NBA "owner" Controversy

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,701
1,003
126
So you think we should entertain his outrage because you believe someone else's outrage is too much and yet you don't seem to care to talk about the original outrage?

I guess if you are one of those people that believes everyone's opinion is worth listening to then I can see where you are coming from. For me personally, everyone's opinion isn't worth listening to, especially if I know their history and their penchant for discussing things in bad faith.
I'm really not following. Any way you could clarify what you are saying?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,841
4,555
126
I'm really not following. Any way you could clarify what you are saying?
You are of the opinion that indulging in a discussion with a poster who has a history of arguing in bad faith is productive, I and others disagree. Slow has never acknowledged facts that are counter to his views and continues to misrepresent facts in order to push an agenda.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,735
10,933
126
Oh? Why do you think people catcall?
People catcall as a display to others, which is what I already said was my purpose. The purpose of catcalling is not to get laid though, which was your point.

If you think that your method of engagement with someone deliberately lying is a superior way of engaging with third parties can you cite some relevant research that says so? It would certainly seem that recent history shows strongly otherwise.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,013
667
116
BTW - Who owns you?

I'll tell this quick story, not for you because of your predisposition to ignore the scourge of racism.

Years ago I shared an office with an older chinese guy. Just talking one day I told him (at the time) there was a cheesesteak shop in Phila called Ch1nk's Steaks. I found that name offensive and I asked Harvey what he thought. His answer was it didn't bother him. He also told me the name he finds offensive is "Chinaman", which I though was benign.

I don't have the arrogence to be the arbitor of what other people find offensive about the names used for them. I defer to Harvey what he wants to be called and what name(s) he finds offensive.
I expect people to call me saltine from now on because I'm a salty white cracker.

According to your own articles the NBA is NOT dropping the term owner. The NBA has apparently always called owners Governors and the owners are part of the Board of Governors of the NBA. So the NBA is NOT saying "new terms will be used"and they are NOT asking others to do so.

Two teams have changed terminology and others are considering it, however both your articles say the the NBA is not asking teams to change or even to consider a change.

If you want to make the issue to be about creating racism where there is none, then be accurate with your facts, because when you make things up you get in your own way.
The same terms are used in the NHL as well.

I wonder how the people complaining about this felt about Al Davis calling himself the President of the General Partner even after he became the sole owner of the Oakland Raiders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,104
1,274
126
I agree that it’s introducing racism into something where it didn’t exist previously. Society has taken huge steps backwards (not this instance but in general) on race relations. It’s become completely acceptable to be racist just so long as it’s against he right skin color which is not healthy for anyone.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,701
1,003
126
People catcall as a display to others, which is what I already said was my purpose. The purpose of catcalling is not to get laid though, which was your point.

If you think that your method of engagement with someone deliberately lying is a superior way of engaging with third parties can you cite some relevant research that says so? It would certainly seem that recent history shows strongly otherwise.
I think we'll have to separate discussions about why you might choose to attack Slow from why I might suggestion otherwise.

But I don't consider your answer sufficient. Display to which others? To accomplish what?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,735
10,933
126
I think we'll have to separate discussions about why you might choose to attack Slow from why I might suggestion otherwise.
Meh. Based on your posts I don’t think you have a good understanding of me and as I said before I have little interest in you examining my motivations via internet message board.

He’s a stupid piece of shit and we should not be afraid to recognize stupid pieces of shit.

But I don't consider your answer sufficient. Display to which others? To accomplish what?
I literally already said what. People other than those in a conversation consume it. It might be vanity to assume that other people will see my brilliance and decide that this guy is a liar but that’s my point, however provincial it might be.
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,083
1,670
126
I think we'll have to separate discussions about why you might choose to attack Slow from why I might suggestion otherwise.

But I don't consider your answer sufficient. Display to which others? To accomplish what?
Clearly, but that seems to be more because you are incapable of having that conversation as evidenced by your pointless blather and using analogies to further muddy up the discussion (when analogies should be used to do the opposite).

Essentially you're just trying to argue that if instead of us calling him a lying piece of shit because he keeps lying and being a piece of shit, and instead try other means of getting through to him, that it will be better. The issue is, that has been attempted, and its led to him escalating his lies and shittiness. You can waste your time doing that shit, but you'll end up just like everyone else who now is just exposing the dishonesty with which he approaches every single subject he posts about.

