I think its' more sinister than that. Keeping politics out of sports meant that sports were something that people could bond over. Sports could form a bridge between disparate viewpoints. Everybody talks about the growing political divide in America, but part of the problem is this compulsive desire to politicize everything has left nowhere for people with different views to feel comfortable congregating together.
The bar is the last place I'd want to bring up politics in the US. Then again, I come from a red state and certainly do not match the general consensus there.
I think the cause and effect are reversed here. People had sports as that bridge, and the country became more divided. That division has been increasing for decades. Sports came first and they weren't creating any bonding. If they had even slowed the process, they were rapidly running out of juice.
The problem with "don't politicize" is that this has a thumb on the scale of the status quo. "Politicization" means that somebody wants something done. Usually they go at it for decades until it catches some kind of national attention. At that point it's merely a tactic to say, "Well, we can't really talk about it now, because it's politicized".
I'm all for bridging divides, but not at the cost of that being an effective decision to do nothing. That's not solving problems; it's dismissing them.
There's a difference between "we can't talk about this" and "lets not talk about this at a sports ball game."
This notion is unacceptable to the left who instead must demand dogmatic adherence to their worldview where nobody can escape. What we're seeing out of the American left is no different than Maoist struggle sessions as a prelude to full blown authoritarian communism.
Yes - Trump is an artifact of populism, and it's a tragedy that that kind of rhetoric had any kind of legitimization.
But even during Trump's presidency, African Americans had their lowest unemployment rate in history. I don't credit him with much of that directly, rather, but he did preside over an area of 'open business growth' for which that was the result.
Which is my point.
Even despite the toxic rhetoric of a public official, things on the ground can improve.
Yes, things on the ground definitely improve. After eight minutes, for example, they'll stop cutting off your windpipe.
But that's OK, because he might have had fentanyl in his system, and that means it was definitely not kneeling on his neck for eight minutes that killed him. I'm quite certain of that because HN tells me that, over and over.
I'm using sarcasm because it's disingenuous to talk about "a public official". He was the President of the United States, and 75 million people voted for him. They approved that rhetoric. I think it's likely that many of them preferred that rhetoric, and why he finally won the Presidency after two losses by vastly more competent politicians. This is not just one person.
Your dismissal of the seriousness of this is, in my opinion, one of the reasons it's so serious. African Americans are being mocked on one side, and on the other side they feel that their concerns about literally being murdered are being met with "Well, you have a low unemployment rate".
Throw the patriotic and military-worshipping stuff out too. It annoys me as much as the "social justice" stuff annoys me. Perhaps more. I'm in principle opposed to the patriotic and military stuff, although I'd probably make an exception if the country was actually being militarily attacked for some reason other than because of blowback for its meddling overseas. I could imagine supporting some social justice messaging in sports, I just don't like it when the messaging is based on highly questionable arguments but promoted as obvious truth. Most BLM-type messaging falls into that category for me. The theory that minorities are disproportionately shot by police started to seem questionable to me once I corrected for things like police encounter rates and homicide rates. I should emphasize, questionable - I'm not saying the theory is false, just that it needs to be investigated further as far as I'm concerned.
> The theory that minorities are disproportionately shot by police started to seem questionable to me once I corrected for things like police encounter rates and homicide rates
You don't have to fully subscribe to the intrinsically-racist Black Lives Matter narrative to agree that unaccountable police are a major problem regardless of race. And IMO unaccountable police is a more fundamental issue than the newly-stoked racism.
I think that unaccountable police are a big problem, but I feel that I cannot support the BLM narrative even though that narrative might end up making police more accountable. For one thing, it disgusts me when I see this narrative pushed dogmatically even though it is far from clear that it accurately describes reality - and especially, it disgusts me when I see people try to make it taboo to question the narrative. I view that level of thought policing as a real danger - while perhaps it does not endanger people's lives, it does help to turn society into a place that is unfit for free-thinking people to live in. For another, dogmatic belief in the BLM narrative has led to actual violence.
Every political movement goes sideways when it gains mass popularity.
