Chandler wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Chandler wrote:I think it would be an interesting thread to explore athletes’ role in addressing larger social issuesPersonally i think Kylie has said and done enough foolish things to blow his credibility, which is always hard won but easily lost
Credibility is contextually relevant.
Kyrie Irving isn't asking anyone to take his word for anything in a dispute.
He isn't claiming to report something previously unknown based on unnamed sources.
In THIS he's expressing an idea.
To dismiss the idea because it came from him is a little lazy.
And I'm not saying it a good idea or above criticism or rebuke, just that the idea should be judged on its own merits independent of Irving's "credibility."
What you may believe about Irving's motivations is another story.
There are tons of ideas from tons of people. And in this msrketplace of ideas i find it very hard to accept that people will or should look to Kylie for kernels of wisdom when in the next breath he might be talking about flst earth, or anti-semitism. He’s a fool or at least presents as one. So i disagree that credibility is irrelevant in this context or any context really
The only reason he even gets air time on things like this is for entertainment value. It’s a little cruel to shine the spotlight on him just hoping that he’ll follow one comment with one of his doozies. There are a lot of self-anointed woke warriors in the NBA who sell liquor, glorify gang culture, and turn blind eyes to tons of other useful issues (eg labor conditions at shoe factories) when it interferes with them getting their next 10-20 million (as if they needed it). There are also tons of good ones
People should be very selective in who they choose to listen to
Thing is Chandler, its not really a marketplace per se... ideas (in this case) are free and i'm not really 'looking' to Kyle Irving for wisdom. This video found its way into my line of sight, and it requires no effort on my part to consider it on its own merits.
A standard tactic of debate is to try to discredit the person rather than their argument, and I kind of perceive that's where you're going. Our public-social-'political' discourse has become one big game of rejecting ideas by mocking and attacking the source. Unwittingly or intentionally you give an example:
You describe hypocrisy of "self-appointed woke warriors" which immediately derisively dismisses anyone whose "woke" ideology you presumably disagree with, thereby extension any idea they express.
Works the opposite way too. Don't like an idea, find someone you don't like who endorses it. Boom! Automatic grounds to discredit it.
It's just one way to reject a whole swath of ideas in one fell swoop. More or less (and in this case), 'shut up and dribble.'
It's this approach I find to more contribute to the problem than alleviates it.
As I say, I get Kryie Irving's issues based on his body of work. No argument. But I don't have to at the same time mock, reject, or dismiss empathy for other human beings in difficult circumstances because it happened to come out of Kryie Irving's mouth. My first response to his idea isn't to say 'yeah, but Kyrie... weirdo and/or hypocrite.' My first response to his idea is to his idea. Because why not? I got time.
Based on your "self-appointed woke warriors" comment, I suspect our ideology is very different, but I wouldn't reject an idea you had because it was you expressing it, or for that matter any public or political figure whose conduct or intellect I've in the past found ignorant or repugnant. I'll consider an earnest idea from anyone and judge it on ITS merits.
