Kyrie
- Thread starter Willcampbell
- Start date
- Status
Is it possible topps was doing the same thing? Again, we’re more apt to side the individual or topic(s) that reflects our personal beliefs.
Same here. I listen to several Ringer pods. Simmons loves Kyrie now that he’s in Boston.
Go back and read it. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought Datt took a little cheap shot, prompting Topps to get a little bothered.
Please read their back and forth then honestly let me know. Topps is like me that he gets fired up, but I felt Datt instigated the whole exchange in a way to purposely get the response he got from him.
Wish Bill cared about college basketball and discussed that more, the farthest he ever goes is around tournament time he will discuss the NBA prospects.
The Ringer T'd Up college basketball podcast is good, just wish one of the hosts wasn't a UNC grad.....
I applaud you for manning up so to speak and admitting this dukiejay. I mean that as a compliment. I hope you will take it that way...
OFC
Just me but if you ignore someone even if they irritate you,it defeats the purpose of a message board.I come here to hear all opinions about Duke
Then we should all be prepared to hear opinions we’re not going to agree with all the time.
Agree but don't expect me to not respond to something I feel is BS.Btw there is only one poster on this board that wants me to throw my computer
That's not the problem. Nothing wrong with debate and different opinions and you know it. It's the little cheap shots that get dished out, and then some wonder why someone got mad.
Hey, @dukiejay , I think what mac is trying to say is that he wants you to reign me in.
Especially when you do it in a manner that would not be tolerated face to face
I haven't posted in this board in years, but as much as I hate to admit, this thread drew me back.
My first thought upon opening this thread was how the hell did an OP blasting Kyrie for insulting a heckler turn into a five - pager. After reading all of it, I now understand. The animosity toward successful Black athletes who don't appreciate what they've been given reared it's ugly head. Again.
I see why this would happen, especially on a Duke board. Duke is a national brand and I would imagine that for every member of that non-affiliated portion of the fan base who became Duke fans because of Johnny Dawkins or Coach K or whatever there are almost as many who chose them because of incredible success in a "Black" sport by teams that often featured individuals who looked like them. People like the OP (unsure if he's a Duke grad) are perphaps having a hard time dealing with the fact that the Duke stars of this era are starting to look a lot more like Jason Williams than a Bobby Hurley.
Moving on, I agree with the poster who wrote something about this discussion isn't politics but rather sociology. That's true. I'm not sure when issues of race devolves back to being a political issue. Race relations and racial issues are not a case of right and left, but rather right and wrong. But somehow, the belief that people are somehow treated differently based on skin color is back to being down a party line.
In truth, I've never understood why some people find this to be such a head-to believe concept and one that must be rebuked at every turn. Studies have been done forever showing people who are deemed attractive, on average, have more success than their ugly counterparts. Is it that hard to believe that we're a country full of people who treat people who look one way differently than those who look another?
Finally, I would like to ask a few questions of the posters in this thread:
1) Why is the issue of Black-on-Black crime, specifically in Chicago, brought up so often when the issue of police-treatment of Black discussed?
Think of it this way: You're literally taking a government-operative (police officer) and putting him on the same level as an inner-city gang banger (perpetrator of Black-on-Black crime). That seems like kind of low level of appreciation from all you Back-the-Blue guys.
2) Why are so many of the individuals who are offended at the notion that some police officers are unfit also such damn big proponents of the 2nd Amendment? After all the 2nd Amendment is based in large part around the idea that Americans need to be able to defend themselves should the government get out of line. Reading the opinions of those "No chance in Hell did the officer overreact by shooting that unarmed Black man" makes me wonder why they would ever feel the need to protect themselves against a government operative or agency.
3) Many of these same folks who vehemently oppose the ideaof any kind of gun regulation and any suggestion that there is still a disparity in how people are treated in the U.S. based on race are the same folks who bash away at the left for the "PC-culture" that robs them of the ability to express their opinions in whatever phrasing they see fit. After all, it's guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
My question here, is why, then are y'all so damn offended by a group of NFL players exercising their 1st Amendment?