I don't know if this is because the successful narratives tend to enrich some entrenched interest, psychopaths rise to the top, negative-sum games have popular appeal, the average person isn't smart enough to fit nuanced opinions in their head, humans are herd animals, or some mix of all of these. But whatever it is, whenever any grassroots movement gains the primetime spotlight, it invariably finds the wrong answer and runs with it.
Hope and Change turned into justifying drone strikes and persecuting Snowden. The Tea Party turned into supporting the most despotic anti-American president in recent history. The recent Democratic mandate is turning into more bullshit "gun control" rather than staying focused on real hardships caused by several decades of economic destruction. The Libertarian party is teetering at the edge of cryptofascism, just waiting for a hint of power (said as a libertarian).
Trying to argue nuance with any supporters will get you labeled as an other and summarily rejected. Even right here my comment was downvoted for what? Pointing out that Black Lives Matter is intrinsically racist? It's right in the name! Perhaps some of that racism is needed for motivation, but pointing it out runs up against the cognitive dissonance of "racism" being unequivocally bad.
Seemingly the best you can do is have such discussions with friends who won't immediately write you off, although you'll often run into the same roadblock there. My own take on BLM is that it's not meant for me, and that's fine. I wish them well and hope they don't get too derailed by self-defeating means.
BLM is a self-proclaimed Marxist organization among whose stated goals is "the destruction of the nuclear family." I find it surprising that you as a libertarian would wish them well.
It's impossible to discuss your claim, because the only sources I could find making it were taking quotes and interpreting them in bad faith. If you have primary sources that back up what you're claiming I'd be interested. Otherwise it just seems like red team FUD.
Any large organization seeking change will always have members that stretch their agenda, framing it in terms of paving over everything with their pet paradigm. But judging a group by its outliers is fallacious. I've got no worry that BLM will somehow end up in charge of everything - they will be lucky if they accomplish one fifth of what they set out to do.
The energy of Black Lives Matter is based on bringing murderers to justice - something that anybody who believes in the rule of law should be concerned with. I'm unconcerned with who is statistically more likely to be killed by police. What I am concerned with is that an armed gang broke into fellow American Breonna Taylor's home and murdered her, but has yet to be prosecuted due to corruption! Every single one of these incidents is an injustice, regardless of skin color.
If you can point me to a similar non-racist or non-"Marxist" (your standard) organization fighting for the rule of law to be applied to the police, I am all ears.
As my previous comment alludes to, basing one's organization on racism is channeling a negative energy that will stay with the movement forever. But after seeing the reaction to BLM and the general events of 2020, apparently that overt racism exists to a greater degree than my New England sensibilities had imagined, and so they might as well acknowledge and use it.
> We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable
So, crazy window dressing on what is ultimately a pretty tame point?
When you squeeze people, they get radicalized into outlandish viewpoints (see also: Trumpism). The answer is to listen to the core of their gripes, rather than rejecting them wholesale over the craziness.
If you think that the anthem is political, then I can't help you. The point of the anthem, like sports, is to remind us of a shared nation we all belong to and are free to disagree with each other within.
I don't watch sports to be reminded of a shared nation that we all belong to. Yes, the anthem is political. Not just in the sense that "everything is political", but rather more than that.
The world will be a better place when people are ok being wealthy without feeling the need to make every single penny possible. Being ok with cops killing unarmed minorities so you can sell more shoes shouldn't be a defensible position. Being ok with child labor and internment camps so you can make and sell more phones shouldn't be a defensible position.
As an extremely minor example it seems like nearly every food chain starts off actually amazing and then eventually becomes crap through incremental bottom line savings that simply open up the market for a new chain to come in and all the MBAs who ruined the company can jump ship to.
I think its less about making money and more about focusing on what he was actually good at. In later reflections on that line, Jordan goes on to say he never saw himself as a role model, just as a basketball player. I'd say the world will be a better place when people who are famous for X focus on their love of X and shut up about everything else about which they probably know less than the average citizen due to being hyperfocused on X.
So in an ideal world only politicians and political pundits would be allowed to voice their opinions on issues and not people actually effected?
