You are talking about China vs. USA as far as foreign policy, which is a different discussion altogether. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of an institution who is supposedly all about social justice (see cancellation of NBA for 2 days because of the falsely portrayed events of Jacob Blake), but then cancels a teams' GM for speaking out against the hypocrisy of China.Duck07 wrote:Not speaking to just you alone on the Ja takes but there isn't an "Agenda" issue and I'm not sure what the LeBron/Morey stuff has to do with it. Using China as some kind of "issue" is a classic "remove the timber from your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from mine." Sure, what they've done is bad but it still pales in comparison to the U.S. foreign and domestic policy so what does any of it matter? The NBA is a Corporation and all of its moves are made under the auspices of what is best for the Shareholders. There were likely talks with Ja prior to the IG moment, so that when it did happen, it was going to be met with a response from Adam Silver.dd10snoop28 wrote: Reread my post, I think you are misunderstanding my point, which is disappointing. This is an entirely different situation compared to Kyrie. Ja seems to be exhibiting criminal behavior (if the allegations are true), while Kyrie has not. My argument is not on whether Ja should be held to account for what he has done (he certainly should be, if true), but the timing of his "discipline" is the part that demonstrates the agenda. Here is what I said:
"It sounds like Ja has a history for getting into physical entanglements, but it is funny that the NBA only chooses to take actions after he legally filmed himself dancing with a firearm. Not saying I condone what he did, but you'd think they would suspend him for the multiple accusation of assault that he has had the past year rather than legally carrying a firearm?"
The point is that the NBA did NOT take any actions on all of his allegations over the past two years, but only took action when he filmed himself with a gun at a party.... Why didn't they suspend him and/or discipline for all of the previous allegations?
Now all of the stories running in the mainstream media is that they suspended him for carrying a gun (totally legal) rather than all of his actual felonious activities he has been accused of.
That's the agenda.
P.S. I am more inclined to believe that he has actually done the things he is being accused just the fact that there have been multiple instances of these type of things happening (assaults). That raises another question on how organizations should act in light of unverified allegations before the facts get born out in the court of law and/or court of public opinion. What to do?
And who are their shareholders in truth? Do you really think that public companies operate for the benefit of their shareholders anymore? ESG and social corporate governance have taken over the corporate world and changed the dynamic of old-school capitalism. It is no longer about doing what is best for the shareholders (see: SVG bailout), but rather, corporations have become an extension of the elites (and I world argue the federal government as well) and are being used to feed the agendas that are being constantly reiterated in the media over and over.
When the media, corporations, and entertainment are all repeating the same talking points, who can disagree? That's why it is so easy to cancel people nowadays because these institutions are so lock-step with each other. The Kyrie thing is actually a good example. I expected at least half of the NBA commentators (especially former players) to be incensed with the treatment of Kyrie by the NBA, but I barely heard a peep. Everyone was blasting him on the vaccine issue and on the documentary thing. Almost no dissenting opinions in the media. That was shocking to me.