I'm a 1st Amendment to the core person. If a student organization invites Richard Spencer to speak on their campus, that school damn well should let him speak. If a group of white supremacists want to march on town hall, they have that right. That doesn't mean people can't show up to protest, which I also agree with.
I apologize for such a long post as I was trying to get a lot of points into one post.
My first thought upon opening this thread was how the hell did an OP blasting Kyrie for insulting a heckler turn into a five - pager. After reading all of it, I now understand. The animosity toward successful Black athletes who don't appreciate what they've been given reared it's ugly head. Again.
I see why this would happen, especially on a Duke board. Duke is a national brand and I would imagine that for every member of that non-affiliated portion of the fan base who became Duke fans because of Johnny Dawkins or Coach K or whatever there are almost as many who chose them because of incredible success in a "Black" sport by teams that often featured individuals who looked like them. People like the OP (unsure if he's a Duke grad) are perphaps having a hard time dealing with the fact that the Duke stars of this era are starting to look a lot more like Jason Williams than a Bobby Hurley.
Moving on, I agree with the poster who wrote something about this discussion isn't politics but rather sociology. That's true. I'm not sure when issues of race devolves back to being a political issue. Race relations and racial issues are not a case of right and left, but rather right and wrong. But somehow, the belief that people are somehow treated differently based on skin color is back to being down a party line.
In truth, I've never understood why some people find this to be such a head-to believe concept and one that must be rebuked at every turn. Studies have been done forever showing people who are deemed attractive, on average, have more success than their ugly counterparts. Is it that hard to believe that we're a country full of people who treat people who look one way differently than those who look another?
Finally, I would like to ask a few questions of the posters in this thread:
1) Why is the issue of Black-on-Black crime, specifically in Chicago, brought up so often when the issue of police-treatment of Black discussed?
Think of it this way: You're literally taking a government-operative (police officer) and putting him on the same level as an inner-city gang banger (perpetrator of Black-on-Black crime). That seems like kind of low level of appreciation from all you Back-the-Blue guys.
2) Why are so many of the individuals who are offended at the notion that some police officers are unfit also such damn big proponents of the 2nd Amendment? After all the 2nd Amendment is based in large part around the idea that Americans need to be able to defend themselves should the government get out of line. Reading the opinions of those "No chance in Hell did the officer overreact by shooting that unarmed Black man" makes me wonder why they would ever feel the need to protect themselves against a government operative or agency.
3) Many of these same folks who vehemently oppose the ideaof any kind of gun regulation and any suggestion that there is still a disparity in how people are treated in the U.S. based on race are the same folks who bash away at the left for the "PC-culture" that robs them of the ability to express their opinions in whatever phrasing they see fit. After all, it's guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
My question here, is why, then are y'all so damn offended by a group of NFL players exercising their 1st Amendment?
I'm a 1st Amendment to the core person. If a student organization invites Richard Spencer to speak on their campus, that school damn well should let him speak. If a group of white supremacists want to march on town hall, they have that right. That doesn't mean people can't show up to protest, which I also agree with.
I apologize for such a long post as I was trying to get a lot of points into one post.
Even more on the nose, studies have been done showing implicit bias against people of color is rampant.
It's a complete deflection and cop-out. They don't care about so-called "Black-on-Black crime" or Chicago in the slightest, until White supremacist culture comes up. Then they treat skin color like jersey colors and act like they have to defend the "team." It's sort of like how after a mass shooting, they only care about mental health until it quells any hope of gun control consideration.
The whole concept of so-called "Black-on-Black crime" is bogus, anyway. Practically all crime is committed against members of the same race. White criminals victimize other White people. Black criminals victimize other Black people. Calling it "Black-on-Black crime" allows some people to distance themselves from it, pretending it's strictly a Black phenomenon and therefore nothing they have to care about (including that second "Black" -- you know, the victims).
- Status