LeBron isn't kneeling because he thinks the police will shoot him, he's kneeling for his family, friends, and people he grew up with that aren't famous athletes that he would like to stay alive.
LeBron is a wonderful example of people who shouldn't open their mouth about things they don't understand, like the actual police violence stats which show that blacks are underrepresented as the victims of the police as a function of criminality.
On the one hand, its "people I disagree with should shut up".
On the other hand, its "censorship is wrong, and people should have a right to say what they want".
-------------
This conflict shows up again and again in sports. Kaepernick was wrong to kneel during the anthem. Etc. etc. I always find it weird that as sports / entertainment comes up, people feel the need to call for censorship of celebrity voices.
I keep hearing people say that BLM is too violent, only peaceful protests are okay. But Kaepernick is cancelled because... apparently peaceful protests aren't okay either.
LeBron et al talk about how they won’t back down confronting wrongs! — except for China, who is actually racist and actually abusing human rights, right now. He shut up, sat down about that and read the script like he was told.
It’s beating your wife because you’re scared to confront real issues — and I don’t respect that behavior from pampered circus acts.
Lebron James, a black man in America, spoke out on issues affecting black men in America.
He did not speak out on issues in China, nor does he speak out on issues affecting the First Nations in Canada, the Native Americans in America, the Aboriginals in Australia, and neither did he protest injustices in Africa, Europe nor the Middle East. Terrible behavior indeed not shouldering every injustice in the world.
Funny how it works. Black people's struggle is always my people's struggle, but it's never the other way around. Injustice toward black people anywhere is injustice everywhere, but it's never that way when it's not black people. they don't have principals, they have a shallow and myopic self interest. and you are wrong - he did speak out on issues in china, he said shut the hell up about it because they will stop buying my shoes if you don't shut up. for all the good he does, when it comes down to it, when his bottom line is marginally affected he is a coward just like everyone pimping out wokeness to sell garbage.
Yep, and a man should focus on discipline in his house instead of confront the injustice of the world — that’s why he beats his wife instead of confronting real problems.
LeBron happily accepts Chinese money for his work to be aired in the Chinese market: focusing his criticism on the less problematic customer is exactly what I’m calling out.
China pays money he wants, and will stop if he talks, so he doesn’t talk about it — because he’s a cheap hypocrite. More than that, your portrayal of him not speaking on those issues is plain false: he was happy to discuss Hong Kong. He just doesn’t speak about issues in China which would negatively finically impact him.
How do you think black people are treated in China?
My hunch is “not well” based on how they hid Finn on the Star Wars poster. Why doesn’t LeBron talk about the treatment of blacks in China, where the NBA also airs?
LeBron runs his mouth, but he sits down and shuts up for a check. He knows that China is racist against him and treats him like a trained dog, telling him to sit or speak on command — and he does it. So he lashes out at other people about the fact even though he’s an overpaid circus performer, he’ll always be a bitch like that.
China really living rent free in your head, huh? How long have you been at war with Eastasia? Just say it out loud, you hate black people and you hate China, so it stains every other thought you have.
I just love to see awesome athletes who have honed their bodies and reflexes to such a crazy degree do things I could never do.
The interjection of social justice issues hasn’t yet taken anything away from the joy of the game from what I’ve seen. Kneeling for the anthem, wearing armbands with messages doesn’t change any of that.
If they start saying we need more diversity in sports and pay athletes who aren’t the best because of their skin color or sexual orientation I’d be annoyed. If someone is gay or straight or white or black and is the best at his position but he doesn’t get a job because of his orientation or skin color then I’ll stop watching.
The only thing I hate is how many athletes who have such short 3 year windows have half their income taxed for those three years then go on to work “normal” jobs for the next 30 years, and someone who ultimately made the same income over 30 years at a high paying “normal” job got taxed so much less over the same time span.
The interjection of SJ makes the moment 'very serious and contemplative'. Like being in Church, listening to a Sermon.
That's the complete opposite of sports where people spectate to literally get away from controversy, 'serious' things.
For many Americans, especially men, it's their '2 hour safe space' where they can have a beer and not worry.
