Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 208
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    My goodness, you are an excellent writer!

    And thank you for what you have written here today. Makes a lot of sense to me. 👍
    You can be a great writer and still be wrong. This quote above from ScottDude says it well.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    Then, somewhere along the line, things got weird. Weird is fine; I can ignore weird. I can't ignore dangerous, which is what some of his COVID stances were starting to become, and this most recent incident certainly is.
    Don't be tolerant of ignorance. Don't be tolerant of pushing falsehoods, especially when they are factually known falsehoods. Don't be tolerant of a potentially damaging thought that will encourage others to think the same way just because they wore Duke on their jersey.
    As SD stated, it's dangerous.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    He's absolutely one of the top three most talented players to ever wear a Duke jersey.
    This is a basketball board, and nobody has addressed this, so let's argue it instead. This statement is certainly debatable, and possibly absurd ("absolutely"? c'mon).

    First, he isn't even in the top-20 of accomplishments at/for Duke. Maybe not top-50. Which is all I really care about.

    But I know you wrote "talented". Even then I'd take Grant Hill, Jason/Jay Williams, and Zion Williamson above him. Probably Johnny Dawkins. Possibly Danny Ferry (maybe the most overlooked great player Duke has ever had). I'm sure I'm overlooking others that were equally talented. I suppose Kyrie has had more NBA accolades, but that doesn't mean he's absolutely more talented. He's a great ball-handler and very good scorer. He's not great at assists. I don't think he's really known for his defense.

    Sorry, I guess I have problems with absolute statements.
    Past is gone, thou canst not that recall; Future is not, may not be at all;
    Present is, [so] improve the flying hour; Present only is within thy power. - Friar Park Clock Tower [author unknown]

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    You can be a great writer and still be wrong. This quote above from ScottDude says it well.

    Don't be tolerant of ignorance. Don't be tolerant of pushing falsehoods, especially when they are factually known falsehoods. Don't be tolerant of a potentially damaging thought that will encourage others to think the same way just because they wore Duke on their jersey.
    As SD stated, it's dangerous.
    But then, what authority exercises the power to decide whose speech should be deemed sufficiently "dangerous" to warrant silencing their voices by denying them freedom of expression? When confronted with people who promulgate ignorance and push falsehoods, is it a feasible solution to suppress their speech and ban their books? Should we now abandon as too idealistic the notion that freedom and liberty can only thrive where there is an active marketplace of ideas, in which opposing views can be tested and differing theories can be subjected to challenge?

    Tolerating the expression of misguided ideas that are based on ignorance and false facts doesn't mean we have to stand by and let them take root. If the ideas are wrong, it is our responsibility to dispute them and to demonstrate why they should be rejected. I believe history has shown that we cannot overcome wrongful thinking by attempting to conceal or confine it. It must be ultimately be confronted and defeated through the power of persuasion.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    Tolerating the expression of misguided ideas that are based on ignorance and false facts doesn't mean we have to stand by and let them take root. If the ideas are wrong, it is our responsibility to dispute them and to demonstrate why they should be rejected. I believe history has shown that we cannot overcome wrongful thinking by attempting to conceal or confine it. It must be ultimately be confronted and defeated through the power of persuasion.
    That’s not happening in the USA for a long time! The line in the most critical sand is basically dead center and both sides are absolutely certain the other side has “misguided ideas that are based on ignorance and false facts”. Kyrie is nothing compared to our largest problem.
       

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    This is a basketball board, and nobody has addressed this, so let's argue it instead. This statement is certainly debatable, and possibly absurd ("absolutely"? c'mon).

    First, he isn't even in the top-20 of accomplishments at/for Duke. Maybe not top-50. Which is all I really care about.

    But I know you wrote "talented". Even then I'd take Grant Hill, Jason/Jay Williams, and Zion Williamson above him. Probably Johnny Dawkins. Possibly Danny Ferry (maybe the most overlooked great player Duke has ever had). I'm sure I'm overlooking others that were equally talented. I suppose Kyrie has had more NBA accolades, but that doesn't mean he's absolutely more talented. He's a great ball-handler and very good scorer. He's not great at assists. I don't think he's really known for his defense.

    Sorry, I guess I have problems with absolute statements.
    You admit you are looking at Duke accomplishments, which is fine, but also isn't at all what I said.

