The NBA is reportedly considering dropping the term "owner".

[TheDeuce]

This is simply more virtue signaling. Getting so sick of this because it does nothing to resolve any pressing issues whatsoever.

 

How would changing the terminology affect you?

[TheDeuce]

How come the importance of racial issues is always up to white people to decide? Why do black people always have zero say when it comes to trying to resolve racial issues?

 

Because some black people want stupid, non-issues changed, apparently.

[PurplePride92]

How would changing the terminology affect you?

 

This is the part that cracks me up. This is a tax free, non financial solution to what some feel is an issue that hurts absolutely no one if they make the change. No one’s rights are violated. No one loses anything at all. But it’s a problem.

[PurplePride92]

Guess what, the bigger problems aren't being dealt with either. Because just like here, it's always "there are bigger problems to worry about."

 

Since you keep saying this hurts the overall progress of combating racism, can you explain how exactly?

 

This is a fair question because as we speak we are all doing an outstanding job of combating systemic and institutionalized racism.

[John Anthony]

How would changing the terminology affect you?

 

You have a point but I wish you saw it both ways.

[TheDeuce]

Is the Pelicans owner refusing to trade AD racist?

 

No?

[PurplePride92]

You have a point but I wish you saw it both ways.

 

Saw what both ways?

[John Anthony]

No?

 

That’s where we’re going with all this manufactured crap. You gotta see it both ways. Yes, we have racism in this country and I hate it as much as you do but we don’t need manufacturer it. We need to ban people like Sterling. None of the other owners, feel like they “own” any of the players. And if they do, they will be exiled from the league.

[bugatti]

Because some black people want stupid, non-issues changed, apparently.

If the term "owner" is genuinely believed to be offensive, then do away with it. That's fine.

 

But I think where people miss the boat in all of this is it does nothing to address the systemic issue at hand with these type of organizational structures. The power and decision makers (i.e. owners) are comprised of elites. It is not going to change that. It is virtue signaling as someone said above. I liken it to the Oscars controversy and lack of minorities being nominated for awards. Well, thanks to hashtags, it is has pretty much assured a slate of minority nominees in futures Oscar ceremonies. That is a good thing! However, until more minorities are given an opportunity to produce films and be over studios, it is not really addressing the systemic problem, just putting a mask over it to make people believe they are making a difference.

 

And maybe stuff is being done behind the scenes to get minorities more involved with upper management in NBA organizations, but wielding away power is never an easy thing.

[John Anthony]

Agreed, drop the term owner I don’t care but do we limit that to the NBA only?

 

My issue is the fact that people are suggesting owners, “own” these players. The only idiot who pulled that crap got banned. Maybe, I’m naive, but I don’t think the owners feel like they “own” these players and they better not if they want to be apart of the league. It just seems ridiculous to me but maybe I’m naive. I’ll be the first guy calling for an owner to be banned if it is happening.

[TheDeuce]

That’s where we’re going with all this manufactured crap. You gotta see it both ways. Yes, we have racism in this country and I hate it as much as you do but we don’t need manufacturer it. We need to ban people like Sterling. None of the other owners, feel like they “own” any of the players. And if they do, they will be exiled from the league.

 

Again, how does it affect you? We don't get to decide what is offensive to other people.

[John Anthony]

Again, how does it affect you? We don't get to decide what is offensive to other people.

 

It doesn’t but who is it affecting? That’s where I’m confused man? I refuse to believe that the owners believe they “own” these players.

[PurplePride92]

I refuse to believe that the owners believe they “own” these players.

 

Really? That’s interesting.

[TheDeuce]

It doesn’t but who is it affecting? That’s where I’m confused man? I refuse to believe that the owners believe they “own” these players.

 

It doesn't affect me personally, but that doesn't mean I think it shouldn't affect other people.

 

As much as you refuse to believe, I'm just as adamant in believing that there are owners who legitimately think they own the players. Especially behind closed doors.

[PurplePride92]

It doesn't affect me personally, but that doesn't mean I think it shouldn't affect other people.

 

As much as you refuse to believe, I'm just as adamant in believing that there are owners who legitimately think they own the players. Especially behind closed doors.

 

 

If I am a billionaire owner you better believe that my mindset says that I own every person in that organization and if anyone had a problem with it I’d buy a better version of you.