Imagine if you're doing Yoga, and the well meaning instructor starts in about a rant about the importance of 'American Defence Spending'. Most progressives might have to agree with that on some level, but it's the last place they want to hear about it. Or even BLM for that matter.
The worst part is that the popular antagonism towards the keeling is misrepresented as a general malaise towards 'Social Justice' - which is generally false - as if to say the people having dinner interrupted by slightly violent BLM protesters must be 'anti Black' or whatever.
It's reasonable that athlete's want to use their voice for change, and I think most people would accept that, but they way they've gone about it is wrong.
I don't think many people realize how much 'bubble thinking' is going on, it's really bad.
I've lost interest in so many things 'American' I feel almost everything is inundated with culture war toxicity from every side.
I agree with you that our society is rife with culture war toxicity. But I'm confused with the whole 'shut up and dribble' mentality. Sure, sports fans may not want politics to bleed into their sport-viewing time, but as long as athletes do not exist in a vacuum, what do they expect athletes to do? Be mindless entertainers? Ignore their conscience and pretend like they have no qualms with the status quo when they are on the national stage?
> It's reasonable that athlete's want to use their voice for change, and I think most people would accept that, but they way they've gone about it is wrong.
What are the acceptable ways to use one's voice for change? If that question is too broad, what is the acceptable way for an athlete on the national level to use their voice for change?
So I think anything outside of the arena would be great.
I'm cynical about Kaep for example - his wife Tweeted that 'NFL owners are like slavers' which is possibly the most toxic and insulting thing a player's wife could say, and that the media supported her on it tells me there is a problem. He makes a big name for himself lighting up controversy.
But let's take a guy like Kaep and assume totally 'goodwill and intent':
Anything with the team logo or directly at gametime that is controversial is out of bounds. It's not his place to use that forum - much like you or I couldn't use our workplace to do something that upset a lot of customers - we'd be fired.
Anything off field is great: Social reach outs, Television appearances, testifying in Congress, rallying people to protest, working with communities, governance.
With the team - he could 'work with them on something material' for example direct programs by teams to help with the community. I think one example would be to literally get players and cops to sit down - behind closed doors - and talk. Cops will listen to sports heroes.
Also, having a black stripe on uniforms etc. is a nice touch to signal support of a movement, that's not remotely antagonizing.
And FYI nobody should have to stand for the flag. Jehova's Witnesses, Mennonites etc. don't believe that God's Children should be divided by nationalism. They won't serve in the military for that reason either. So - sitting it out in the locker room would be perfectly fine.
What Lebron has done seems mostly in bounds to me - except have some have noted on this thread it's quite hypocritical to be fully BLM but to completely tow the CCP line even if he has obviously more affinity for one form of protest ... it's hard to have full integrity when you're just raising a fuss over your own thing.
I think it would have worked out better with a smarter touch, and I honestly don't fully buy guys like Kaep's intentions. He seems a little bit Trumpish to me, i.e. there's a layer of 'self serving' to all of it.
The only thing I hate is how many athletes who have such short 3 year windows have half their income taxed for those three years then go on to work “normal” jobs for the next 30 years, and someone who ultimately made the same income over 30 years at a high paying “normal” job got taxed so much less over the same time span.
Athletes do not get taxed on "half their income." Each bracket of income is taxed at a progressively higher rate, so the first $10k for everyone is taxed at the same 10% rate. The next $30k for everyone is taxed at the same 12% rate. The next $45k for everyone is taxed at the same 22% rate, etc. The highest bracket is 37%, and only the dollars above ~$520k are subject to that 37% rate. Even including state income taxes, only persons making more than $600k are subject to the highest theoretical rate (which is below 50%), and even then only on the dollars earned in excess of $600k.
So, for example, if Superstar BBaller earns $601k in wages for playing for the LA Hoopers, he pays $58k in taxes to CA (the mathematical total of the progressive lower-taxed brackets), plus $123 for the $1k over $600k. He pays the feds approximately $150k for the lower-taxed brackets, plus $30k on the $101k in excess of the $520k threshold for the highest-taxed bracket.
And even that example overstates the taxes he pays, since it excludes deductions, tax credits, state tax credits, etc., that would lower the actual tax paid.
