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

[dukelifer]

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.

The only reason he was not top 10 in assists is because the guys he passed to missed their shots- perhaps related to the flatness of the court.

[FastBreak]

a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough

This. The idea of a marketplace of ideas is fair and free speech is inherent to our free society, but the problem with today is that social media is weaponized when falsehoods are spread virally and people no longer can tell what's truth anymore. A person who is repeatedly spreading falsehoods is not espousing ideas that I merely disagree with but is actually damaging our society. It's like a chemical company dumping toxic chemicals in a river. We need regulations to stop it because if it were a completely free market, that company would be free to pollute our rivers.

Someone like Alex Jones, who has created believers of nonsense that have in turn harassed innocent people with death threats, should in fact be silenced in my humble opinion. Not because I disagree with his opinions, but because he is causing clear harm in spreading vicious falsehoods. Alex Jones is an easy case. Where Kyrie sits on this spectrum is why this discussion is so complex. He is definitely causing harm with this latest amplification of nonsense. Should he be "silenced"? I agree with the sentiment of this board that the best way is for Duke and fans to distance themselves from this kind of character.

[DoubleBlue]

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.

This is precisely why I do not voice my political opinions on this site. I would be banned immediately. My truth is not the same as the DBR consensus truth. I do not believe I am in any fringe minority, just that society is split and my views are not welcome here, so I respect that. I get what I want from DBR in terms of Duke Sports and I hold my nose on all of the political and moral jabbering. I can do that elsewhere.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

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.

Agree to disagree, wholeheartedly.

Again, I intentionally said "talent" not teammate, or winner, or even good dude. I truly cannot thing of three former Duke basketball players more talented than Kyrie.

I'm not sure how I ended up in this position of defending his basketball acumen. I'm absolutely not defending any of his statements or the First Amendment or any of the other more nebulous concepts on this thread. It didn't occur to me that referring to Kyrie's insane level of talent would be in any way controversial.

I'm not inclined to keep talking on this thread, as it has taken some very odd and unexpected twists that make me uncomfortable. But I will reiterate that Kyrie is an ill-informed egotistical weirdo AND a generational talent on the basketball court.

[HK Dukie]

Apparently, I disagree with almost everyone (who posts) on this board about the following...

(1) Kyrie Irving is a good person (very generous, cares about the less fortunate, calls out causes and is willing to take a stand, has the empathy to not tell other people what to think but tries to encourage them to open their mind to decide for themselves).
(2) Facts are facts, regardless of what idiot is saying them.
(3) Free speech is protected from government interference even at private companies (if the government is pressuring the private institutions...private institutions can have their own rules but our government violates the first amendment when it puts pressure on said institutions to restrict speech).

Liking or sharing a particular post from someone does not constitute an endorsement of that persons entire history and beliefs. For example, I can like a post about Einstein's general theory of gravity without endorsing his misunderstanding of quantum mechanics or views about women. I can celebrate the Duke basketball program as it is today despite the entire school being founded by tobacco money which kills people. 7 million people approximately die every year from smoking. That money founded Duke University. Does everything it currently stands for get eliminated because of that prior association? If you like a post from Duke University, are you then associated with Kyrie, who is then associated with a crazy nut ball because of a post he shared? Should you be shunned in polite society because you are associated with an association of an association? Or maybe can we just agree that a broken clock can be right twice a day and that when asked what time it is, it is ok to say the exact time even though that broken clock that no one likes happens to coincidentally be correct this time.

Now, I do not care to click on anything Alex Jones nut ball related so I dare not even click on the links. But those who have seem to suggest there is a comment about global tyranny. Whether or not there is an encroaching global tyranny, do you not want your fellow citizens vigilant to prevent the possibility of a global tyranny? Isn't 1000 false positives better than a single false negative here? Have you seen what is happening in China, Russia, and many other non-western democracies? Did you not see the power grab from even institutions in democratic societies during covid?

Do not take my word for...perhaps a recent post from the World Economic Forum blog itself..."Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, And Life Has Never Been Better…"

Thanks, but no. Free Kyrie.

This is precisely why I do not voice my political opinions on this site. I would be banned immediately. My truth is not the same as the DBR consensus truth. I do not believe I am in any fringe minority, just that society is split and my views are not welcome here, so I respect that. I get what I want from DBR in terms of Duke Sports and I hold my nose on all of the political and moral jabbering. I can do that elsewhere.

[FastBreak]

Apparently, I disagree with almost everyone (who posts) on this board about the following...

(1) Kyrie Irving is a good person (very generous, cares about the less fortunate, calls out causes and is willing to take a stand, has the empathy to not tell other people what to think but tries to encourage them to open their mind to decide for themselves).

The Sackler family, founders of Purdue Pharmaceuticals which has had a massive role in creating the opioid epidemic, donated massive amounts of money to a variety of charitable causes. Does that make them a "good family"?

Kyrie may or may not be a good person. Why try to judge anyone like that? The simple point being made on this board is that he is spreading information that is harmful in a variety of ways and we should call it ought. Sure he's a great player, but let's make sure we call out the nonsense he is passing along. I don't think this debate is about much more than that.

[mph]

We need regulations to stop it because if it were a completely free market, that company would be free to pollute our rivers.

Someone like Alex Jones, who has created believers of nonsense that have in turn harassed innocent people with death threats, should in fact be silenced in my humble opinion. Not because I disagree with his opinions, but because he is causing clear harm in spreading vicious falsehoods. Alex Jones is an easy case. Where Kyrie sits on this spectrum is why this discussion is so complex. He is definitely causing harm with this latest amplification of nonsense. Should he be "silenced"? I agree with the sentiment of this board that the best way is for Duke and fans to distance themselves from this kind of character.

There are already mechanisms to hold someone accountable for “vicious falsehoods.” As Alex Jones learned the hard way, anti-defamation laws create accountability without encroaching on our 1st Amendment freedoms.

[Bostondevil]

Ok, I'll throw my on personal opinion grenade into this discussion.

MY OPINION ONLY: Whenever I read comments made by Kyrie Irving that I would, personally, put into a ridiculous belief category, I always, always, always think - you should've stayed at Duke for another year or two to complete your off court education. As much as I love Duke basketball, in the era of one and dones, I can no longer think of the athletes who occupy dorm rooms on Duke's campus for a year as students. I understand jumping to the NBA for the money, but Kyrie was never a Duke student and he did not receive a Duke education. Even if he later came back and graduated (did he? I don't know) he did not receive a Duke education. You don't get one of those without being a member of the student body for multiple years because part of that education includes learning from your fellow students. I've always believed that college is as much about learning from your fellow students as it is from your classes/professors.

[Steven43]

Did you not see the power grab from even institutions in democratic societies during covid?

Excusing my apparent lack of knowledge on this particularly subject, could you please expound upon this just a bit? I’m genuinely interested.

Thank you in advance.

[Steven43]

The only reason he was not top 10 in assists is because the guys he passed to missed their shots- perhaps related to the flatness of the court.

Lol.

If the Earth is as flat as the basketball courts upon which Kyrie plays — when he’s not sitting out due to misguided support of anti-vax clowns — I ain’t going sailing anytime soon!

Free Kyrie!

I have no idea what that means, but someone posted it earlier and it made me laugh, so…… 😎

[1991 duke law]

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.

[Acymetric]

Ok, I'll throw my on personal opinion grenade into this discussion.

MY OPINION ONLY: Whenever I read comments made by Kyrie Irving that I would, personally, put into a ridiculous belief category, I always, always, always think - you should've stayed at Duke for another year or two to complete your off court education.

I don't disagree with the overall gist of what you're saying, but the idea that another year or two of college would have changed how Kyrie sees things is probably overly optimistic. Plenty of college educated boneheads out there.

[Matches]

I don't disagree with the overall gist of what you're saying, but the idea that another year or two of college would have changed how Kyrie sees things is probably overly optimistic. Plenty of college educated boneheads out there.

I’ve had this reaction for years when people inevitably use Kyrie to mock Duke. “Shape of the Earth is a sophomore-level course!”

I think he’s got some issues that a few more years of education wouldn’t fix, though. Someone who already (and erroneously) believes he is on some higher intellectual plane than everyone else would just become more of an autocontrarian the longer he was in school.

[bundabergdevil]

I don't disagree with the overall gist of what you're saying, but the idea that another year or two of college would have changed how Kyrie sees things is probably overly optimistic. Plenty of college educated boneheads out there.

I’m pretty sure my Duke education made me more insufferable.

[1991 duke law]

I’m pretty sure my Duke education made me more insufferable.

I think others would characterize it differently - my attending Duke made me more insufferable. The education was inconsequential.

[1991 duke law]

Apparently, I disagree with almost everyone (who posts) on this board about the following...

(1) Kyrie Irving is a good person (very generous, cares about the less fortunate, calls out causes and is willing to take a stand, has the empathy to not tell other people what to think but tries to encourage them to open their mind to decide for themselves).
(2) Facts are facts, regardless of what idiot is saying them.
(3) Free speech is protected from government interference even at private companies (if the government is pressuring the private institutions...private institutions can have their own rules but our government violates the first amendment when it puts pressure on said institutions to restrict speech).

Liking or sharing a particular post from someone does not constitute an endorsement of that persons entire history and beliefs. For example, I can like a post about Einstein's general theory of gravity without endorsing his misunderstanding of quantum mechanics or views about women. I can celebrate the Duke basketball program as it is today despite the entire school being founded by tobacco money which kills people. 7 million people approximately die every year from smoking. That money founded Duke University. Does everything it currently stands for get eliminated because of that prior association? If you like a post from Duke University, are you then associated with Kyrie, who is then associated with a crazy nut ball because of a post he shared? Should you be shunned in polite society because you are associated with an association of an association? Or maybe can we just agree that a broken clock can be right twice a day and that when asked what time it is, it is ok to say the exact time even though that broken clock that no one likes happens to coincidentally be correct this time.

Now, I do not care to click on anything Alex Jones nut ball related so I dare not even click on the links. But those who have seem to suggest there is a comment about global tyranny. Whether or not there is an encroaching global tyranny, do you not want your fellow citizens vigilant to prevent the possibility of a global tyranny? Isn't 1000 false positives better than a single false negative here? Have you seen what is happening in China, Russia, and many other non-western democracies? Did you not see the power grab from even institutions in democratic societies during covid?

Do not take my word for...perhaps a recent post from the World Economic Forum blog itself..."Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, And Life Has Never Been Better…"

Thanks, but no. Free Kyrie.

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.

[snewman92]

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.

Well said! Kyrie's/Alex Jones' lunatic bilgewater is worse than being not useful or productive. It does real damage by demonizing institutions and groups of people. As a Jew who has gotten into my share of arguments with antisemites on the Right and the Left (much more frequently the former) over claims that Jews control the world, an all-too-familiar libel, I know whereof I speak. So, no: While there is certainly cause for concern about the concentration of economic and political power, this way of framing the problem as a shadowy conspiracy only does damage because it is generally hostile to facts, reason and proportionality. At best it is dangerous ignorance; at worst, it is disingenuous huckster-populism that has historically led and continues to lead to terrible violence.

As for HK Dukie's citation of "a recent post from the World Economic Forum blog itself..."Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, And Life Has Never Been Better…" I'm not sure if 2016--the date Ida Auken posted this--counts as "recent," though it has taken on a zombified life on sites convinced that the WEF is a force for world domination. A moment's research might have taken HK Duke to this debunking, which puts her column in its proper context: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN2AP2T0.

But to get back to the core issue: Kyrie Irving is using the platform he has gained as a supremely talented athlete to once again spread misinformation--this time of a more malignant type than "The Earth is Flat." I believe celebrities have a right to speak out on whatever they choose. We have a right to criticize them for being stupid or hateful or irresponsible. And, as an alum, I am embarrassed that this pillock played even one game in a Duke uniform and wish he would stop claiming any affiliation with Duke.

[bundabergdevil]

I think others would characterize it differently - my attending Duke made me more insufferable. The education was inconsequential.

See what I mean. 😆

[Kfanarmy]

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.

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?

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? 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….

FastBreak[/B];1517660]This. The idea of a marketplace of ideas is fair and free speech is inherent to our free society, but the problem with today is that social media is weaponized when falsehoods are spread virally and people no longer can tell what's truth anymore. A person who is repeatedly spreading falsehoods is not espousing ideas that I merely disagree with but is actually damaging our society. It's like a chemical company dumping toxic chemicals in a river. We need regulations to stop it because if it were a completely free market, that company would be free to pollute our rivers....

People who think like this are more dangerous than anything KI has said or done or likely will. 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.

[OldPhiKap]

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