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.

Nalod wrote: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.

It all correct.
What I want to see is some concrete proposal on what have to be done not just acknowledgment of the problem.
The attention of all nation is already there. Innocent people get killed and will be killed again and again if nothing will be done about it. This is important not some generic "racial conflict".
We need to act on specific issues one at a time to reduce overall racial tensions and harmonize the society.
If we will not concentrate on problem at hand nothing will be done.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:All of these organizations are heirarchical, so essentially, yes, they are centrally run.

That simply is not accurate and that is not just a difference of opinion.

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.

But what you'e arguing is there is an individual or small group of individuals responsible for ALL of these things, otherwise the premise fall apart.

Either you have a legitimate star chamber with a hand in EVERYTHING, or the theory relies on some overarching guiding principles about social order the individual heads of these organizations inherit era to era, either of which is crushed under the weight of its own logic.

Obama has been in office for nearly 8 years. So is he 1.) Head of the program? 2.) Unaware of the program; or 3.) Aware he's a pawn of the program but goes along with it anyway?

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.

Is it not. I am asking you specific, pragmatic questions, inviting you to logically explain how these things could occur. I am making the exact opposite attempt of shutting down a talk.

I DO believe you're promoting a conspiracy theory but I'm not telling you to shut-up, I'm asking you to explain more, hoping to illustrate that the walls you'll inevitably run into trying to rationally explain the pragmatism of your theory will illustrate the fallacy of them.

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.

In what form?

And again, you didn't just suggest "pressure" would come down, you suggested actual editing, alteration and suppression of their speech would occur. I'm not embellishing what you said, those were your exact words.

Again:

"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."

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

It was YOUR example, I highlighted the logical fallacy of it. And there has been no back and forth.

You still haven't explained even a little bit how a motivated individual like Melo will be silenced or will comply with the manipulation of his speech.

Can you please try?

For now I will just leave you with a quote from someone I respect.

Woodrow Wilson
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Now I can't make you read that Tragedy and Hope 101 book, but it lays out what Wilson was getting at.

Thanks for the nice discussion and sorry I am not finishing it, just don't have the desire to keep going and I apparently didn't do justice to any of my points,
EMS

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:All of these organizations are heirarchical, so essentially, yes, they are centrally run.

That simply is not accurate and that is not just a difference of opinion.

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.

But what you'e arguing is there is an individual or small group of individuals responsible for ALL of these things, otherwise the premise fall apart.

Either you have a legitimate star chamber with a hand in EVERYTHING, or the theory relies on some overarching guiding principles about social order the individual heads of these organizations inherit era to era, either of which is crushed under the weight of its own logic.

Obama has been in office for nearly 8 years. So is he 1.) Head of the program? 2.) Unaware of the program; or 3.) Aware he's a pawn of the program but goes along with it anyway?

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.

Is it not. I am asking you specific, pragmatic questions, inviting you to logically explain how these things could occur. I am making the exact opposite attempt of shutting down a talk.

I DO believe you're promoting a conspiracy theory but I'm not telling you to shut-up, I'm asking you to explain more, hoping to illustrate that the walls you'll inevitably run into trying to rationally explain the pragmatism of your theory will illustrate the fallacy of them.

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.

In what form?

And again, you didn't just suggest "pressure" would come down, you suggested actual editing, alteration and suppression of their speech would occur. I'm not embellishing what you said, those were your exact words.

Again:

"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."

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

It was YOUR example, I highlighted the logical fallacy of it. And there has been no back and forth.

You still haven't explained even a little bit how a motivated individual like Melo will be silenced or will comply with the manipulation of his speech.

Can you please try?

For now I will just leave you with a quote from someone I respect.

Woodrow Wilson
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Now I can't make you read that Tragedy and Hope 101 book, but it lays out what Wilson was getting at.

Thanks for the nice discussion and sorry I am not finishing it, just don't have the desire to keep going and I apparently didn't do justice to any of my points,
EMS

I don't understand what's difficult or undesirable to rationally explain how some centralized authority figure will silence or edit Carmelo Anthony's speech/activism.

This is how misinformation thrives - vague, unsubstantiated accusation and insinuation, and the lack of commitment to actually engage in a fair exploration of the insinuation.

I appreciate your civility and politeness, but I find this sort of thing dangerous, not only because it's punting on simple logic, but it promotes the view that people are ultimately powerless, and always under some unseen thumb.

