Kyrie in headlines once again for not-great reasons...

[Kfanarmy]

Free Kyrie? You are right, the Elders of Zion is something we have to be very concerned about. That global conspiracy or global tyranny must be combatted. Frankly, I am more concerned about the impact from the rhetoric about and misinformation related to global conspiracies that I am about an actual global conspiracy.

There is a little doubt that there are issues both in the non-democratic world (China etc) and the democratic world. But I do not view anything that Kyrie Irving does as being a useful or productive activity to address such concerns. If he was attacking fascism in China or supporting Hong Kong I would commend him - but flippant references to global conspiracies - nope, that does nothing but bring more attention to his stupidity.

Duke basketball - Johnny Dawkins, Tommy Amaker, Grant Hill, Shane Battier and others. The type of people that I look up to and hold out as representatives of Duke that validate the greatest of the school and its magnificent basketball program.

Kyrie Irving - embarrassment. My work colleagues love that he went to Duke - gives them perpetual fodder to laugh at Duke.

Truthfully I have no idea if he is simply an egomaniac always needing attention or simply a nut. But let’s be clear - he is no intellectual. Although he sure thinks that he is.

I think it is great you would commend him for being on the same side of issues you apparently are. That's twice you've referenced KI's intellect. Do you think he knows to capitalize Duke as in "duke law?" What does "validate the greatest of the school" mean?

[uh_no]

I’m gonna say yeah. Because many of his comments show him to be poorly informed.

It's also a bad-faith ask.Conspiracy theorists life learning talking points to refute science...whereas the rest of us don't spend our lives learning the proper arguments to rebut conspiracy theorists' prepared arguments. It makes it nearly impossible to argue with a conspiracy theorist.

It's very much similar to why you're at a disadvantage when buying a car. The car salesman practices negotiating every day, and you do it once every 10 years or whatever.

[Kfanarmy]

It's also a bad-faith ask.Conspiracy theorists life learning talking points to refute science...whereas the rest of us don't spend our lives learning the proper arguments to rebut conspiracy theorists' prepared arguments. It makes it nearly impossible to argue with a conspiracy theorist.

It's very much similar to why you're at a disadvantage when buying a car. The car salesman practices negotiating every day, and you do it once every 10 years or whatever.

A short, "No. I couldn't," would have sufficed. If we are all so clearly informed as to dismiss someone else's opinion simply by calling them a conspiracy theorist, defeating their logic shouldn't be that hard. FWIW, from what I've seen, rarely are conspiracy theorists arguments "prepared" so much as practiced.

[uh_no]

FWIW, from what I've seen, rarely are conspiracy theorists arguments "prepared" so much as practiced.

uhhh you got me there?

[1991 duke law]

I think it is great you would commend him for being on the same side of issues you apparently are. That's twice you've referenced KI's intellect. Do you think he knows to capitalize Duke as in "duke law?" What does "validate the greatest of the school" mean?

Are you trying to make an argument or just trying to be mean spirited? Seems the latter - and that is not the purpose of this board.

[DoubleBlue]

Are you trying to make an argument or just trying to be mean spirited? Seems the latter - and that is not the purpose of this board.

There is no middle ground in arguments like this. Our media and politicians have made sure of that. Its best just to agree to disagree and go on about things as your conscience may dictate.

[Phredd3]

Again, wanting to punish someone for their ideas. All automaton's must say only that which you believe right? If we all just think and talk this way we won't need to be fined by Phredd?

Perhaps you didn't like that analogy (which is all it was). That's fine. It wasn't my best work. But you are attributing to me ideas that I do not hold. Most particularly, that anyone must only say what I, personally, believe to be correct. I've never said it, I don't believe that, and furthermore, it is a patently stupid proposition. Taken to that extreme, there would no longer even be any point in having any language at all. It is a reductio ad absurdum argument (a very weak form or argument in the first place) run completely amok and it has nothing whatever to do with anything I've actually said thus far. This is from your earlier response:

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.

This really should have been the end of the topic. This is all I'm really seeking to do. I'm just expressing my opinion that I believe Duke should adopt this same stance. Surely if you believe that I am free to adopt this stance, then Duke is equally free to do so. Or do you deny Duke that level of discretion? If not, where is the problem?

The reality is, I'll bet 90% of the people on this board couldn't withstand their own scrutiny. In a one-on-one debate with KI, could you stand on your own and win an argument in front of a neutral audience?

I don't know. I'm not a great public speaker and depending on what the "neutral" audience values, I'm not sure I'd be pithy enough in my repartee. In a structured debate setting, I'd have a fighting chance. I think I could completely trash him in any written exchange, however. This is simply based on reading some of his past writings. The man wouldn't know logical deduction if it came up and blocked his shot. If we're having a structured written debate? I win. Easily.

And isn't that what really scares: the idea that there are people out there with listeners who just don't see the world the through approved lenses; can’t quote actual facts and actual references that are germane to the topic, but can relate something on NPR or the internet or some podcast some guy did….

I simply have no idea what your intended meaning is in this incomplete phrase. If you wish to clarify, I'll be happy to respond.

[HoKogan]

Are you trying to make an argument or just trying to be mean spirited? Seems the latter - and that is not the purpose of this board.

I'm sure he's "just asking questions" like Kyrie is.

[FastBreak]

Social media is weaponized by fair and free speech and you want to control it because you want to control the ideas people can share.

No. The ideal of social media is fair and free speech. What we have today is massive misinformation spread by the likes of Alex Jones that has been repeated enough to make people believe it is truth. Everyone has a right to their opinion, of course, but we have a break down in civil society when we can no longer agree on facts. Now, we also have a society that is quick to get offended and disagreements routinely turn into personal attacks. But ultimately, we have to as responsible citizens a) call out misinformation when we see it and b) be okay with individuals being thrown off of social media when the harm they are causing is just simply too much. Where that line is the matter of all this debate, but I think it has to be inarguable that there is a line.

[Lord Ash]

Damn, Kyrie is back at it, putting out statements about covid vaccine requirements being one of the biggest human rights violations in history.

Apparently Kyrie never took any history courses at Duke about the British occupation of India, or the pogroms of Russia, or slavery in the United States, or apartheid in South Africa, or the Spanish Inquisition, or...

*sigh*

[Kfanarmy]

Are you trying to make an argument or just trying to be mean spirited? Seems the latter - and that is not the purpose of this board.

You refer to a Duke alum's stupidity, claim he is "no intellectual," refer to him as a nut, but think it is mean spirited for someone to point out that your post doesn't lend credibility to your assessment of someone else's intellect? No. It isn't mean spirited to point out just how judgmental someone else is being.

[Steven43]

Damn, Kyrie is back at it, putting out statements about covid vaccine requirements being one of the biggest human rights violations in history.

Apparently Kyrie never took any history courses at Duke about the British occupation of India, or the pogroms of Russia, or slavery in the United States, or apartheid in South Africa, or the Spanish Inquisition, or...

*sigh*

Could you send a link with that story? I am completely done with Kyrie Irving off the basketball court so it’s not like I can be turned even further against his ludicrous philosophizing. But I am morbidly curious to read his latest silly and dangerous commentary.

Does the internet in the Irving household not allow access to scientific information such as the following?:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...n-lives-1-year

[Lord Ash]

Could you send a link with that story? I am completely done with Kyrie Irving off the basketball court so it’s not like I can be turned even further against his ludicrous philosophizing. But I am morbidly curious to read his latest silly and dangerous commentary.

Does the internet in the Irving household not allow access to scientific information such as the following?:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...n-lives-1-year

https://twitter.com/KyrieIrving/stat...DUgdmx2NErAAAA

The text...

If I can work and be unvaccinated, then all of my brothers and sisters who are also unvaccinated should be able to do the same, without being discriminated against, vilified, or fired. ♾����

This enforced Vaccine/Pandemic is one the biggest violations of HUMAN RIGHTS in history.

First part, fine, thats an opinion, but that second piece in particular seems just mind-meltingly uninformed, and the implications (that the pandemic is a violation of human rights, which gives it an agency that a virus does not have, and starts to get into conspiracy territory) are staggering, although I am hoping that he didn't mean it that way.

[Kfanarmy]

No. The ideal of social media is fair and free speech. What we have today is massive misinformation spread by the likes of Alex Jones that has been repeated enough to make people believe it is truth. Everyone has a right to their opinion, of course, but we have a break down in civil society when we can no longer agree on facts. Now, we also have a society that is quick to get offended and disagreements routinely turn into personal attacks. But ultimately, we have to as responsible citizens a) call out misinformation when we see it and b) be okay with individuals being thrown off of social media when the harm they are causing is just simply too much. Where that line is the matter of all this debate, but I think it has to be inarguable that there is a line.

I agree with you on a). I don't think KI's statements (retweets and posts) would get him arrested if stated on a public street corner. That's about where I think the line for b) should be, with few exceptions.

[Kfanarmy]

Perhaps you didn't like that analogy (which is all it was). That's fine. It wasn't my best work. But you are attributing to me ideas that I do not hold. Most particularly, that anyone must only say what I, personally, believe to be correct. I've never said it, I don't believe that, and furthermore, it is a patently stupid proposition. Taken to that extreme, there would no longer even be any point in having any language at all. It is a reductio ad absurdum argument (a very weak form or argument in the first place) run completely amok and it has nothing whatever to do with anything I've actually said thus far. This is from your earlier response:

You proposed "fining” him, your analogy, with that fine being Duke University “ignoring him completely.” Fining in this case is “punishment,” or, if you prefer, “negative consequence” to get him to act the way you want him to by correcting his “dangerous and defective ideas.” So punishing someone for their ideas, to which you don’t ascribe, is exactly what you are advocating: ostracizing someone until they no longer proffer what you see as “dangerous and defective ideas.” While my point may have been made by reduction to the absurd, censorship, in all its forms, has often led to absurd abuse and misuse.

This really should have been the end of the topic. This is all I'm really seeking to do. I'm just expressing my opinion that I believe Duke should adopt this same stance. Surely if you believe that I am free to adopt this stance, then Duke is equally free to do so. Or do you deny Duke that level of discretion? If not, where is the problem?

I absolutely agree that you and, separately, Duke University have the discretion to do so. I firmly believe Duke should not do so, and I find it repugnant to suggest Duke Basketball should take such a position because a section of basketball fans, don’t’ agree with what KI is saying.

I don't know. I'm not a great public speaker and depending on what the "neutral" audience values, I'm not sure I'd be pithy enough in my repartee. In a structured debate setting, I'd have a fighting chance. I think I could completely trash him in any written exchange, however. This is simply based on reading some of his past writings. The man wouldn't know logical deduction if it came up and blocked his shot. If we're having a structured written debate? I win. Easily.

Perhaps then, your writing ability would be most helpful in dissecting, understanding, even educating, on why KI believes the way his does and what specifically is errant in his thought process rather than advocating for forms of censor, which “ignoring” at the institutional level is.

I simply have no idea what your intended meaning is in this incomplete phrase. If you wish to clarify, I'll be happy to respond.

Mea culpa; I dropped a couple of words there.

uhhh you got me there?

The point is I don't think it is a bad faith ask, though I acknowledge a well-practiced conspiracy argument is often harder to defeat than is a well prepared one...which I think Phredd gets:

I don't know. I'm not a great public speaker and depending on what the "neutral" audience values, I'm not sure I'd be pithy enough in my repartee.

[dukelifer]

https://twitter.com/KyrieIrving/stat...DUgdmx2NErAAAA

The text...

If I can work and be unvaccinated, then all of my brothers and sisters who are also unvaccinated should be able to do the same, without being discriminated against, vilified, or fired. ♾����

This enforced Vaccine/Pandemic is one the biggest violations of HUMAN RIGHTS in history.

First part, fine, thats an opinion, but that second piece in particular seems just mind-meltingly uninformed, and the implications (that the pandemic is a violation of human rights, which gives it an agency that a virus does not have, and starts to get into conspiracy territory) are staggering, although I am hoping that he didn't mean it that way.

Biggest violation of Human rights in history- wow! I guess it all depends on his definitions of Biggest, Violation, Human Rights, and history. Okay- I got nothing

[cbolden1]

Biggest violation of Human rights in history- wow! I guess it all depends on his definitions of Biggest, Violation, Human Rights, and history. Okay- I got nothing

If your going to quote him at least do it right, He said "One of" not that it was the biggest.

Look the guy has different opinions than most of us the fact that some of y'all try and make him a bad guy because of it is so crazy. Let the man live his life as he sees fit and don't pay him no mind if you don't like the way he's living it. Is that really that hard of a concept ?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You proposed "fining” him, your analogy, with that fine being Duke University “ignoring him completely.” Fining in this case is “punishment,” or, if you prefer, “negative consequence” to get him to act the way you want him to by correcting his “dangerous and defective ideas.” So punishing someone for their ideas, to which you don’t ascribe, is exactly what you are advocating: ostracizing someone until they no longer proffer what you see as “dangerous and defective ideas.” While my point may have been made by reduction to the absurd, censorship, in all its forms, has often led to absurd abuse and misuse.



I absolutely agree that you and, separately, Duke University have the discretion to do so. I firmly believe Duke should not do so, and I find it repugnant to suggest Duke Basketball should take such a position because a section of basketball fans, don’t’ agree with what KI is saying.


Perhaps then, your writing ability would be most helpful in dissecting, understanding, even educating, on why KI believes the way his does and what specifically is errant in his thought process rather than advocating for forms of censor, which “ignoring” at the institutional level is.



Mea culpa; I dropped a couple of words there.




The point is I don't think it is a bad faith ask, though I acknowledge a well-practiced conspiracy argument is often harder to defeat than is a well prepared one...which I think Phredd gets:

Punishing someone by not associating with them and not letting them inside your circle strikes me as a very appropriate reaction.

At some point, an entity will be judged by the company they keep. Refusing to push back can be read as a tacit approval.

[Lord Ash]

If your going to quote him at least do it right, He said "One of" not that it was the biggest.

Look the guy has different opinions than most of us the fact that some of y'all try and make him a bad guy because of it is so crazy. Let the man live his life as he sees fit and don't pay him no mind if you don't like the way he's living it. Is that really that hard of a concept ?

I think the general discussion in the thread is how, if at all, this reflects on Duke basketball and Duke University and how, if at all, should Duke basketball and/or Duke University respond to public statements like this from such a prominent individual. On a forum of Duke basketball fans, and especially one frequented by so many Duke grads, its a reasonable thing to discuss.

[cbolden1]

Punishing someone by not associating with them and not letting them inside your circle strikes me as a very appropriate reaction.

At some point, an entity will be judged by the company they keep. Refusing to push back can be read as a tacit approval.

IF duke agreed with some of you guys they would have distanced themselves from him but they haven't so I think that tells you where they stand

So if you have a problem with a guy and what he voices then don't pay attention to him outside of basketball. Its not hard to do