Sign into an existing account

(For the record, I don't give a fuck about the NBA or any pro athlete.)

I'm watching in disbelief as Kyrie Irving and the Brooklyn Nets are about to pay a million dollars for offending the ADL. There's a lot of garnish being applied by the media, but let's call it what it is. Irving offended Jews at the ADL, who have the power to complain, and the only resolution to their complaint is for the offending party to pay a lot of money. Note the wave of tweets in the wake of Irving's and the Net's "resolution" to pay the money: a lot of people saying they are happy about reaching a peaceful 'solution', and a way to 'move forward'.

Imagine someone just assaults you in the street. You are heard complaining about your attacker. The attacker then makes a public outcry of defamation. Somehow you are forced to pay the attacker a large sum of money. Your employer enters the picture and says they're going to pay the attacker too, and you both release a resolution stating as much.

Then everyone starts clamoring: "So glad this could be resolved, and we can move forward now."

I don't understand how anybody can continue to listen to these people (Jews, the ADL) claim they are victims, while their complaints literally generate the public's expectation that you will hand them money to resolve their offense. No trial before a judge. No jury. A wave of pressure from everyone around you, so-called moral voices, who imply that if you don't pay, you'll be crushed in any number of conceivable ways financially and professionally.

How do you walk away from this and continue thinking, "Gee those Jews sure are victims."

Their single tweet (literally a fucking tweet from Greenblatt) generates $1 million in revenue for Jews.

Some victims.

https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1588240416922443778?cxt=HHwWhIClydGPyIosAAAA (apologies for the Twitter link)

Look at the language used in Greenblatt's tweet. He is literally telling someone what their speech about Jews must be. "The answer is always NO."

How can you continue to create the public assumption of victimhood while you get to tell top-1%-ers what they can and cannot say. You just get to tell someone what's acceptable to say about you, with the full implication that it's a rule that must be followed.