7 ms·

The NBA boycotted North Carolina over HB2 (the “bathroom bill”), but doesn’t have a problem doing business in China. I hope they go bankrupt.

landcoctos 7y ago
I completely agree.
yummypaint 7y ago
Exactly this. They have no claim of neutrality or being apolitical. They have already demonstrated that losing money for the sake of attacking lgbt rights is a sacrifice they're willing to make. The values of team owners and major nba stakeholders are already more in line with the ccp than the american public, so let them choke on our scorn. It's our collective responsibility to do them enough financial damage that this becomes a learning experience.
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  I’ll expand on this by pulling two sequential quotations in the article from NBA commissioner Adam Silver: "It is inevitable that people around the world -- including America and China -- will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences.” Bullshit, see North Carolina. “However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way." Bullshit, see Donald Sterling.
  - adamiscool8 7y ago
    I agree with your callout of the NBA's blatant hypocrisy on adjudicating political issues, but Donald Sterling's comments were definitely not a good faith contribution regarding an issue of public contention.
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    >Bullshit, see Donald Sterling. Yeah, blatant racism, including against some of the biggest stars in the NBA's history, is definitely the same thing here. That's not regulating political discourse - that's not allowing a racist to be in a position of power over the very people he is prejudiced against.
    - i_am_nomad 7y ago
      No one said anything about political discourse, just about differing opinions on various issues. Surely, racism is one of them. And just so you know, the prevailing Chinese opinion on that is quite a bit different that what we believe in the West.
      - danharaj 7y ago
        Do you think that the extent of racism is what opinions you hold?
        i_am_nomad 7y ago
        No, but since you asked, can you tell me what racist things Donald Sterling did, besides make some comments in private?
        gamblor956 7y ago
        Donald Sterling settled multiple racial discrimination lawsuits related to his openly racist criteria for putative tenants in his apartment buildings... See e.g. https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4619819 https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4619819
        i_am_nomad 7y ago
        Then we have to wonder why the NBA let him own a team in the first place.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
drcode 7y ago
Let's give them some initial credit for being supportive of employees that support Hong Kong- They've shown more of a spine than Blizzard at this point.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >Let's give them some initial credit for being supportive of employees that support Hong Kong Daryl Morey is not an employee of the NBA, so I don't think there's anything they could do, practically speaking.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
They did one thing right but did another thing wrong. Is that worse than doing two things wrong?
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  No, it only shows that they essentially have no principles at all, or at least none that they’re willing to lose money over (which is ultimately the same thing). It’s always useful when someone reveals their true moral fiber, as the NBA has done.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Why are both the same thing? If it doesn't cost me anything to fight injustice and I don't do it, that is strictly worse than if it doesn't cost me to fight injustice and I do. Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      It isn’t about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it. If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that’s a very different scenario. At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed. That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.
rtkwe 7y ago
North Carolina didn't have 4 billion dollars and a 1.3 billion person potential market to dangle in front of the NBA is why.
- vkou 7y ago
  No, the difference was that anyone with a whit of sense knew that North Carolina would bow down to pressure, and had more to lose from the NBA taking a stance. And now, everyone with a whit of sense knows that China will not bow to pressure, and the NBA has more to lose from taking a stance. For some reason, they aren't keen on tilting at windmills.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Somewhat but a good bit of that pressure wouldn't have come from companies if NC had similar market power and the ability to just shut out whole companies from their market on a whim like China does.
efa 7y ago
This times a thousand!
oarabbus_ 7y ago
I hope they double their profits. It's a fantastic product, even though you seem to strongly dislike it, and I'm proud of the commissioner Adam Silver for publicly standing up for freedom of speech.
inthenewsaklj 7y ago
It's easy to be woke in US. In fact it's very profitable. > Whether the topic is Colin Kaepernick, mass shootings or President Donald Trump, the Golden State Warriors coach is rarely shy about speaking out on difficult, controversial subjects. Except on Monday. Kerr was asked about the controversy engulfing the NBA ... He didn’t have much to say. https://sports.yahoo.com/outspoken-warriors-coach-steve-kerr-no-comments-nb-as-china-controversy-043403491.html https://sports.yahoo.com/outspoken-warriors-coach-steve-kerr...
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  > That’s far from the standard Kerr response on social issues. He’s right on one point. The conflict between the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese government is complex, and speaking publicly on the topic from a place of ignorance is ill advised. > But what’s not complicated is analyzing the NBA’s response to Morey’s comments, which places a clear priority on the league’s financial interests over human rights concerns on the other side of the world.

