- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Multiple NBA Teams Phasing Out Term 'Owner'
Posted on 6/5/19 at 8:50 am to PeteRose
Posted on 6/5/19 at 8:50 am to PeteRose
quote:
Yup. So what next? The word “Trade” is to be determined racist because of “slave trade”
Nope, no more trading players. It's insensitive. "Asset transfers" is the new nomenclature. Not directly affecting you. Not hurting anything. But you're exposing yourself as a not woke person if you keep calling them trades.
Also, please stop saying "lockdown" defender, as slaves were locked in chains. And refrain from saying trad-- I mean, asset transfer "deadline." Do you know how many blacks died during slavery? Should blacks today really have to deal with that kind of verbiage?
Also, the concept of "divisions" is inherently anti-diversity, and we'll not have it in a league dominated by PoC. Our teams are unified in their conferences as they compete for the honor of representing their fellow clubs in the Finals.
It's not directly affecting you, and it's not hurting anything, but you really should refrain from your bigoted, outdated terminology. What if a minority hears you?
1
Posted on 6/5/19 at 9:18 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
the business won't change. there are just going to be other words and terms used.
These people that are being exposed for what they are...what are they?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 9:55 am to shel311
Against progress
Posted on 6/5/19 at 10:01 am to chalmetteowl
Ah yes, progress of calling words like owner racist.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 10:47 am to chalmetteowl
quote:Against what type of progress?
Against progress
Posted on 6/5/19 at 10:54 am to shel311
Betcha he says social 
Gotta keep it ambiguous when you're browbeating people from the moral high ground
Gotta keep it ambiguous when you're browbeating people from the moral high ground
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:16 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
This is disingenuous. The word predates America itself, and is hardly used in any sort of derogatory context in the enterprise in question. Your conflation of ownership of a franchise with ownership of human beings is willfully disingenuous on your part,
Obviously.
What is so frustrating is that not EVERYTHING touched by these guys is wrong on its face. There have been a handful of things which really did need to be addressed. Think the Me Too stuff. some of that was outrageous and guys needed be called out for it. then things went haywire and we were suddenly told to "Believe ALL Women," as if this made any sense in any way. Again...taking something that started with good intentions and bending it so far as to make it absurd.
No one REALLY thinks that calling a person who OWNS a sports franchise an OWNER is hurting anyone's feelings or tapping into black athletes historical memories of family members generations ago having been owned. I'd bet anything not even Dray believes this. Some of this shite is so absurd you'd think 4Chan was putting guys up to just fricking with the public...
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:22 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Nope, no more trading players. It's insensitive. "Asset transfers" is the new nomenclature
Did you...did you just assert that players were...assets? Like property?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:22 am to SPEEDY
Call them Comrades
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:23 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Did you...did you just assert that players were...assets? Like property?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:24 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
Against progress
What's progressive about using a synonym for owner to describe an owner? Does it make them any less owners?
Why do certain mouth sounds bother people so much? If you're ok with the concept of ownership, why does the WORD used matter?
It's like speaking to children...but special ones.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:26 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
There have been a handful of things which really did need to be addressed. Think the Me Too stuff. some of that was outrageous and guys needed be called out for it. then things went haywire and we were suddenly told to "Believe ALL Women," as if this made any sense in any way. Again...taking something that started with good intentions and bending it so far as to make it absurd.
Exactly. What started out as something unquestionably positive was warped by bad faith parties into something of a cudgel for the opportunistic.
quote:
No one REALLY thinks that calling a person who OWNS a sports franchise an OWNER is hurting anyone's feelings or tapping into black athletes historical memories of family members generations ago having been owned.
Indeed. If someone really is THAT sensitive, they are the ones with the problem, not the people using an innocuous term in normal context.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:28 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Did you...did you just assert that players were...assets? Like property?
frick me, I give up
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:31 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
What started out as something unquestionably positive was warped by bad faith parties into something of a cudgel for the opportunistic.
Does anyone really question this part?
It's just a bad faith argument to assert what Dray has started here. It would be nice to still live in a world where you could simply point and laugh at someone when they asserted something so ridiculous and know that everyone else would be doing the same. Instead, thanks mostly to White Knights (meant in both ways) to some of the clowns in this thread, we actually have to waste valuable time picking apart CLEARLY disingenuous arguments and risk being labeled racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. for merely pushing back against an obviously illogical point.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:36 am to TbirdSpur2010
Wait so people are upset by an owner of property and assets are called owners?
And yes the players are property. Just as you and I are in the organizations we are employed by and/or for.
And yes the players are property. Just as you and I are in the organizations we are employed by and/or for.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 11:38 am
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:38 am to GeauxTigerTM
It's like when I end up arguing with people who are ostensibly educated folk about the definition of racism or something else stupid they want to redefine.
Like, frick, are we gonna have to have serious discussions about whether the sky is blue, now? Bloody hell
Like, frick, are we gonna have to have serious discussions about whether the sky is blue, now? Bloody hell
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:40 am to GeauxTigerTM
no one proposed banning the word owner dude
they are just moving towards a different word. no biggie
they are just moving towards a different word. no biggie
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:43 am to Mr Perfect
quote:
they are just moving towards a different word.
That means the same thing. For incredibly stupid reasons not grounded in logic.
And your racist dumbass is all for this kind of stupidity.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:55 am to TbirdSpur2010
When your ideas suck, change the definitions of words.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:18 pm to Mr Perfect
quote:
no one proposed banning the word owner dude
they are just moving towards a different word.
For...owner?
So they would still OWN the team, but instead of using the more accurate word to describe their position the NBA has decided to use a less accurate one to appease dum dums who want to equate OWNING a sports franchise with OWNING human beings.
Still exactly the same in terms of their owning the team...but simply use another word?
And this makes sense to you?
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News