That's your problem then. He's been pretty clear about his intent, if its not sufficient for you, the onus isn't on him to provide you one. To anyone that might be duped into buying these right wing crybabies bullshit about them being persecuted worse than anybody because people dare to call out their hate, lies, and generally shitty behavior and beliefs. So that they don't get duped by these fucking liars. In other words, people like you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,089
86
91
I agree that it’s introducing racism into something where it didn’t exist previously. Society has taken huge steps backwards (not this instance but in general) on race relations. It’s become completely acceptable to be racist just so long as it’s against he right skin color which is not healthy for anyone.
So Team Owners have never been racist before and this is all just made up to fake racism?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/racist-team-owners/
https://www.huffpost.com/topic/donald-sterling-racist-comments
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/us/sports-franchises-racist-intolerant-statements/index.html
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,104
1,274
126
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,701
1,003
126
I'll bite.

What do you think our motivation is?
Like catcalling, it is what is called homosocial behavior. The audience that matters for the behavior are people who already agree with you anyway. It serves no value in changing anyone's mind about anything. It functions within the group to establish and reinforce a hierarchy. Well, the audience I suppose is also people outside the group, but in that way not really to change anyone's mind either but to mark the boundaries of who can belong to the group. Which is why so many have attacked my suggestion here. They don't want my ideas to be represented among the group. Too different to tolerate. They need to be punished. Either to ban the ideas or to kick me out. Too bad on the former. I'm not changing my tune. Maybe I'm inviting the Slow treatment from here on. But I'm hopeful other outcomes may be achieved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UglyCasanova

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,841
4,555
126
Like catcalling, it is what is called homosocial behavior. The audience that matters for the behavior are people who already agree with you anyway. It serves no value in changing anyone's mind about anything. It functions within the group to establish and reinforce a hierarchy. Well, the audience I suppose is also people outside the group, but in that way not really to change anyone's mind either but to mark the boundaries of who can belong to the group. Which is why so many have attacked my suggestion here. They don't want my ideas to be represented among the group. Too different to tolerate. They need to be punished. Either to ban the ideas or to kick me out. Too bad on the former. I'm not changing my tune. Maybe I'm inviting the Slow treatment from here on. But I'm hopeful other outcomes may be achieved.
So you've ignored everyone telling you that slow is dishonest and trying to have a discussion with him is a waste of time because you really believe that everyone here just wants to be part of the cool kids click? And you stand by your assertions and aren't going to change your mind because...? This despite the fact that no one agrees with you and yet no one has given you the "slow treatment". Hmm...this sure looks like one of those self fulfilling prophecies.

So in your mind: a poster with a known history of dishonesty = someone who should be taken at face value.

To you posters who don't have a history of dishonesty = people who shouldn't be believed when they tell you why they do what they do.

Interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,735
10,933
126
Like catcalling, it is what is called homosocial behavior. The audience that matters for the behavior are people who already agree with you anyway. It serves no value in changing anyone's mind about anything. It functions within the group to establish and reinforce a hierarchy. Well, the audience I suppose is also people outside the group, but in that way not really to change anyone's mind either but to mark the boundaries of who can belong to the group. Which is why so many have attacked my suggestion here. They don't want my ideas to be represented among the group. Too different to tolerate. They need to be punished. Either to ban the ideas or to kick me out. Too bad on the former. I'm not changing my tune. Maybe I'm inviting the Slow treatment from here on. But I'm hopeful other outcomes may be achieved.
And yet you don’t see me attempting to punish your ideas or kick you out, I’m simply disagreeing with you.

I have no interest in giving you the slow treatment even though I substantially disagree with you here. The reason is I think you’re coming at this from an honest perspective and Slow’s relentless dishonesty is what I dislike, not his opinions. I hope you stick around.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,701
1,003
126
So you've ignored everyone telling you that slow is dishonest and trying to have a discussion with him is a waste of time because you really believe that everyone here just wants to be part of the cool kids click? And you stand by your assertions and aren't going to change your mind because...? This despite the fact that no one agrees with you and yet no one has given you the "slow treatment". Hmm...this sure looks like one of those self fulfilling prophecies.

So in your mind: a poster with a known history of dishonesty = someone who should be taken at face value.

To you posters who don't have a history of dishonesty = people who shouldn't be believed when they tell you why they do what they do.

Interesting.
If you come back with genuine curiosity at some time, we can pick up the discussion then.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
48,764
3,003
126
Like catcalling, it is what is called homosocial behavior. The audience that matters for the behavior are people who already agree with you anyway. It serves no value in changing anyone's mind about anything. It functions within the group to establish and reinforce a hierarchy. Well, the audience I suppose is also people outside the group, but in that way not really to change anyone's mind either but to mark the boundaries of who can belong to the group. Which is why so many have attacked my suggestion here. They don't want my ideas to be represented among the group. Too different to tolerate. They need to be punished. Either to ban the ideas or to kick me out. Too bad on the former. I'm not changing my tune. Maybe I'm inviting the Slow treatment from here on. But I'm hopeful other outcomes may be achieved.
I should think that in any social group there are rules and hierarchies, whether stated or not. People in that group establish a presence of sorts by how they express themselves which depends in part on accuracy and honesty. When those are lacking, reactions spill over as humans aren't able to perfectly compartmentalize and remove a perception of motivation in selecting a topic.


Tell you what, perhaps a thread which is more general but related to the issue as I understand it may be useful. I'll give it a shot.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,701
1,003
126
Hmm...this sure looks like one of those self fulfilling prophecies.

So in your mind: a poster with a known history of dishonesty = someone who should be taken at face value.
Judging by subsequent responses, it doesn't appear to have worked out that way.

And yet you don’t see me attempting to punish your ideas or kick you out, I’m simply disagreeing with you.

I have no interest in giving you the slow treatment even though I substantially disagree with you here. The reason is I think you’re coming at this from an honest perspective and Slow’s relentless dishonesty is what I dislike, not his opinions. I hope you stick around.
Yeah he can be pretty infuriating. The simple problem is that sometimes he actually makes a fair point. I would like room for that too somehow. Maybe you have different ideas on how to do that?

I should think that in any social group there are rules and hierarchies, whether stated or not. People in that group establish a presence of sorts by how they express themselves which depends in part on accuracy and honesty. When those are lacking, reactions spill over as humans aren't able to perfectly compartmentalize and remove a perception of motivation in selecting a topic.


Tell you what, perhaps a thread which is more general but related to the issue as I understand it may be useful. I'll give it a shot.
If you like. I've certainly derailed the primary discussion here.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,735
10,933
126
Judging by subsequent responses, it doesn't appear to have worked out that way.

Yeah he can be pretty infuriating. The simple problem is that sometimes he actually makes a fair point. I would like room for that too somehow. Maybe you have different ideas on how to do that?

If you like. I've certainly derailed the primary discussion here.
I am sure he does make a fair and honest point now and then but to me that is irrelevant because he will abandon fairness and honesty as soon as they are no longer useful. Again, the points he makes are not why I dislike him, I dislike him because he is a fundamentally dishonest individual. He’s like Trump in this regard where he takes advantage of people’s desire to believe others are acting in good faith.

I don’t think there is an answer because he’s not interested in an answer, much like Trump is not interested in reducing the frequency of his lies, only in finding a way to make us believe them. I’m of the opinion that when someone lies to you 100 times and says something true the 101st the appropriate answer to their true statement is ‘fuck you’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,701
1,003
126
Curiosity or if I agree with you? You seem to want the latter.
To me, in your reply, there were several places where you seemed to be levying criticism instead of genuinely asking if you followed me correctly. I think your response does not capture what I'm trying to convey. I don't mind if you disagree with me or particularly even if you attack me (although the latter I don't think is productive for what I value from a conversation at least). However, I don't particularly see the point in engaging in discussion if it is not approached with some openness that something important may not have been understood. I do think those same bounds apply to me on the other side of things. In that spirit, I may not have understood you correctly and jumped to conclusions about your level of curiosity. Which is why I'm replying to open things up in case I erred.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,841
4,555
126
To me, in your reply, there were several places where you seemed to be levying criticism instead of genuinely asking if you followed me correctly. I think your response does not capture what I'm trying to convey. I don't mind if you disagree with me or particularly even if you attack me (although the latter I don't think is productive for what I value from a conversation at least). However, I don't particularly see the point in engaging in discussion if it is not approached with some openness that something important may not have been understood. I do think those same bounds apply to me on the other side of things. In that spirit, I may not have understood you correctly and jumped to conclusions about your level of curiosity. Which is why I'm replying to open things up in case I erred.
Irony.
Why do you think your reasoning for not having a discussion is valid but not others reasoning?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY