Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 208
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    ______________
    I think this is in bounds of the forum, as it is about the treatment and amount of "control" folks think they should have over former Duke basketball players...
    ______________

    I appreciate the verve with which you state your opinion, though I'm not sure I fully understand the rules for what a former Duke basketball player may say and not garner some civil "punishment" by "we." I assume that "we" means you and whoever thinks like you on any given societal topic. If it is the larger "we," as in society as a whole, I disagree. In fact, I think it is a far more egregious act against a free society to have people wanting to ostracize others because of opinion. I dare say Kyrie's continued association with the university is far more in line with its, at least public, stance on tolerance than is yours. There will always be people who have differing opinions. Kyrie is NOT a university official. He is NOT, as far as I can tell, in anyway claiming to represent Duke University with his opinions. It is far better to let those opinions be expressed publicly without attempting to quash them and create resentment or worse.

    I'm gonna guess Duke alum have a wide array of opinions about what is and isn't with respect to COVID fact/fiction and science. Do you want to silence any basketball players who disagree with you on the subject of genetically created viruses and vaccines, wear/don't wear masks, the good and bad for vaccinations, age appropriate decisions, etc.?

    Don't like him, so be it. Don't read, listen to, talk about him, watch old Duke games he is in, highlights...whatever. Don't like what he's got to say, I get it. I don't get what moral authority people claim so they get to decide what is "beyond the pale" and "out of bounds." So long as he isn't intentionally hurting anyone, (and I'll bet that isn't his intent), I vehemently object to the notion that Duke should ostracize him because some don't like what he is posting to Instagram.

    Yes, I think I do understand the concept of "freedom of speech." I also understand this second layer of people who believe they have the moral authority to tell others what they can and cannot say, on the flimsiest of relationships, to find ways to punish those whose positions and opinions differ. In my personal opinion, the latter is far worse for all of us.

    IMO Kyrie and his, perhaps off-the-wall, opinions add color to the tapestry of our society. The thread may be course to the touch, but it is worth having.
    Trying really hard to not veer into PPB:

    Setting aside Duke Basketball being a private actor who can endorse/reject speech as it chooses, more generally, why shouldn't the marketplace be able to reject ideas that a majority of the community at large finds "beyond the pale"?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    The issue for me is that Kyrie is linking to / promoting someone who is encouraging his audience to target the families of children who were killed. Kyrie is entitled to his opinion but this does sound like "intentionally hurting someone".
    This.

    NPR did a story about the father of one of the children who was shot at Sandy Hook. If you haven't heard the story, you could search for it and give lt a listen. Truly eye-opening and scary stuff.

    In a nutshell, after the Sandy Hook shootings, a bunch of people got it in their heads that the shooting was a 'false flag' meant to push the government into taking away the second amendment. Websites and message boards were devoted to it. Many of the parents began to get death threats, if you can imagine.

    Well, this one parent, he thought that if he went on their sites and told his side of the story, people would come around. What he didn't understand is that these people are not rational. It only stirred things up more. It turned into a years-long battle to get these kinds of sites shut down and to protect people who had already lost their children to a horrific tragedy from ongoing abuse and suffering. He eventually got lawyers involved and then got an army of volunteers to help him find and shut down these people.

    Apparently the same thing is happening again after Uvalde.

    This speech is, in fact, being shut down, continuously, on an ongoing basis. There are a lot of people who volunteer hundreds of hours of their own time to help these unfortunate families.

    Bottom line is that speech is free, but speech that incites to harassment and violence can be and is being shut down. To affiliate oneself with people who devote their lives to fanning the flames of this type of fire is, indeed, beyond the pale.
       

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The People's Republic of Travis County
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Trying really hard to not veer into PPB:

    Setting aside Duke Basketball being a private actor who can endorse/reject speech as it chooses, more generally, why shouldn't the marketplace be able to reject ideas that a majority of the community at large finds "beyond the pale"?
    Yes. The poster to whom you were responding is arguing against those who are "attempting to quash" Kyrie's right to express opinion's publicly. No one is actually doing this, of course; the idea is simply that Duke should really have no further and ongoing relationship with Kyrie. Sort of like how the Nixon Library did not, despite his preference, end up at Duke.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    A couple of things I'd like to respond to in Kfanarmy's post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I appreciate the verve with which you state your opinion, though I'm not sure I fully understand the rules for what a former Duke basketball player may say and not garner some civil "punishment" by "we." I assume that "we" means you and whoever thinks like you on any given societal topic.
    Your use of the word "rules" here is concerning. I thought I made it clear that I was expressing my own opinion on the situation. There's no code here, except a moral one, and clearly there is a great deal of variation among such codes. That's why we are having this discussion, in fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    In fact, I think it is a far more egregious act against a free society to have people wanting to ostracize others because of opinion.
    Actually the right to "ostracize" others is, in fact, part of having a free society, according to our constitution. It's phrased as the right to "peaceably assemble", but SCOTUS has held for a long time that the First Amendment includes a "freedom of association". Inherent in a freedom to associate with some is the equal right to not associate with others, by whatever criteria you determine (within some carefully-defined limits, of course). Most of us make those sorts of judgments on a daily basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    Kyrie is NOT a university official. He is NOT, as far as I can tell, in anyway claiming to represent Duke University with his opinions. It is far better to let those opinions be expressed publicly without attempting to quash them and create resentment or worse.
    What I suggested is not that Duke attempt to "quash" Kyrie's opinions. In fact, I think any statement at all would be a mistake. What I suggested was that they no longer associate with him. By that I mean not invite him to Duke events, not use him in recruiting videos, and generally not mention him at all. Ignore him, essentially, which is quite different from publicly disagreeing with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I'm gonna guess Duke alum have a wide array of opinions about what is and isn't with respect to COVID fact/fiction and science. Do you want to silence any basketball players who disagree with you on the subject of genetically created viruses and vaccines, wear/don't wear masks, the good and bad for vaccinations, age appropriate decisions, etc.?
    There are threads about that, and I have expressed my opinions there. Feel free to search for them, if you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    So long as he isn't intentionally hurting anyone, (and I'll bet that isn't his intent), I vehemently object to the notion that Duke should ostracize him because some don't like what he is posting to Instagram.
    As others have mentioned, it's hard to ignore the intentional hurting part in this particular case. That's pretty much precisely why my view is that this time, he's gone past the bounds of acceptable behavior. He's expressing support for someone already found liable twice for defamation, and for whom a third trial on that topic still remains. In other words, he's expressed support for someone already found to have engaged in intentional harm. There comes a point where reasonable people should be aware of such things, and IMO, if Kyrie didn't directly intend to support the harm, he should have known that this conduct was harmful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I also understand this second layer of people who believe they have the moral authority to tell others what they can and cannot say, on the flimsiest of relationships, to find ways to punish those whose positions and opinions differ. In my personal opinion, the latter is far worse for all of us.
    Maybe such a "second layer" (whatever that means) of people exists, but you won't find them here. I'm not telling Kyrie what he can and cannot say. I'm telling him that what he has said is unacceptable to me, personally, and that I hope Duke, as an institution I support, agrees with my point of view. There's a big difference between those two things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    IMO Kyrie and his, perhaps off-the-wall, opinions add color to the tapestry of our society. The thread may be course to the touch, but it is worth having.
    I find his opinions in this case to be quite off-color, and I prefer to hang out in an environment with more pleasant surroundings.
    Last edited by Phredd3; 09-16-2022 at 07:15 PM. Reason: Fix quote tags.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Is it too late for me to express my opinion that Kyrie is both incredibly talented and absurdly uninformed?

    Sorry if it’s been covered.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I'm gonna guess Duke alum have a wide array of opinions about what is and isn't with respect to COVID fact/fiction and science. Do you want to silence any basketball players who disagree with you on the subject of genetically created viruses and vaccines, wear/don't wear masks, the good and bad for vaccinations, age appropriate decisions, etc.
    First of all, “Genetically created viruses”?? Huh?? Second, with all due respect, Kfanarmy, you have been a good poster over the years and I appreciate your contributions, but the only opinions that matter in regard to COVID, vaccines, and masks are the options of the world’s leading experts who are researching these issues on a daily basis.

    The opinions of Joe Blow and the general public are 100% irrelevant.
       

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by SMAX View Post
    Freedom of speech. We don’t have to like it or promote it but KI has
    his 1st amendment right to say what he thinks. I know I’ll be kicked off this forum again for disagreeing with your thread but I still have a right to say it. For the record, I’m not a KI fan on or off the court.
    And each of us has the right to belittle his stupid uttering. And employers and sponsors gzve the right to shun him like the plague.
       

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    First of all, “Genetically created viruses”?? Huh?? Second, with all due respect, Kfanarmy, you have been a good poster over the years and I appreciate your contributions, but the only opinions that matter in regard to COVID, vaccines, and masks are the options of the world’s leading experts who are researching these issues on a daily basis.

    The opinions of Joe Blow and the general public are 100% irrelevant.
    Oops, I meant to write “opinions” of the world’s leading experts……

    I’m in Austin at Manuel’s, my favorite restaurant in the world, and the top-shelf margaritas I’ve been drinking have compromised the integrity of my writing. All apologies.
       

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    Oops, I meant to write “opinions” of the world’s leading experts……

    I’m in Austin at Manuel’s, my favorite restaurant in the world, and the top-shelf margaritas I’ve been drinking have compromised the integrity of my writing. All apologies.
    “I wish I was in Austin
    in the Chili Parlor Bar
    Drinking Mad Dog Margaritas
    and not caring where you are.”

    - Guy Clark (Dublin Blues)

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by SMAX View Post
    Freedom of speech. We don’t have to like it or promote it but KI has
    his 1st amendment right to say what he thinks. I know I’ll be kicked off this forum again for disagreeing with your thread but I still have a right to say it. For the record, I’m not a KI fan on or off the court.
    Please, please stop bringing constitutional rights arguments into this. No one has suggested that the government should limit Kyrie or anyone's right to speech (though if such speech is judged by a court of law to have caused harm, then you will suffer the consequences as Alex Jones is right now). As others have mentioned, the only thing being discussed is how individuals (like each of us) and private organizations (like Duke university) might react to Kyrie and perhaps seek to no longer associate with him or otherwise support him due to his unconventional speech.

    Additionally, and this is an important point that many DBR readers fail to understand, you do not "HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY IT" on this board. This board is a privately owned website and no one has the right to say anything they want here. The site owners have imposed rules about what kind of speech is and is not allowed. Either you follow their rules or you will likely be removed from the community and lose access to this place.

    I'm not sure why you think your comment will get you banned. Though you posted a lot of incorrect stuff in a relatively short post, none of it seems to be of the variety that would cause you to get booted.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    “I wish I was in Austin
    in the Chili Parlor Bar
    Drinking Mad Dog Margaritas
    and not caring where you are.”

    - Guy Clark (Dublin Blues)
    It’s funny you should mention it because the Texas Chili Parlor is on the itinerary for tomorrow. 😃 Been there many a time over the years.

    And yes, I will be eating spicy chili🥵 and imbibing Mad Dog Margaritas aplenty. Wish me luck!

    Now back to our regularly scheduled Kyrie zaniness!
       

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    “I wish I was in Austin
    in the Chili Parlor Bar
    Drinking Mad Dog Margaritas
    and not caring where you are.”

    - Guy Clark (Dublin Blues)
    Cool! I was there last month!
       

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    It’s funny you should mention it because the Texas Chili Parlor is on the itinerary for tomorrow. 😃 Been there many a time over the years.

    And yes, I will be eating spicy chili🥵 and imbibing Mad Dog Margaritas aplenty. Wish me luck!

    Now back to our regularly scheduled Kyrie zaniness!
    Sounds great!!!!

    BTW, if you don’t know the song — worth the short time it takes:



    Have a few for me!

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    Cool! I was there last month!
    I salute you, Clemmons! 🫡
       

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Sounds great!!!!

    BTW, if you don’t know the song — worth the short time it takes:



    Have a few for me!
    Will do, my friend!!

    And yep, I know and very much like that song. Playing it now. 👍
       

  16. #56
    There is only one former Duke player that, when watching an NBA game, I do not point out to family relatives or friends went to Duke. This is the one. Not only says embarrassing things but does not put his team first.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by unclsam1 View Post
    There is only one former Duke player that, when watching an NBA game, I do not point out to family relatives or friends went to Duke. This is the one. Not only says embarrassing things but does not put his team first.
    It’s not particularly surprising that a guy who has “unc” at the beginning of his chosen DBR moniker would feel negatively about Kyrie.

    We kid because we care! 😉
       

  18. #58
    What we have here, it seems to me, is a classic case of failure to communicate.

    The fundamental flaw at the foundation of the conflicting positions here, I believe, is that one side is assiduously defending Kyrie Irving against an attack that isn't actually being made. I don't see anyone suggesting that Irving is not entitled to express his opinions and to support whatever positions or theories he favors, however unpalatable those views and their advocates may be to the Duke Administration, or to individual Duke alumni and fans. Nor do I see anyone urging that Irving should be "silenced" or "punished" for voicing his beliefs. Certainly, as others have observed, the First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

    Some mention was made of "tolerance," with the assertion that those posters who are questioning whether Duke should disassociate itself from Irving are attempting to impose a more restrictive standard on Irving's speech than the University would apply. This is where I think the parties are talking past one another. There is a distinct difference between tolerance and tacit endorsement. I don't perceive any contention here that Irving's expression of his views should not be tolerated; and I have no doubt that the Duke Administration would agree that Irving's speech should be tolerated, in the sense that he should be afforded an opportunity to present his views, like others that may be more or less popular, in the "marketplace of ideas."