That is a 39% rate on the income they make over $500k. That income was made possible by the laws and government activities that made people willing to spend $100/ticket or more to sit in a stadium/arena and watch the athlete play for an hour while millions of others tune in from the safety of their homes during their leisure time.
If the athlete doesn't like having a low 39% tax rate, they are free to move to Europe, where the same income is taxed at over 50%, or to Asia, where they won't pay as much in tax but they would also be making considerably less money before and after tax.
A lot of these athletes come from very underprivileged backgrounds and worked their asses off to get there even then they often in the NFL let’s say have 2 year careers.
Let’s say they made 500k over two years so they take home 600k.
Now they’re out of the NFL and make 50k a year for next 8 years. So over 10 years they make 1.4 million, but take home maybe 950k.
Meanwhile the person from a privileged background went to Stanford got a job in software at 140k a year. Over 10 years they gross 1.4 million but the total they took home is more than this athlete you so deride.
No, you're missing the point, and worse, you're using fundamentally bad math and data to do it.
An athlete that made 500k over two years, i.e., $1 million total for his career, took home at least 600k, because the $500k was his gross income, not his taxable income (i.e., inclusive of deductions and credits). In other words: for two years of work, he made at least $600k, and made at least another $320k over the next 8-years post-tax, for a net take-home of at least $920k. That also ignores the usual side-streams that professional athletes receive (in the US): endorsements, image rights (aka, such as for each year's Madden), jersey/uniform sales, and post-athletic-career pensions. (Note that for each league, the vesting period for the league pension is shorter than the average career in that league.)
Of course if you assume the athlete blew their $600k+, had no other income, and somehow had an average-length career but failed to qualify for a league pension, they made less than the software engineer. But, if like most athletes aware of the short nature of their careers they invested it, then over the 10-year window they would have made an average of about 30% returns; if that window was the past 10 years, they would have made more than 200% returns. Either way, significantly more than the software engineer.
Your position assumes that athletes are too stupid to properly manage their money, and the derision is all solely on your end. My position assumes that athletes are intelligent enough to manage their finances.
It just offended me that someone like Kyrie Irving, literally thought the world was flat in 2018 and now we are suddenly supposed to respect and listen to his voice. He's the Vice President of the player's association. Guess what some of these players are morons and they don't necessarily have to be listened to.
I agree with your statement, but do not agree with your sentiment. Being offended over something that really doesn't impact your life seems troublesome.
The title and content of the article (and therefore discussion here) do not follow what was actually asked in the poll. The question asked was, "How has the discussion of politics in sports on social media impacted your viewing habits?"
Social media was the focus of the poll, which is not mentioned in the article or comments here. The poll was clearly not asking about politics in sports, but rather discussion of politics in sports on social media.
60 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] thread“Shut up and dribble” is the way to go.
The problem with "don't politicize" is that this has a thumb on the scale of the status quo. "Politicization" means that somebody wants something done. Usually they go at it for decades until it catches some kind of national attention. At that point it's merely a tactic to say, "Well, we can't really talk about it now, because it's politicized".
I'm all for bridging divides, but not at the cost of that being an effective decision to do nothing. That's not solving problems; it's dismissing them.
This notion is unacceptable to the left who instead must demand dogmatic adherence to their worldview where nobody can escape. What we're seeing out of the American left is no different than Maoist struggle sessions as a prelude to full blown authoritarian communism.
Only in pop culture.
Almost every single material measure of integration has been improving. Wage gap, education gap, representation gap etc..
And from 1969->2001 even in pop culture things were improved.
It started to heat up with Obama (I love the guy, but many didn't) and went into overdrive in the last 5 years.
Watch CNN from 2005. It wasn't directly divisive, it was just somewhat biased news. Now, it's full on culture war.
And on the Twitter feed of the last President.
But even during Trump's presidency, African Americans had their lowest unemployment rate in history. I don't credit him with much of that directly, rather, but he did preside over an area of 'open business growth' for which that was the result.
Which is my point.
Even despite the toxic rhetoric of a public official, things on the ground can improve.
But that's OK, because he might have had fentanyl in his system, and that means it was definitely not kneeling on his neck for eight minutes that killed him. I'm quite certain of that because HN tells me that, over and over.
I'm using sarcasm because it's disingenuous to talk about "a public official". He was the President of the United States, and 75 million people voted for him. They approved that rhetoric. I think it's likely that many of them preferred that rhetoric, and why he finally won the Presidency after two losses by vastly more competent politicians. This is not just one person.
Your dismissal of the seriousness of this is, in my opinion, one of the reasons it's so serious. African Americans are being mocked on one side, and on the other side they feel that their concerns about literally being murdered are being met with "Well, you have a low unemployment rate".
Tweets are not actions.
There will always be sadomasochistic cops.
There will always be blowhards who are interested in promoting themselves who are confused as 'racists' when really they are just mega jerks.
During Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump 'things got better', broadly.
That is, we do that after we do our little patriotic opening song, then we leave the politics out, right?
You don't have to fully subscribe to the intrinsically-racist Black Lives Matter narrative to agree that unaccountable police are a major problem regardless of race. And IMO unaccountable police is a more fundamental issue than the newly-stoked racism.
I don't know if this is because the successful narratives tend to enrich some entrenched interest, psychopaths rise to the top, negative-sum games have popular appeal, the average person isn't smart enough to fit nuanced opinions in their head, humans are herd animals, or some mix of all of these. But whatever it is, whenever any grassroots movement gains the primetime spotlight, it invariably finds the wrong answer and runs with it.
Hope and Change turned into justifying drone strikes and persecuting Snowden. The Tea Party turned into supporting the most despotic anti-American president in recent history. The recent Democratic mandate is turning into more bullshit "gun control" rather than staying focused on real hardships caused by several decades of economic destruction. The Libertarian party is teetering at the edge of cryptofascism, just waiting for a hint of power (said as a libertarian).
Trying to argue nuance with any supporters will get you labeled as an other and summarily rejected. Even right here my comment was downvoted for what? Pointing out that Black Lives Matter is intrinsically racist? It's right in the name! Perhaps some of that racism is needed for motivation, but pointing it out runs up against the cognitive dissonance of "racism" being unequivocally bad.
Seemingly the best you can do is have such discussions with friends who won't immediately write you off, although you'll often run into the same roadblock there. My own take on BLM is that it's not meant for me, and that's fine. I wish them well and hope they don't get too derailed by self-defeating means.
Any large organization seeking change will always have members that stretch their agenda, framing it in terms of paving over everything with their pet paradigm. But judging a group by its outliers is fallacious. I've got no worry that BLM will somehow end up in charge of everything - they will be lucky if they accomplish one fifth of what they set out to do.
The energy of Black Lives Matter is based on bringing murderers to justice - something that anybody who believes in the rule of law should be concerned with. I'm unconcerned with who is statistically more likely to be killed by police. What I am concerned with is that an armed gang broke into fellow American Breonna Taylor's home and murdered her, but has yet to be prosecuted due to corruption! Every single one of these incidents is an injustice, regardless of skin color.
If you can point me to a similar non-racist or non-"Marxist" (your standard) organization fighting for the rule of law to be applied to the police, I am all ears.
As my previous comment alludes to, basing one's organization on racism is channeling a negative energy that will stay with the movement forever. But after seeing the reaction to BLM and the general events of 2020, apparently that overt racism exists to a greater degree than my New England sensibilities had imagined, and so they might as well acknowledge and use it.
So, crazy window dressing on what is ultimately a pretty tame point?
When you squeeze people, they get radicalized into outlandish viewpoints (see also: Trumpism). The answer is to listen to the core of their gripes, rather than rejecting them wholesale over the craziness.
We must bring back segregation to prove how anti-racist we are.
As an extremely minor example it seems like nearly every food chain starts off actually amazing and then eventually becomes crap through incremental bottom line savings that simply open up the market for a new chain to come in and all the MBAs who ruined the company can jump ship to.
LeBron isn't kneeling because he thinks the police will shoot him, he's kneeling for his family, friends, and people he grew up with that aren't famous athletes that he would like to stay alive.
On the one hand, its "people I disagree with should shut up".
On the other hand, its "censorship is wrong, and people should have a right to say what they want".
-------------
This conflict shows up again and again in sports. Kaepernick was wrong to kneel during the anthem. Etc. etc. I always find it weird that as sports / entertainment comes up, people feel the need to call for censorship of celebrity voices.
LeBron et al talk about how they won’t back down confronting wrongs! — except for China, who is actually racist and actually abusing human rights, right now. He shut up, sat down about that and read the script like he was told.
It’s beating your wife because you’re scared to confront real issues — and I don’t respect that behavior from pampered circus acts.
He did not speak out on issues in China, nor does he speak out on issues affecting the First Nations in Canada, the Native Americans in America, the Aboriginals in Australia, and neither did he protest injustices in Africa, Europe nor the Middle East. Terrible behavior indeed not shouldering every injustice in the world.
LeBron happily accepts Chinese money for his work to be aired in the Chinese market: focusing his criticism on the less problematic customer is exactly what I’m calling out.
China pays money he wants, and will stop if he talks, so he doesn’t talk about it — because he’s a cheap hypocrite. More than that, your portrayal of him not speaking on those issues is plain false: he was happy to discuss Hong Kong. He just doesn’t speak about issues in China which would negatively finically impact him.
How do you think black people are treated in China?
My hunch is “not well” based on how they hid Finn on the Star Wars poster. Why doesn’t LeBron talk about the treatment of blacks in China, where the NBA also airs?
LeBron runs his mouth, but he sits down and shuts up for a check. He knows that China is racist against him and treats him like a trained dog, telling him to sit or speak on command — and he does it. So he lashes out at other people about the fact even though he’s an overpaid circus performer, he’ll always be a bitch like that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I just love to see awesome athletes who have honed their bodies and reflexes to such a crazy degree do things I could never do.
The interjection of social justice issues hasn’t yet taken anything away from the joy of the game from what I’ve seen. Kneeling for the anthem, wearing armbands with messages doesn’t change any of that.
If they start saying we need more diversity in sports and pay athletes who aren’t the best because of their skin color or sexual orientation I’d be annoyed. If someone is gay or straight or white or black and is the best at his position but he doesn’t get a job because of his orientation or skin color then I’ll stop watching.
The only thing I hate is how many athletes who have such short 3 year windows have half their income taxed for those three years then go on to work “normal” jobs for the next 30 years, and someone who ultimately made the same income over 30 years at a high paying “normal” job got taxed so much less over the same time span.
That's the complete opposite of sports where people spectate to literally get away from controversy, 'serious' things.
For many Americans, especially men, it's their '2 hour safe space' where they can have a beer and not worry.
Imagine if you're doing Yoga, and the well meaning instructor starts in about a rant about the importance of 'American Defence Spending'. Most progressives might have to agree with that on some level, but it's the last place they want to hear about it. Or even BLM for that matter.
The worst part is that the popular antagonism towards the keeling is misrepresented as a general malaise towards 'Social Justice' - which is generally false - as if to say the people having dinner interrupted by slightly violent BLM protesters must be 'anti Black' or whatever.
It's reasonable that athlete's want to use their voice for change, and I think most people would accept that, but they way they've gone about it is wrong.
I don't think many people realize how much 'bubble thinking' is going on, it's really bad.
I've lost interest in so many things 'American' I feel almost everything is inundated with culture war toxicity from every side.
> It's reasonable that athlete's want to use their voice for change, and I think most people would accept that, but they way they've gone about it is wrong.
What are the acceptable ways to use one's voice for change? If that question is too broad, what is the acceptable way for an athlete on the national level to use their voice for change?
I'm cynical about Kaep for example - his wife Tweeted that 'NFL owners are like slavers' which is possibly the most toxic and insulting thing a player's wife could say, and that the media supported her on it tells me there is a problem. He makes a big name for himself lighting up controversy.
But let's take a guy like Kaep and assume totally 'goodwill and intent':
Anything with the team logo or directly at gametime that is controversial is out of bounds. It's not his place to use that forum - much like you or I couldn't use our workplace to do something that upset a lot of customers - we'd be fired.
Anything off field is great: Social reach outs, Television appearances, testifying in Congress, rallying people to protest, working with communities, governance.
With the team - he could 'work with them on something material' for example direct programs by teams to help with the community. I think one example would be to literally get players and cops to sit down - behind closed doors - and talk. Cops will listen to sports heroes.
Also, having a black stripe on uniforms etc. is a nice touch to signal support of a movement, that's not remotely antagonizing.
And FYI nobody should have to stand for the flag. Jehova's Witnesses, Mennonites etc. don't believe that God's Children should be divided by nationalism. They won't serve in the military for that reason either. So - sitting it out in the locker room would be perfectly fine.
What Lebron has done seems mostly in bounds to me - except have some have noted on this thread it's quite hypocritical to be fully BLM but to completely tow the CCP line even if he has obviously more affinity for one form of protest ... it's hard to have full integrity when you're just raising a fuss over your own thing.
I think it would have worked out better with a smarter touch, and I honestly don't fully buy guys like Kaep's intentions. He seems a little bit Trumpish to me, i.e. there's a layer of 'self serving' to all of it.
Athletes do not get taxed on "half their income." Each bracket of income is taxed at a progressively higher rate, so the first $10k for everyone is taxed at the same 10% rate. The next $30k for everyone is taxed at the same 12% rate. The next $45k for everyone is taxed at the same 22% rate, etc. The highest bracket is 37%, and only the dollars above ~$520k are subject to that 37% rate. Even including state income taxes, only persons making more than $600k are subject to the highest theoretical rate (which is below 50%), and even then only on the dollars earned in excess of $600k.
So, for example, if Superstar BBaller earns $601k in wages for playing for the LA Hoopers, he pays $58k in taxes to CA (the mathematical total of the progressive lower-taxed brackets), plus $123 for the $1k over $600k. He pays the feds approximately $150k for the lower-taxed brackets, plus $30k on the $101k in excess of the $520k threshold for the highest-taxed bracket.
And even that example overstates the taxes he pays, since it excludes deductions, tax credits, state tax credits, etc., that would lower the actual tax paid.
That feels like a pretty big percent.
If the athlete doesn't like having a low 39% tax rate, they are free to move to Europe, where the same income is taxed at over 50%, or to Asia, where they won't pay as much in tax but they would also be making considerably less money before and after tax.
A lot of these athletes come from very underprivileged backgrounds and worked their asses off to get there even then they often in the NFL let’s say have 2 year careers.
Let’s say they made 500k over two years so they take home 600k. Now they’re out of the NFL and make 50k a year for next 8 years. So over 10 years they make 1.4 million, but take home maybe 950k.
Meanwhile the person from a privileged background went to Stanford got a job in software at 140k a year. Over 10 years they gross 1.4 million but the total they took home is more than this athlete you so deride.
An athlete that made 500k over two years, i.e., $1 million total for his career, took home at least 600k, because the $500k was his gross income, not his taxable income (i.e., inclusive of deductions and credits). In other words: for two years of work, he made at least $600k, and made at least another $320k over the next 8-years post-tax, for a net take-home of at least $920k. That also ignores the usual side-streams that professional athletes receive (in the US): endorsements, image rights (aka, such as for each year's Madden), jersey/uniform sales, and post-athletic-career pensions. (Note that for each league, the vesting period for the league pension is shorter than the average career in that league.)
Of course if you assume the athlete blew their $600k+, had no other income, and somehow had an average-length career but failed to qualify for a league pension, they made less than the software engineer. But, if like most athletes aware of the short nature of their careers they invested it, then over the 10-year window they would have made an average of about 30% returns; if that window was the past 10 years, they would have made more than 200% returns. Either way, significantly more than the software engineer.
Your position assumes that athletes are too stupid to properly manage their money, and the derision is all solely on your end. My position assumes that athletes are intelligent enough to manage their finances.
Social media was the focus of the poll, which is not mentioned in the article or comments here. The poll was clearly not asking about politics in sports, but rather discussion of politics in sports on social media.