Hacker News Reader

Comment by clairity | Hacker News Reader

the compare and contrast of this with the nfl and colin kaepernick is interesting.

here, a general manager of a team (not a player) showed support for free speech (the protests) and democratic values over tyranny, and the league rallied (measured) support for him. many americans then criticized the nba for not going far enough, because greed.

with the nfl, a player protests minority persecution by the police (an expression of governmental power). the league bans the respectfully protesting player (because greed) and fans cheer the oppression in the name of patriotism.

the subtext is not so flattering for us americans.

View on HN

Interesting interpretation of events.

Most accounts of the NBA controversy that I've heard suggest the apology to China made by the Houston Rockets's James Harden[1] in response is what has drawn criticism. And the GM has been pressured into making an apology [2]. That was after the Houston Rockets immediately distanced themselves from the statement [3]. The criticism I've heard has been of the subservient apologies, because freedom. Our National Basketball Association has demonstrated a split loyalty.

Also, Kaepernick was not banned, although perhaps that's an interpretation of his not being rehired after his contract ended. Statistically, he was the worst or second worst QB in the NFL. Add to that the PR risk, and the return on investment is negative.

In China, if I posted that same critical comment to social media, I'd fear for my life and the lives of my family as a direct action from the government. In the USA, Colin Kaepernick has a lucrative Nike endorsement and, while a controversial figure, lives freely and is often celebrated freely.

I'll side with us Americans on this one.

[1] https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27787634/james-harden-ap...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/10/07/767805936/houston-rockets-gm-...

[3] https://twitter.com/TilmanJFertitta/status/11803302879574958...

[4] "Kaepernick had a defense-adjusted yards above replacement — Football Outsiders’ ultimate value quotient — of minus-182, 35th in the NFL. By all metrics, he was one of the worst quarterbacks in the league." https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/colin-kaepernick-49ers-s...

i'm not following it closely enough to pinpoint where most of the criticism is being directed, but quite a bit seems to be directed at the nba and the rockets. the nba and the rockets are clearly trying to walk a tightrope between mollifying the CCP without capitulating to it (by outright punishing daryl morey).

kaepernick's ranking as a quarterback is debatable but a quorum of knowledgeable people (i.e., not me) seemed to view him as a somewhere in the middle of the pack of starting quarterbacks.

in any case, another interesting element of the comparison is that nba players/employees have more collective power than their nfl counterparts. individual players, who feel loyalty to a range of interests other than profit, are willing to take stands that an unempathetic corporate entity just won't.

Kaepernick is safe because he is a celebrity, did you read the news about some other nobody Americans?

I’m a nobody American. I can demonstrate my freedom, if you’d like.

I, being of sound mind, declare that my President is shit. And he’s wrong about things. And his hair is ridiculous.

No consequences. That’s allowed. My real identity is adequately tied to this account, and I fear no repercussions for criticizing my government leaders.

In US, it's more scare to say you support Trump, and also it's declare to death that you say you don't like black people. And also, you are freely to say that in China, and you may get applause for that. Does that approve anything? Did you get my point?

I do appreciate your point that there are social consequences for certain kinds of personal expression. If I publicly support an unpopular political or religious or social view, it could damage my professional reputation and limit my job prospects.

But those aren’t government enforced laws. People can choose their own rules for speech.

If I insult my employer, I may be fired. There are social consequences for taking controversial stances—that’s true of all societies. But those aren’t legal consequences in the USA. Our government can’t intervene except for specific cases where you are inciting violence or physical danger when it comes to personal expression.

When it comes to speech, should the government have the power or should the people have the power? I don’t want my government to have that power over me, and I certainly don’t want China to have that power over citizens of the USA.

1. we are talking about freedom of speech. Whether the damage from the peers or from the administration, for the normal people, I don't think there is big difference. 2. I am not fully understand what's your meaning of China's power over USA citizens. I don't think Chinese government has enforced any US citizen do anything they don't want to do. 3. Boycotting is really normal in modern days, and it's a polite way to express your disagreement. NBA can stand with their point, but Chinese and Chinese government can boycott as well. Just like what Kaepernick did and NFL audience did.

You’re talking about celebrities who are treated differently.

How’s that population of effectively “disappeared” minorities into prison for pot possession and migrants in cages make it look relative to China and its behavior of kidnapping people. There are oodles of folks held in America without charges every year.

Oh they got a trial here sure. One with a predetermined outcome codified into law years ago.

America has had the advantage of being able to sell the pretense via warm and cuddly commercials to the public over the last few decades. The rhetoric in China and America is the same. And “proper Chinese” believe a lot of the same about China vs. US

All countries fail the bottom 1/3rd. Some are just better at justifying it emotionally

Sure. But that's not because of freedom of speech. And I think this is a discussion related to freedom of speech rather than the more subjective and infinitely broad, "Which is better: China or America?"

I can safely criticize my country and its officials because I am not a Chinese citizen.

Try protesting Trump in front of the White House. Odds are you won’t even risk seeing how free your speech is. That’s the difference in America: most wont bother cause for most it’s fine.

A lot of Chinese as a percentage of the population can say the same.

I think fewer Americans are inclined to try and test it, more so than it being true.

Look at the pipeline situation, campus protests, etc of the last five years. Police beatings and pepper spray in the face. That’s what happens when people stand and sit around in protest.

Put together a protest on the scale of Hong Kong’s in NYC or LA. See how it goes.

TL;DR it’s more explicit in China because they actually stand up more frequently than Americans.

And as a percentage of our population we have more people in jail for minor drug possession related offenses. That’s seen as a tacit protest of government law and you’re put in the clink. Predetermined outcomes written into law plainly, we’ve all just normalized to.

Lots of people protest Trump at the White House. Like, a lot. It’s cool.

People call him out on Twitter constantly. No repercussions.

Lots of organized protests, most of them complaining about him. No consequences for the protesting.

Seriously, I can mail a letter telling my President that I think he’s shit, and there are no consequences. Freedom. Now, if I say something even vaguely threatening in that letter, the Secret Service will pay me a visit. And I’d feel uncomfortable. But that’s appropriate threat assessment. We don’t arrest our people for criticizing leaders. That’s a protected right.

I’ll make a bet: you and I will both send the same insulting, critical letters to our respective national leaders, and I bet that I will suffer no consequences provided that the content is of a non-threatening nature whereas you may not be so lucky.

In that respect, I have the opportunity to contribute to the public discourse that is necessary for my nation to progress. I can openly disagree with my leaders, and that is the very means for change in both who will lead and where we will go.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out a polite way to point out the discrepancy. Notably I don't think the NFL actually banned him over it, I think he just ended up not being rehired by any teams. I think the NFL actually settled a lawsuit with him over conspiring to keep him out of the league but it apparently wasn't an official policy.

Edit: so I think it wasn't as hypocritical as it could be at face value but America isn't as great about athlete protest as we really want to be. It's much harder to stomach people protesting you

The league didn't really support the GM, and plenty of people are still pissed about Kaepernick. More importantly, the NFL hasn't gone to the same degree of virtue signaling that the NBA has.

In fact there was massive support across the US for Kaepernick. Nike saw a big net public benefit to using his position in its advertising. The parent comment is ignoring the widespread support that Kaepernick received in the stance that he took, including from a very large number of active NFL players, celebrities, other sports players, and Americans in general.

Now contrast that actual reality in the US with what's going on with China where there is zero allowed room for dissent. The US comes out universally, overwhelmingly favorably.

Kaepernick made money on his settlement with the NFL and is practically becoming a folk hero in the sports world (see the Betsy Ross flag shoe matter). He'd be in prison or executed in China for an equivalent stance.

> "the NFL hasn't gone to the same degree of virtue signaling that the NBA has."

the nfl very clearly virtue-signaled loyalty over freedom, which coincided neatly with their financial interests.

The league did not ban Kaepernick, he just wasn't signed by anyone (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore). Some say owners colluded to blacklist him. I find that very hard to believe. Owners don't seem to have a problem signing players with all types of sins in their history if it will help them win. Of course if he's going to bring trouble and he's not that great anymore, then the might pass on him.

> (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore)

Though in the first 2 years Kaepernick went unsigned, about 10-15 quarterbacks weaker than him were signed. One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor.

> One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor.

I would assume that distraction for the team — regardless of reason for that distraction — was a major contributing factor.

At a certain level their objective is to win games and focus on the player politics and non-sport activities would be disruptive, and likely negatively impact his overall value to prospective teams.

He was blackballed. The league even settled in court with him over his grievances. Please don't muddy the waters.

Yeah, they settled (the league wasn't found guilty). The lawyer for Kaepernick said "... the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party." So I'm not muddying the water, the water was never clear. There was never a clear public resolution. (Again, I'm not saying they didn't do it.)

right, i didn't mean literally banned, but he was effectively banned to make a political and economic point (also not suggesting that they necessarily did anything illegal).

Not all fans cheered the oppression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com