the better for it. Speech should never be moderated. If something is wrong-headed, it should be countered with a better more informed argument. That's how progress gets made and people grow. I'm no fan of billionaires but I'm certainly a fan of Musk in this context (and a few others).

I agree that ideally speech should always be free and not moderated. I also feel like that worked pretty well until just a few years ago. Lately I'm stuck about this issue because while the majority of citizens take the time (and possess the intellectual capacity) to refute illogical statements - there seems to be a larger percentage of people who just follow blindly and/or are tied to their political/religious/conspiracy-type beliefs.

This combination seems to result in a larger portion of people believing basically whatever is put out there (regardless of truth/accuracy). While it's always been there - it's grown exponentially since Trump first ran and continues to progress. So while I agree with you and ideally believe in not censoring - I'm not sure what to think to reduce this misinformation being truth issue that seems to keep growing. The impact can potentially have horrific consequences. How many of us are headed into the midterms thinking regardless of what the results are - there will just be an increase in aggression/violence to impact the results.

I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

The idea of "misinformation" being some new-age invention is grossly misguided. It's something that is core to the American experience and a tool frequently utilized by the white establishment from Day-1, lest we forget "all men are created equal"....while the country practiced slavery. From the characterization of indigenous peoples as being the ones that were "blood-thirsty savages", to the promotion of concepts of racial superiority, to lies that either helped start/maintain wars of fortune (e.g. the sinking of the USS Maine to start Spanish-American War, Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam; Vietnam Papers), misinformation has been present maybe better recalled as "propaganda". Just in my lifetime alone as a millenial, I've been lied to about Iraq having WMDs, c*vid vaccines being effective/safe and a gang of other shit I'll avoid naming for the sake of brevity. So why pretend like this is some pressing issue that needs to be regulated by the very same people that are progenitors of the most egregious examples of "misinformation"?

You were lied to about the covid vaccine being safe? 5 billion people have taken the vaccine where is this epidemic of myocarditis Joe Rogan and the people who know everything keep saying is bound to happen?

And in spite my central point and of all the things I mentioned, this is what you object to...

I’m just wondering why I haven’t come down with a severe case of myocarditis nor covid after getting the experimental globalist vaccine

I'm not sure but hopefully there's a gold star in it for you.

When you are trying to make an argument and one of your points utterly fails, that’s on you.

NardDogNation wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

wargames wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Kyrie showing he isn’t just wacky but also loathsome. All the more reason to enjoy a Nets “fail.”

Hilarious to me how Kookie Kyrie couldn't go a full 2 weeks before creating more drama.

But seriously, can he be that stupid and misinformed believing the bs he promotes? I think he does it for attention.

Promoting nonsensical antisemitic propaganda in New York City -- brilliant.

I think Sports media is doing a way better job of promoting "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America" than Irving ever did.

I didn't even KNOW about it until ESPN reported on it on Thursday, all day Friday, all day Saturday and now Sunday morning.

You actually have a point. Kyrie is a nut job but while they are going after him, all they’ve done is promote that dvd the vast majority of people didn’t know exists. More people know about it now than would have ever known about it based on a Kyrie tweet.

Honestly it’s a off topic, but from the sounds of it Musk is going to make Twitter basically a social media Chan site because there will not be any moderation. That always leads to idiots and racist coming to Pg ether. It’s going to get really nasty before people come to terms with that and deplatform. Kyrie was just ahead of the curve.

And we'll be the better for it. Speech should never be moderated. If something is wrong-headed, it should be countered with a better more informed argument. That's how progress gets made and people grow. I'm no fan of billionaires but I'm certainly a fan of Musk in this context (and a few others).

I agree that ideally speech should always be free and not moderated. I also feel like that worked pretty well until just a few years ago. Lately I'm stuck about this issue because while the majority of citizens take the time (and possess the intellectual capacity) to refute illogical statements - there seems to be a larger percentage of people who just follow blindly and/or are tied to their political/religious/conspiracy-type beliefs.

This combination seems to result in a larger portion of people believing basically whatever is put out there (regardless of truth/accuracy). While it's always been there - it's grown exponentially since Trump first ran and continues to progress. So while I agree with you and ideally believe in not censoring - I'm not sure what to think to reduce this misinformation being truth issue that seems to keep growing. The impact can potentially have horrific consequences. How many of us are headed into the midterms thinking regardless of what the results are - there will just be an increase in aggression/violence to impact the results.

I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

The idea of "misinformation" being some new-age invention is grossly misguided. It's something that is core to the American experience and a tool frequently utilized by the white establishment from Day-1, lest we forget "all men are created equal"....while the country practiced slavery. From the characterization of indigenous peoples as being the ones that were "blood-thirsty savages", to the promotion of concepts of racial superiority, to lies that either helped start/maintain wars of fortune (e.g. the sinking of the USS Maine to start Spanish-American War, Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam; Vietnam Papers), misinformation has continued to present day; maybe better recalled as "propaganda". Just in my lifetime as a millenial, I've been lied to about Iraq having WMDs, c*vid vaccines being effective/safe, Russ*a rigging our elections, truth-tellers like Julian Ass*nge and Eddy Sn*wden being slandered and a gang of other shit I'll avoid naming for the sake of brevity. So why pretend like this is some pressing issue that needs to be regulated by the very same people that are progenitors of the most egregious examples of "misinformation"?

I don't mean misinformation is a new thing - apologies if I was unclear. It does seem to me that in the past 5-6 years there has been a change in the level of mistrust created by "fake news", lies, etc... All those things you mentioned above are awful and I understand blantant lies have existed throughout time. What seems pressing to me is the impact from the social media platforms that have allowed the lies, hate, misinformation to expand in a way that was not previously possible. Twenty years ago you'd hear a conspiracy theory person talk about the world coming to an end (eg Y2K) but it would remain just individuals with a certain type of thinking. Maybe there would be small groups formed but it seems like today when information/misinformation is spread - much more of the world is ill equipped to handle it and it's impact. The examples I am most in touch with at the moment involve science/health and safety and political mistrust. I fully understand that science is nowhere near perfect and our political leaders have always lied to us. What feels different is the increased aggression/violence and confrontation... often due to misinformation suggesting mistruths that are repeated and spread. We agree that the government has lied to us historically - so what's different now that is impacting the people's escalated response in your opinion? Are we more polarized because we've uncovered more truths about deception? I feel like the difference is the broadcasting and media. Politicians always lied but they didn't state blatant lies nowhere near as often as it seems commonplace now. The old broadcasters held a standard that has slowly eroded. Sorry for the rambling and I do appreciate your thoughts/perceptions as I do feel lost with much of the world these days.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

Based on your previous statements in this paragraph, it does seem like you are incredibly out of touch. Quite frankly it’s mind boggling to me.

Can you help me better understand? I think my earlier post wasn't worded very well and didn't convey my concerns about misinformation today. I replied to NardDogNation in attempts to clarify... I'm consumed by these issues and it would help hear others perspectives and views.

jskinny35 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

wargames wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Kyrie showing he isn’t just wacky but also loathsome. All the more reason to enjoy a Nets “fail.”

Hilarious to me how Kookie Kyrie couldn't go a full 2 weeks before creating more drama.

But seriously, can he be that stupid and misinformed believing the bs he promotes? I think he does it for attention.

Promoting nonsensical antisemitic propaganda in New York City -- brilliant.

I think Sports media is doing a way better job of promoting "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America" than Irving ever did.

I didn't even KNOW about it until ESPN reported on it on Thursday, all day Friday, all day Saturday and now Sunday morning.

You actually have a point. Kyrie is a nut job but while they are going after him, all they’ve done is promote that dvd the vast majority of people didn’t know exists. More people know about it now than would have ever known about it based on a Kyrie tweet.

Honestly it’s a off topic, but from the sounds of it Musk is going to make Twitter basically a social media Chan site because there will not be any moderation. That always leads to idiots and racist coming to Pg ether. It’s going to get really nasty before people come to terms with that and deplatform. Kyrie was just ahead of the curve.

And we'll be the better for it. Speech should never be moderated. If something is wrong-headed, it should be countered with a better more informed argument. That's how progress gets made and people grow. I'm no fan of billionaires but I'm certainly a fan of Musk in this context (and a few others).

I agree that ideally speech should always be free and not moderated. I also feel like that worked pretty well until just a few years ago. Lately I'm stuck about this issue because while the majority of citizens take the time (and possess the intellectual capacity) to refute illogical statements - there seems to be a larger percentage of people who just follow blindly and/or are tied to their political/religious/conspiracy-type beliefs.

This combination seems to result in a larger portion of people believing basically whatever is put out there (regardless of truth/accuracy). While it's always been there - it's grown exponentially since Trump first ran and continues to progress. So while I agree with you and ideally believe in not censoring - I'm not sure what to think to reduce this misinformation being truth issue that seems to keep growing. The impact can potentially have horrific consequences. How many of us are headed into the midterms thinking regardless of what the results are - there will just be an increase in aggression/violence to impact the results.

I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

The idea of "misinformation" being some new-age invention is grossly misguided. It's something that is core to the American experience and a tool frequently utilized by the white establishment from Day-1, lest we forget "all men are created equal"....while the country practiced slavery. From the characterization of indigenous peoples as being the ones that were "blood-thirsty savages", to the promotion of concepts of racial superiority, to lies that either helped start/maintain wars of fortune (e.g. the sinking of the USS Maine to start Spanish-American War, Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam; Vietnam Papers), misinformation has continued to present day; maybe better recalled as "propaganda". Just in my lifetime as a millenial, I've been lied to about Iraq having WMDs, c*vid vaccines being effective/safe, Russ*a rigging our elections, truth-tellers like Julian Ass*nge and Eddy Sn*wden being slandered and a gang of other shit I'll avoid naming for the sake of brevity. So why pretend like this is some pressing issue that needs to be regulated by the very same people that are progenitors of the most egregious examples of "misinformation"?

I don't mean misinformation is a new thing - apologies if I was unclear. It does seem to me that in the past 5-6 years there has been a change in the level of mistrust created by "fake news", lies, etc... All those things you mentioned above are awful and I understand blantant lies have existed throughout time. What seems pressing to me is the impact from the social media platforms that have allowed the lies, hate, misinformation to expand in a way that was not previously possible. Twenty years ago you'd hear a conspiracy theory person talk about the world coming to an end (eg Y2K) but it would remain just individuals with a certain type of thinking. Maybe there would be small groups formed but it seems like today when information/misinformation is spread - much more of the world is ill equipped to handle it and it's impact. The examples I am most in touch with at the moment involve science/health and safety and political mistrust. I fully understand that science is nowhere near perfect and our political leaders have always lied to us. What feels different is the increased aggression/violence and confrontation... often due to misinformation suggesting mistruths that are repeated and spread. We agree that the government has lied to us historically - so what's different now that is impacting the people's escalated response in your opinion? Are we more polarized because we've uncovered more truths about deception? I feel like the difference is the broadcasting and media. Politicians always lied but they didn't state blatant lies nowhere near as often as it seems commonplace now. The old broadcasters held a standard that has slowly eroded. Sorry for the rambling and I do appreciate your thoughts/perceptions as I do feel lost with much of the world these days.

Obama was the president for 8 years and it drove 35% of the country bat sh t. Now that the internet is everywhere people just descend into their political echo chambers listening to clowns like Alex Jones instead of watching the actual news or doing their own research. And if you know anything about anything you’re an elitist or a globalist or a snob or whatever That’s what’s happened.

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

Based on your previous statements in this paragraph, it does seem like you are incredibly out of touch. Quite frankly it’s mind boggling to me.

Can you help me better understand? I think my earlier post wasn't worded very well and didn't convey my concerns about misinformation today. I replied to NardDogNation in attempts to clarify... I'm consumed by these issues and it would help hear others perspectives and views.

You are preferring to lean to the exact party that is heavily winning the title for violence and further political polarization.

It's the same scenario as knowing who is the local bully and advising that everyone should do what the bully wants cause it'll lesson the very threats the bully is putting forth and naively thinking the violence and political polarization will go away. It's incredibly irresponsible and also very obvious as to what is going on.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

Based on your previous statements in this paragraph, it does seem like you are incredibly out of touch. Quite frankly it’s mind boggling to me.

Can you help me better understand? I think my earlier post wasn't worded very well and didn't convey my concerns about misinformation today. I replied to NardDogNation in attempts to clarify... I'm consumed by these issues and it would help hear others perspectives and views.

You are preferring to lean to the exact party that is heavily winning the title for violence and further political polarization.

It's the same scenario as knowing who is the local bully and advising that everyone should do what the bully wants cause it'll lesson the very threats the bully is putting forth and naively thinking the violence and political polarization will go away. It's incredibly irresponsible and also very obvious as to what is going on.

Ok - I understand you think I'm leaning toward Repub party because of what I wrote. Just to be transparent I have not voted for any Repub in over 25 years. I meant to say that the Dems winning won't result in election acceptance by Repubs and will come at a cost for more violence, heightened misinformation/mistrust etc... I feel like we are moving toward a Civil war that we eventually won't be able to avoid and something would have to give to change our path. Repubs winning the mid-terms may slow the escalation point and while I don't agree with their policies (except the need to be more financially responsible) - the election deniers will continue to escalate things and Dems don't seem to fight effectively IMO. But this may be where I am out of touch and things are better then I perceive them to be?

Ex - Repubs seem to have a strategy to put election deniers in office (eg state officials) so regardless of the voting outcome - they can use power to decide not to approve the results. When elections were based on voter turnout you had a reasonable system to work with - the parameters weren't touched. Now they are going to be and I still don't understand what the Dem party is trying to do to combat this? With this in place it wouldn't matter if the results are 80% for Dems as deniers will fight this social media battle and state officials will simply not accept the results. The fact that more then 1/2 of the Repub party initially condemmed the Jan 6th attacks and later retracted their criticisms shows everybody is not adhering to the codes/standards that have been in place since the beginning. So while my statement was wrong and we should always fight - feel like the deck is already being stacked in a way that will be impossible to overcome. Vote them out doesn't seem to be working as the nutjobs are still revered by the Repub side. Thank you for your patience with this rant and do appreciate your thoughts!

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I'm a registered independent that leans Democratic on the majority of issues (esp socially). A part of me almost prefers the Repubs win due to what I perceive to be likely coming (eg more violence, further political polarization) if the Dems do well at the mid-terms. I'm not sure how in touch I am with the state of the world these days - but I often feel like we're approaching a hole that will be unable to climb out of...

Based on your previous statements in this paragraph, it does seem like you are incredibly out of touch. Quite frankly it’s mind boggling to me.

Can you help me better understand? I think my earlier post wasn't worded very well and didn't convey my concerns about misinformation today. I replied to NardDogNation in attempts to clarify... I'm consumed by these issues and it would help hear others perspectives and views.

You are preferring to lean to the exact party that is heavily winning the title for violence and further political polarization.

It's the same scenario as knowing who is the local bully and advising that everyone should do what the bully wants cause it'll lesson the very threats the bully is putting forth and naively thinking the violence and political polarization will go away. It's incredibly irresponsible and also very obvious as to what is going on.

Ok - I understand you think I'm leaning toward Repub party because of what I wrote. Just to be transparent I have not voted for any Repub in over 25 years. I meant to say that the Dems winning won't result in election acceptance by Repubs and will come at a cost for more violence, heightened misinformation/mistrust etc... I feel like we are moving toward a Civil war that we eventually won't be able to avoid and something would have to give to change our path. Repubs winning the mid-terms may slow the escalation point and while I don't agree with their policies (except the need to be more financially responsible) - the election deniers will continue to escalate things and Dems don't seem to fight effectively IMO. But this may be where I am out of touch and things are better then I perceive them to be?

Ex - Repubs seem to have a strategy to put election deniers in office (eg state officials) so regardless of the voting outcome - they can use power to decide not to approve the results. When elections were based on voter turnout you had a reasonable system to work with - the parameters weren't touched. Now they are going to be and I still don't understand what the Dem party is trying to do to combat this? With this in place it wouldn't matter if the results are 80% for Dems as deniers will fight this social media battle and state officials will simply not accept the results. The fact that more then 1/2 of the Repub party initially condemmed the Jan 6th attacks and later retracted their criticisms shows everybody is not adhering to the codes/standards that have been in place since the beginning. So while my statement was wrong and we should always fight - feel like the deck is already being stacked in a way that will be impossible to overcome. Vote them out doesn't seem to be working as the nutjobs are still revered by the Repub side. Thank you for your patience with this rant and do appreciate your thoughts!

OK, thanks for clarification

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/Alec_Sturm/status/1587241356824662016

Click here to view the Tweet

Clean wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/Alec_Sturm/status/1587241356824662016

Click here to view the Tweet

So glad the Knicks passed on him years ago. Thought Kyrie was bad news then, as a teammate. He's radioactive now. The only place I see as a landing spot for him is LA. Because LeBron and Jeannie Buss will be desperate after this season, if no big moves are made.

Clean wrote:We really miss Burks. If we had him instead of Evan I think we would be a better team. We would just have to write into the contract that Thibs can't pay him at PG ever.

Problem is Burks had a way easier contract to get offf the books so we could sign Brunson

GustavBahler wrote:Pistons lost a close one to the Bucks, but Noel played a role in keeping it close. Burks hasnt played yet. Still see them as a sleeper this season. Team you dont want to face in a play-in. If they can get that far.

Pistons are a young team with a lot of talent that will start to be really good at some point

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1587172844194201600?t=HtZchRJA1Bc8YUtHTcgbVg&s=19

Click here to view the Tweet

Philc1 wrote:

Clean wrote:We really miss Burks. If we had him instead of Evan I think we would be a better team. We would just have to write into the contract that Thibs can't pay him at PG ever.

Problem is Burks had a way easier contract to get offf the books so we could sign Brunson

So if we didn’t trade Burks we wouldn’t have Brunson but we would have an injured player not on the court. And that would make us a better team. Got it.

KnickDanger wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Clean wrote:We really miss Burks. If we had him instead of Evan I think we would be a better team. We would just have to write into the contract that Thibs can't pay him at PG ever.

Problem is Burks had a way easier contract to get offf the books so we could sign Brunson

So if we didn’t trade Burks we wouldn’t have Brunson but we would have an injured player not on the court. And that would make us a better team. Got it.

Burks having an appealing contract that had only one year left made it easier to get rid of it so we could finally get a viable pg. yes

The Fournier contract is almost as repulsive as the Randle contract