landcoctos 7y ago

I completely agree.

yummypaint 7y ago

Exactly this. They have no claim of neutrality or being apolitical. They have already demonstrated that losing money for the sake of attacking lgbt rights is a sacrifice they're willing to make. The values of team owners and major nba stakeholders are already more in line with the ccp than the american public, so let them choke on our scorn. It's our collective responsibility to do them enough financial damage that this becomes a learning experience.

i_am_nomad 7y ago
I’ll expand on this by pulling two sequential quotations in the article from NBA commissioner Adam Silver: "It is inevitable that people around the world -- including America and China -- will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences.” Bullshit, see North Carolina. “However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way." Bullshit, see Donald Sterling.
- adamiscool8 7y ago
  I agree with your callout of the NBA's blatant hypocrisy on adjudicating political issues, but Donald Sterling's comments were definitely not a good faith contribution regarding an issue of public contention.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  >Bullshit, see Donald Sterling. Yeah, blatant racism, including against some of the biggest stars in the NBA's history, is definitely the same thing here. That's not regulating political discourse - that's not allowing a racist to be in a position of power over the very people he is prejudiced against.
  - i_am_nomad 7y ago
    No one said anything about political discourse, just about differing opinions on various issues. Surely, racism is one of them. And just so you know, the prevailing Chinese opinion on that is quite a bit different that what we believe in the West.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      Do you think that the extent of racism is what opinions you hold?
      - i_am_nomad 7y ago
        No, but since you asked, can you tell me what racist things Donald Sterling did, besides make some comments in private?
        gamblor956 7y ago
        Donald Sterling settled multiple racial discrimination lawsuits related to his openly racist criteria for putative tenants in his apartment buildings... See e.g. https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4619819 https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4619819
        i_am_nomad 7y ago
        Then we have to wonder why the NBA let him own a team in the first place.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

drcode 7y ago

Let's give them some initial credit for being supportive of employees that support Hong Kong- They've shown more of a spine than Blizzard at this point.

navigatesol 7y ago
>Let's give them some initial credit for being supportive of employees that support Hong Kong Daryl Morey is not an employee of the NBA, so I don't think there's anything they could do, practically speaking.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

They did one thing right but did another thing wrong. Is that worse than doing two things wrong?

i_am_nomad 7y ago
No, it only shows that they essentially have no principles at all, or at least none that they’re willing to lose money over (which is ultimately the same thing). It’s always useful when someone reveals their true moral fiber, as the NBA has done.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Why are both the same thing? If it doesn't cost me anything to fight injustice and I don't do it, that is strictly worse than if it doesn't cost me to fight injustice and I do. Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    It isn’t about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it. If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that’s a very different scenario. At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed. That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.

rtkwe 7y ago

North Carolina didn't have 4 billion dollars and a 1.3 billion person potential market to dangle in front of the NBA is why.

vkou 7y ago
No, the difference was that anyone with a whit of sense knew that North Carolina would bow down to pressure, and had more to lose from the NBA taking a stance. And now, everyone with a whit of sense knows that China will not bow to pressure, and the NBA has more to lose from taking a stance. For some reason, they aren't keen on tilting at windmills.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Somewhat but a good bit of that pressure wouldn't have come from companies if NC had similar market power and the ability to just shut out whole companies from their market on a whim like China does.

efa 7y ago

This times a thousand!

oarabbus_ 7y ago

I hope they double their profits. It's a fantastic product, even though you seem to strongly dislike it, and I'm proud of the commissioner Adam Silver for publicly standing up for freedom of speech.

inthenewsaklj 7y ago

It's easy to be woke in US. In fact it's very profitable. > Whether the topic is Colin Kaepernick, mass shootings or President Donald Trump, the Golden State Warriors coach is rarely shy about speaking out on difficult, controversial subjects. Except on Monday. Kerr was asked about the controversy engulfing the NBA ... He didn’t have much to say. https://sports.yahoo.com/outspoken-warriors-coach-steve-kerr-no-comments-nb-as-china-controversy-043403491.html https://sports.yahoo.com/outspoken-warriors-coach-steve-kerr...

CompanionCuuube 7y ago
> That’s far from the standard Kerr response on social issues. He’s right on one point. The conflict between the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese government is complex, and speaking publicly on the topic from a place of ignorance is ill advised. > But what’s not complicated is analyzing the NBA’s response to Morey’s comments, which places a clear priority on the league’s financial interests over human rights concerns on the other side of the world.