    I said "talented." No Duke player has showcased more talent in their career than Kyrie - maybe Grant Hill. No, not Danny Ferry. Maybe Zion eventually.

    No other Duke player (outside of Grant) has been considered one of the best NBA players at their position for a decade or so.

    Again, I'm not saying this in any way excuses his ignorant comments. I'm just trying to acknowledge the truth of his talent.

    And clearly I wasn't even beginning to discuss his Duke career, because I also mentioned that he only played 11 games. So whatever you are arguing about Johnny Dawkins and Grant Hill (two MUCH more significant Duke players and two impeccable ambassadors of the Duke brand) aren't really relevant to what I was talking about.

    We could talk about Kyrie's Duke career if you like, but it will be a very short discussion.

    Again, I'm NOT defending Irving's behavior, COVID stance, flat-earth BS, or current issues. But pretending he isn't one of the most basketball gifted people to ever wear a Duke jersey is letting your personal feelings impact your objective acknowledgement of his skills.

    Media talking heads regularly say that he is literally one of the best to ever play the position and his ball handling and ability to get to the rim put him in a very small group of basketball players.

    Who would I rather point to as Duke players? Dawkins, Ferry, Zion, Laattner, Nolan, Scheyer... A very long list.
       

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    But then, what authority exercises the power to decide whose speech should be deemed sufficiently "dangerous" to warrant silencing their voices by denying them freedom of expression? When confronted with people who promulgate ignorance and push falsehoods, is it a feasible solution to suppress their speech and ban their books? Should we now abandon as too idealistic the notion that freedom and liberty can only thrive where there is an active marketplace of ideas, in which opposing views can be tested and differing theories can be subjected to challenge?

    Tolerating the expression of misguided ideas that are based on ignorance and false facts doesn't mean we have to stand by and let them take root. If the ideas are wrong, it is our responsibility to dispute them and to demonstrate why they should be rejected. I believe history has shown that we cannot overcome wrongful thinking by attempting to conceal or confine it. It must be ultimately be confronted and defeated through the power of persuasion.
    Tolerating misguided ideas means exactly that we stand by and let them take root. That's what the marketplace does. If you have a lousy product, I don't buy it, and you go out of business. Your business doesn't take root. If I do tolerate the flaws in your product and buy it anyway, then your product survives and you make more flawed products. What I and others are suggesting is that we let this company go out of business. There's no authority involved in that, by the way, and there's nobody banning anything. We just aren't buying these extremely flawed ideas and allowing them to take root.

    That *IS* the marketplace of ideas at work.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    That’s not happening in the USA for a long time! The line in the most critical sand is basically dead center and both sides are absolutely certain the other side has “misguided ideas that are based on ignorance and false facts”. Kyrie is nothing compared to our largest problem.
    Agreed. So I ask again: Is the solution to be, as some suggest, that those whose misguided ideas can be regarded as "dangerous" should be denied a voice? And if so, who gets to decide which ideas are "dangerous," and who is to make the judgments about which voices must be silenced?

    This much is clear to me: We can't change minds by muzzling the mouths of those whose ideas we don't like. Unless we listen to those with whom we disagree, we can never understand the reasons for their concerns about the problems we need to remedy. Until we understand the concerns of those with whom we disagree, we can never proceed to resolve our differences and start working together towards a mutually acceptable solution to those problems.

    At some point, if we are to overcome the obstacles our country is encountering, people will need to set aside their sense of certitude and pride and partisan loyalty to find some measure of common ground and join forces with those across the aisle in a collective effort to forge solutions that must, of necessity, entail some practical compromises and personal sacrifices. We've done it before; and I remain confident that we can and will do it again. Because I believe that despite all the conflict and counterproductive noise emanating from the margins, a majority of our citizens are still committed to a set of shared values that will ultimately prevail.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    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.
    Well said. Can you get the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on-board, please?

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    Tolerating misguided ideas means exactly that we stand by and let them take root. That's what the marketplace does. If you have a lousy product, I don't buy it, and you go out of business. Your business doesn't take root. If I do tolerate the flaws in your product and buy it anyway, then your product survives and you make more flawed products. What I and others are suggesting is that we let this company go out of business. There's no authority involved in that, by the way, and there's nobody banning anything. We just aren't buying these extremely flawed ideas and allowing them to take root.

    That *IS* the marketplace of ideas at work.
    I think you're misinterpreting my point. There is a material difference between tolerating the expression of faulty ideas and tacitly accepting that they have a place in our society. To use your analogy, if someone has a lousy idea, I submit that we should listen to it and then reject it -- that's how a viable marketplace of ideas functions just like the marketplace of commodities, where people stop buying lousy products and their manufacturers go out of business. What I oppose is the notion that we should block access to the marketplace for ideas that may be considered "dangerous."

    We allow many potentially hazardous products to be sold; and we trust people to protect themselves against harm from such products by making them aware of the danger. The fact that the product may cause harm to those who disregard the danger does not prompt us to ban the product from the market, at least until we determine that the product is so inherently dangerous or defective that there is no reasonable alternative -- a determination that requires a consensus of qualified experts based upon a substantial base of evidence.

    Unfortunately, I don't think we can call upon a similar consensus of qualified experts to regulate the marketplace of ideas. That burden falls to us. It is for us to show that misguided ideas are factually unfounded and ought to be rejected as dangerous. But we can't accomplish that by somehow trying to deny the idea any access to the marketplace. In fact, censorship only arouses suspicion and curiosity. I'll say it again, because I believe history bears it out: We can't change minds by muzzling the mouths of those whose ideas we don't like.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post

    We allow many potentially hazardous products to be sold; and we trust people to protect themselves against harm from such products by making them aware of the danger. The fact that the product may cause harm to those who disregard the danger does not prompt us to ban the product from the market, at least until we determine that the product is so inherently dangerous or defective that there is no reasonable alternative -- a determination that requires a consensus of qualified experts based upon a substantial base of evidence.
    I did just see a news article that "male to male" extension cords are being sold on Amazon (read: extreme fire hazard). Consumer Product Safety Commission says "yikes!"
    https://gizmodo.com/cspc-amazon-warns-stop-buying-male-extension-cords-1849543775
       

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by HoKogan View Post
    It isn't just scientific literacy. Its the ego stroking notion of "i have secret knowledge" that drives people to baseless and harmful conspiracy theories. Irving definitely strikes me as a guy who, like a lot of conspiracy theorists, thinks he is smarter than everyone else. All the rubes and normies have it wrong, they believe what everyone tells them, not me, I know the real story, I am a chosen one. It fosters cult like behavior. Its why they are so easy to grift. For them to really confront whats incorrect about their beliefs, to admit they weren't correct goes well beyond just cognitive dissonance and shakes the core of who they are as a person. Much easier to double down and move a few goalposts here and there.
    forgive me, sometimes i confuse alumni. are you talking about kyrie irving or stephen miller?

  12. #72
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is online now Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    I think you're misinterpreting my point. There is a material difference between tolerating the expression of faulty ideas and tacitly accepting that they have a place in our society. To use your analogy, if someone has a lousy idea, I submit that we should listen to it and then reject it -- that's how a viable marketplace of ideas functions just like the marketplace of commodities, where people stop buying lousy products and their manufacturers go out of business. What I oppose is the notion that we should block access to the marketplace for ideas that may be considered "dangerous."

    We allow many potentially hazardous products to be sold; and we trust people to protect themselves against harm from such products by making them aware of the danger. The fact that the product may cause harm to those who disregard the danger does not prompt us to ban the product from the market, at least until we determine that the product is so inherently dangerous or defective that there is no reasonable alternative -- a determination that requires a consensus of qualified experts based upon a substantial base of evidence.

    Unfortunately, I don't think we can call upon a similar consensus of qualified experts to regulate the marketplace of ideas. That burden falls to us. It is for us to show that misguided ideas are factually unfounded and ought to be rejected as dangerous. But we can't accomplish that by somehow trying to deny the idea any access to the marketplace. In fact, censorship only arouses suspicion and curiosity. I'll say it again, because I believe history bears it out: We can't change minds by muzzling the mouths of those whose ideas we don't like.
    Since my post was brought up in this discussion, I just want to pop in to say that, reading everything from an outside perspective, it seems like people are agreeing more than they think here… but that agreement is getting lost in the noise of a message board, which is all too understandable.

    It seems that we agree that:
    1) The government has no business getting involved in a situation like Kyrie’s specifically.
    2) While Kyrie has the freedom to say/do these questionable (at best) things, he is not immune to the consequences of those actions.
    3) The consequences can (should?) come from the judgement of individuals on how dangerous/offensive/etc. Kyrie’s actions are.

    I think the disagreement is in the nuances of those three points… when criminality might be a factor (i.e., the recent Alex Jones saga), what the appropriate consequences for Kyrie are, and how those should be determined (i.e., is it up to us as individuals, or do larger entities like Duke University have a role to play).

    Honestly, for there to be that level of agreement on a message board, even if we aren’t recognizing it, is pretty darn impressive, and is another reason I’m proud that DBR is the only place I even bother posting, haha. I think we by all means should continue the spirited debate, but keep in mind that we’re mostly arguing about the nuances here. I’ve made my opinion on Kyrie pretty clear, I think, so I’m not going to go any further.
    Scott Rich on the front page

    Trinity BS 2012; University of Michigan PhD 2018
    Duke Chronicle, Sports Online Editor: 2010-2012
    K-Ville Blue Tenting 2009-2012

    Unofficial Brian Zoubek Biographer
    If you have questions about Michigan Basketball/Football, I'm your man!

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    I think you're misinterpreting my point. There is a material difference between tolerating the expression of faulty ideas and tacitly accepting that they have a place in our society. To use your analogy, if someone has a lousy idea, I submit that we should listen to it and then reject it -- that's how a viable marketplace of ideas functions just like the marketplace of commodities, where people stop buying lousy products and their manufacturers go out of business. What I oppose is the notion that we should block access to the marketplace for ideas that may be considered "dangerous."
    I completely disagree with the notion that we are required to listen to terrible ideas that are completely without basis in fact, and treat them as if they are worthy of consideration on equal footing as ideas which are supported by substantial factual backup and expert endorsement. Some ideas are so groundless that the correct thing to do is simply ignore them and their proponents (which is what I'm advocating in this thread). Here's a scientific article discussing the psychological phenomenon of falsehood repetition, showing that a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough. Giving baseless claims equal consideration is exactly what gives them oxygen and perpetuates them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    We allow many potentially hazardous products to be sold; and we trust people to protect themselves against harm from such products by making them aware of the danger. The fact that the product may cause harm to those who disregard the danger does not prompt us to ban the product from the market, at least until we determine that the product is so inherently dangerous or defective that there is no reasonable alternative -- a determination that requires a consensus of qualified experts based upon a substantial base of evidence.

    Unfortunately, I don't think we can call upon a similar consensus of qualified experts to regulate the marketplace of ideas. That burden falls to us. It is for us to show that misguided ideas are factually unfounded and ought to be rejected as dangerous.
    The ideas Kyrie is spreading have already spawned a multi-million-dollar verdict, with more likely forthcoming. Those ideas have been proven to be factually unfounded and have already been shown to be toxic and dangerous. I'm merely advocating that those ideas be fully rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    But we can't accomplish that by somehow trying to deny the idea any access to the marketplace. In fact, censorship only arouses suspicion and curiosity. I'll say it again, because I believe history bears it out: We can't change minds by muzzling the mouths of those whose ideas we don't like.
    I have never suggested shutting Kyrie out of the marketplace of ideas. He can say whatever he wants. I'm not advocating censoring him or making any statement at all about him. I'm advocating ignoring him completely, and doing so at the institutional level. Deprive him of the inherent gravitas of due consideration. He is selling a bad product, and if given a forum, has shown a propensity to do so again. His ideas are not a worthy addition to the marketplace, and we should impose a fine, much like one was imposed on Ford for selling Pintos with known-defective gas tanks.

    Ford endured that treatment and improved their car-making practices. It is my hope that similar treatment may do the same for Kyrie and his dangerous and defective ideas.

    I believe we have exhausted this line of inquiry, so I will likely refrain from further response.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    I completely disagree with the notion that we are required to listen to terrible ideas that are completely without basis in fact, and treat them as if they are worthy of consideration on equal footing as ideas which are supported by substantial factual backup and expert endorsement. Some ideas are so groundless that the correct thing to do is simply ignore them and their proponents (which is what I'm advocating in this thread). Here's a scientific article discussing the psychological phenomenon of falsehood repetition, showing that a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough. Giving baseless claims equal consideration is exactly what gives them oxygen and perpetuates them.



    The ideas Kyrie is spreading have already spawned a multi-million-dollar verdict, with more likely forthcoming. Those ideas have been proven to be factually unfounded and have already been shown to be toxic and dangerous. I'm merely advocating that those ideas be fully rejected.



    I have never suggested shutting Kyrie out of the marketplace of ideas. He can say whatever he wants. I'm not advocating censoring him or making any statement at all about him. I'm advocating ignoring him completely, and doing so at the institutional level. Deprive him of the inherent gravitas of due consideration. He is selling a bad product, and if given a forum, has shown a propensity to do so again. His ideas are not a worthy addition to the marketplace, and we should impose a fine, much like one was imposed on Ford for selling Pintos with known-defective gas tanks.

    Ford endured that treatment and improved their car-making practices. It is my hope that similar treatment may do the same for Kyrie and his dangerous and defective ideas.

    I believe we have exhausted this line of inquiry, so I will likely refrain from further response.
    For the record, I don't mean to suggest that we are required to listen to ideas that we find reprehensible or irresponsible, much less give them credence. I merely submit that as members of a society that purports to value personal liberty and takes pride in proclaiming a constitutional commitment to freedom of speech, we have duty to allow those who advocate such ideas, however wrong-minded we may deem them, to express their views. Since you say that it is not your intention to support the suppression or censoring or silencing of Irving's ideas, we are in agreement to that extent.

    Where we apparently part ways is on the matter of how we respond to such ideas. You urge that they should be ignored, and I can understand your thinking in that regard. But I fear that simply ignoring the promotion of ideas that we consider misguided and potentially malevolent is not sufficient to prevent those ideas from gaining traction. Turning once again to the marketplace analogy, if a product is introduced that causes harm to users, we wouldn't want to ignore the problem and thereby jeopardize the safety of our neighbors by allowing them to unknowingly expose themselves to the same potential hazard. Rather, we would want to directly and immediately address the issue by confronting the problem, making the public aware of the defect and attendant danger, and calling out the manufacturer to remedy the mistake or be held accountable for malfeasance. In my judgment, we should respond in much the same way to the spread of ideas that we believe are underserving of credibility and potentially dangerous.

    With that difference of opinion, I'll agree that further prolonging this discussion would not likely be productive. Thanks for engaging in the kind of civil and mutually respectful manner that makes me proud to be a member of the DBR community.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    I completely disagree with the notion that we are required to listen to terrible ideas that are completely without basis in fact, and treat them as if they are worthy of consideration on equal footing as ideas which are supported by substantial factual backup and expert endorsement. Some ideas are so groundless that the correct thing to do is simply ignore them and their proponents (which is what I'm advocating in this thread). Here's a scientific article discussing the psychological phenomenon of falsehood repetition, showing that a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough. Giving baseless claims equal consideration is exactly what gives them oxygen and perpetuates them.



    The ideas Kyrie is spreading have already spawned a multi-million-dollar verdict, with more likely forthcoming. Those ideas have been proven to be factually unfounded and have already been shown to be toxic and dangerous. I'm merely advocating that those ideas be fully rejected.



    I have never suggested shutting Kyrie out of the marketplace of ideas. He can say whatever he wants. I'm not advocating censoring him or making any statement at all about him. I'm advocating ignoring him completely, and doing so at the institutional level. Deprive him of the inherent gravitas of due consideration. He is selling a bad product, and if given a forum, has shown a propensity to do so again. His ideas are not a worthy addition to the marketplace, and we should impose a fine, much like one was imposed on Ford for selling Pintos with known-defective gas tanks.

    Ford endured that treatment and improved their car-making practices. It is my hope that similar treatment may do the same for Kyrie and his dangerous and defective ideas.

    I believe we have exhausted this line of inquiry, so I will likely refrain from further response.
    You, Stray Gator, Scott, and others have made some thought-provoking and interesting points and I agree with much of what both “sides” have been saying. I guess the bottom line for me comes down to what you said in that a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough. This is precisely why ridiculously incorrect anti-vaccine dogma and foolish lies about a stolen election have taken hold with millions.

    These repeated falsehoods are downright DANGEROUS and should be loudly rejected at every opportunity. Does that mean Kyrie’s false claims about vaccines and flat Earth should be forcibly censored? No, but they should be harshly and widely denounced, particularly by those with the largest platforms.

    All this being said, I don’t dislike Kyrie. I just think he’s a bit misguided, too in love with his own thoughts, and has a penchant for provocation. This is a decidedly volatile and combustible mix; thus the discussion we’ve been having. And this certainly won’t be the last time Kyrie ignites a firestorm. 🔥

    It’s what he does.
       

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    You admit you are looking at Duke accomplishments, which is fine, but also isn't at all what I said.

    I said "talented." No Duke player has showcased more talent in their career than Kyrie - maybe Grant Hill. No, not Danny Ferry. Maybe Zion eventually.

    No other Duke player (outside of Grant) has been considered one of the best NBA players at their position for a decade or so.

    Again, I'm not saying this in any way excuses his ignorant comments. I'm just trying to acknowledge the truth of his talent.

    And clearly I wasn't even beginning to discuss his Duke career, because I also mentioned that he only played 11 games. So whatever you are arguing about Johnny Dawkins and Grant Hill (two MUCH more significant Duke players and two impeccable ambassadors of the Duke brand) aren't really relevant to what I was talking about.

    We could talk about Kyrie's Duke career if you like, but it will be a very short discussion.

    Again, I'm NOT defending Irving's behavior, COVID stance, flat-earth BS, or current issues. But pretending he isn't one of the most basketball gifted people to ever wear a Duke jersey is letting your personal feelings impact your objective acknowledgement of his skills.

    Media talking heads regularly say that he is literally one of the best to ever play the position and his ball handling and ability to get to the rim put him in a very small group of basketball players.

    Who would I rather point to as Duke players? Dawkins, Ferry, Zion, Laattner, Nolan, Scheyer... A very long list.
    Now you've done it. You've made me go and do some research.

    But first, I VERY clearly acknowledged that you wrote about talent. But there is more than scoring and flashiness. Basketball is a team game. So part of talent is making your teammates better. Now we've got to include Battier and others. And being a good teammate overall. Kyrie is way down the list on that criterion.

    Re the research: Kyrie has never been in the top-10 in assists in a season. How can a point guard be considered one the the best at their position and never once be in the top-10 in the league in assists? Flash does not equate to greatness.

    Re the media talking heads...bleah. There is SOOO much recency bias in these blatherers that when they get historical I get hysterical.

    Kyrie is not "absolutely" (IOW, no-debate) one of the top-3 talents to have ever put on a Duke jersey. No way, no how.
    Past is gone, thou canst not that recall; Future is not, may not be at all;
    Present is, [so] improve the flying hour; Present only is within thy power. - Friar Park Clock Tower [author unknown]

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Well said

    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    I completely disagree with the notion that we are required to listen to terrible ideas that are completely without basis in fact, and treat them as if they are worthy of consideration on equal footing as ideas which are supported by substantial factual backup and expert endorsement. Some ideas are so groundless that the correct thing to do is simply ignore them and their proponents (which is what I'm advocating in this thread). Here's a scientific article discussing the psychological phenomenon of falsehood repetition, showing that a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough. Giving baseless claims equal consideration is exactly what gives them oxygen and perpetuates them.

    The ideas Kyrie is spreading have already spawned a multi-million-dollar verdict, with more likely forthcoming. Those ideas have been proven to be factually unfounded and have already been shown to be toxic and dangerous. I'm merely advocating that those ideas be fully rejected.

    I have never suggested shutting Kyrie out of the marketplace of ideas. He can say whatever he wants. I'm not advocating censoring him or making any statement at all about him. I'm advocating ignoring him completely, and doing so at the institutional level. Deprive him of the inherent gravitas of due consideration. He is selling a bad product, and if given a forum, has shown a propensity to do so again. His ideas are not a worthy addition to the marketplace, and we should impose a fine, much like one was imposed on Ford for selling Pintos with known-defective gas tanks.

    Ford endured that treatment and improved their car-making practices. It is my hope that similar treatment may do the same for Kyrie and his dangerous and defective ideas.

    I believe we have exhausted this line of inquiry, so I will likely refrain from further response.
    Can't spork, but I agree with all of this, as well as your earlier post (or posts?) in this thread.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    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.
    The father of Dylan Hockley, one of the little children killed at Sandy Hook, came and spoke to the teachers at my school. The first half hour of his talk was a blow by blow account of the day. He spared no detail, laid out every thought and feeling. It was the most difficult thing I’ve ever listened to. Three quarters of the people in the audience were in tears.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Birds aren’t real.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    Thanks for engaging in the kind of civil and mutually respectful manner that makes me proud to be a member of the DBR community.
    I must spread sporks, but this feeling is certainly mutual. Cheers!

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
  •