That sort of worldview promotes resentment and/or apathy (why bother).

There are some very real countries in the world where this supper-big-brother exist and rule.
I was leaving in country as such and it is still as such even if many think otherwise.
As we are leaving our simple live not crossing interests of the powers we will never noticed.
But as soon as we will come close we will get the calls with quiet voice and people do getting killed if they go too far.
But this power is not some Dark Lord and his close minions.
This is the society itself killing the cancer cells who are to dangerous or seem to dangerous for the body.
In Soviet Union it was no single person at the end who represent evil but the whole system became the cancer killing the remaining life cells. And the system dies but get reborn again and still kicking.
Don't fear conspiracy of some group but the state when whole system of life became conspiracy.
Don't let the proponents of "common good" at the expense of individual rights talk you into accepting this state.

earthmansurfer wrote:I'm tired of making a point and then having the scope get wider and wider.

That's the opposite of what actually occurred. I focused on the very specific circumstance you mentioned, Carmelo Anthony, asking you to explain how the specific charge you made would work.

To answer your question as it is on topic - If you want a way they can TRY to silence Melo, off the top of my head:
1 - Cut away from interviews
2 - No live interviews
3 - Fines (As stated before the NBA is not a political platform.
4 - Suspensions

Who is "they"?

And I'll ask again. If this actually begins happening, do you really believe Melo will comply, or will he use other means to sound the alarm this is happening to him, creating a whole new headache for whomever "they" are?

You honestly think suspending Anthony for what he does on time that is a constitutionally protected right doesn't create a bigger s**tstorm than it solves?

Do I think it gets to that? Not as long as what Melo does doesn't disrupt the way things are going. But if others join in and it gets out of hand, who knows?

'Hey, you never know' ... the lifeblood of conspiracy theories.

Does Carroll Quigley theorize on why "they" tolerated Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement for as long as they did and allowed the passage of the Civil Rights bill?

Does he address why "they" allowed the election of Barack Obama ... twice?

Why the walls are coming down on gay rights in this country?

earthmansurfer wrote:You seem to just keep asking me questions.

I keep asking the same question, because you don't actually answer them.

You said "Social media give us the ability to broadcast pretty much whatever the hell we want. The implications come after the fact, not before."
You went on to say if there is no one lodging complaints and the like. But people openly post about this. And many articles have been written.

So let's follow the through line of logic here. You seem to be suggesting people openly complain about being censored or having their words edited, but the "articles" sounding the alarm about this are left unaltered.

So this central authority figure is monitoring and censoring tens of millions and hundreds of millions/billions of posts, but they aren't bothering with the posts demonstrating that this is occurring?

This doesn't strike you as contradictory? "They" have the resources and motivation to censor people, but proactively leave a trail of breadcrumbs to the stories documenting this.

As I say, this theories like this eventually collapse under their own weight when logically thought through.

Fair enough with high profile people, I would tend to agree.

So they are focused on messages that reach only a few people at a time but are permissive of the messages that reach millions of people at a time?

Again, how is this logical?

Who are they? Let me just guess, any agency that thinks an issue is growing too big.

How was the civil rights movement allowed to happen?

The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era?

Doesn't mean they would silence the player,

That's ALL I've been responding to, the notion you suggested that his words could be edited, altered or silenced.

Regarding your last question above, I think it very well could create problems for the league. But as stated before, the NBA is not a political venue for expression. Leave that one to the lawyers.

But Carmelo Anthony isn't property of the NBA.

I suppose they could TRY and create a s**tstorm by ordering him not to speak about social issues during pre and post game media, but they can't keep him from communicating on his own social media accounts. From calling WFAN, ESPN, or MSNBC or CNN for that matter.

It was thing to hand down a rebuke for making a politically/socially incorrect statement like league's have done in the past, but I think handing levying suspensions for him exercising his rights to talk about social injustice is a pandora's box I have a VERY difficult time seeing opened.

It would simply accomplish the exact opposite of what you suggest is the intent.

I wouldn't call a scholarly work a conspiracy theory. Actually, I wouldn't call anything a conspiracy theory as that just stifles a deeper look.

Again, you cannot chide for for asking you too many questions AND trying to stifle a deeper look at the same time. Those two notions are incongruent.