    Acknowledging that the expression of Irving's views should be tolerated, however, does not mean that the University, or individual members of the Duke community, are thereby obliged to endorse his positions. As a matter of widespread public perception, Irving is at least casually associated with Duke based on his brief tenure as a player with the basketball program. If the Duke Administration determines that it is contrary to the interests of the University to maintain that association as a consequence of Irving's public expression of views that may be regarded as morally repugnant, doesn't the Administration have a right -- indeed, a duty -- to disavow any implicit endorsement of his position?

    To do so, I submit, is not "silencing" or "punishing" Irving in any way; it's merely signaling that, just as Irving has a right to promote the causes he supports, the University is entitled to exercise its right to preserve and protect its own institutional integrity against potential harm. It's not difficult to conceive of other scenarios in which the Administration might deem it appropriate and necessary to disassociate itself from former members of the Duke community, based on conduct that could be regarded as antagonistic to its policies or potentially damaging in other ways. To argue otherwise is to suggest, in effect, that Irving's right to express himself should somehow be given greater weight and deference than that of the University or others affiliated with Duke.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    What we have here, it seems to me, is a classic case of failure to communicate.

    The fundamental flaw at the foundation of the conflicting positions here, I believe, is that one side is assiduously defending Kyrie Irving against an attack that isn't actually being made. I don't see anyone suggesting that Irving is not entitled to express his opinions and to support whatever positions or theories he favors, however unpalatable those views and their advocates may be to the Duke Administration, or to individual Duke alumni and fans. Nor do I see anyone urging that Irving should be "silenced" or "punished" for voicing his beliefs. Certainly, as others have observed, the First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

    Some mention was made of "tolerance," with the assertion that those posters who are questioning whether Duke should disassociate itself from Irving are attempting to impose a more restrictive standard on Irving's speech than the University would apply. This is where I think the parties are talking past one another. There is a distinct difference between tolerance and tacit endorsement. I don't perceive any contention here that Irving's expression of his views should not be tolerated; and I have no doubt that the Duke Administration would agree that Irving's speech should be tolerated, in the sense that he should be afforded an opportunity to present his views, like others that may be more or less popular, in the "marketplace of ideas."

    Acknowledging that the expression of Irving's views should be tolerated, however, does not mean that the University, or individual members of the Duke community, are thereby obliged to endorse his positions. As a matter of widespread public perception, Irving is at least casually associated with Duke based on his brief tenure as a player with the basketball program. If the Duke Administration determines that it is contrary to the interests of the University to maintain that association as a consequence of Irving's public expression of views that may be regarded as morally repugnant, doesn't the Administration have a right -- indeed, a duty -- to disavow any implicit endorsement of his position?

    To do so, I submit, is not "silencing" or "punishing" Irving in any way; it's merely signaling that, just as Irving has a right to promote the causes he supports, the University is entitled to exercise its right to preserve and protect its own institutional integrity against potential harm. It's not difficult to conceive of other scenarios in which the Administration might deem it appropriate and necessary to disassociate itself from former members of the Duke community, based on conduct that could be regarded as antagonistic to its policies or potentially damaging in other ways. To argue otherwise is to suggest, in effect, that Irving's right to express himself should somehow be given greater weight and deference than that of the University or others affiliated with Duke.
    My goodness, you are an excellent writer!

    And thank you for what you have written here today. Makes a lot of sense to me. 👍
       

  20. #60
    Irving is clueless. And dangerous. What he is espousing is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Coach K should call and let him know his views are no longer in the realm of reality. Duke should cut all ties.

    Kylie can espouse whatever idiotic ideas he wants. There should be not connection to Duke.
       

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-29-2015, 03:25 PM
  2. Great Kyrie Irving Article
    By BattierD12 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-26-2012, 07:48 AM
  3. Great ESPN article on Kyrie
    By KnoxDevil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-08-2010, 06:29 PM
  4. Headlines
    By LastRowFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 04:15 PM
  5. Headlines you don't want to see
    By DevilAlumna in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •