****The Everything LaVar Ball Thread****

Anyone who understands this is called a "Lavar stan" around here
mean.gif
laugh.gif

Harry Giles, before the injury, Fultz, and Josh Jackson were ahead of Ball.
but Lonzo won Mr basketball USA and naismith prep player of the year tho
 
Lol at Lavar getting his points across effectively. It may seem that he is effective at getting his points across to some of you, but that may be because the people interviewing him hardly ever do any follow up questions that are difficult. When Lavar gets asked a difficult question he has a tendency to deflect answering that question or the interviewer lets him off the hook. It would now take $3 billion dollars for him to meet with a major brand now, how can anyone defend this valuation? 
 
 
Lol at Lavar getting his points across effectively. It may seem that he is effective at getting his points across to some of you, but that may be because the people interviewing him hardly ever do any follow up questions that are difficult. When Lavar gets asked a difficult question he has a tendency to deflect answering that question or the interviewer lets him off the hook. It would now take $3 billion dollars for him to meet with a major brand now, how can anyone defend this valuation? 
brah ironically u suck at getting ur point across effectively 
 
Lol at Lavar getting his points across effectively. It may seem that he is effective at getting his points across to some of you, but that may be because the people interviewing him hardly ever do any follow up questions that are difficult. When Lavar gets asked a difficult question he has a tendency to deflect answering that question or the interviewer lets him off the hook. It would now take $3 billion dollars for him to meet with a major brand now, how can anyone defend this valuation? 

Ehhhh I mean, lavar has his times when he gets serious and gives a very clear answer. Those responses really show that he isn't a fool. He also throws the other stuff out there for his amusement it seems.
 
Lol at Lavar getting his points across effectively. It may seem that he is effective at getting his points across to some of you, but that may be because the people interviewing him hardly ever do any follow up questions that are difficult. When Lavar gets asked a difficult question he has a tendency to deflect answering that question or the interviewer lets him off the hook. It would now take $3 billion dollars for him to meet with a major brand now, how can anyone defend this valuation? 
The only think outrageous that he's said would be that he would beat Jordan in his prime. This triggered many of y'all cause y'all worship Jordan (another man would bleeds the same blood as you) as God.The man has every right to evaluate his company how he see's fit. It's his company.
 
Last edited:
My point is that the few examples you probably have seen, those same dudes have probably criticized him at some other point. I'm sure they are dude blanketly riding for LaVar but most people that have support him in this thread have called him out when he crossed the line. The race aspect has mostly been about how he is portrayed in the media.

And I agree with how America capitalism and let down the black community, but LaVar Ball is really not an example of that. Yes he is a capitalist and yes he hustling, yes he is only out for himself but famb is harmless in the grander scale of things. He is slanging sneakers, the most damage he can do is become a competitive fringe to Nike, or Adidas.

The issue isn't what LaVar is doing. The issue is in seeing what he's doing as some type of revolutionary, pro-black stand and in seeing supporting BBB as some meaningful act of racial solidarity and support for the "little guy." These types of responses are abundant in this thread. Increased success by the black wealthy, who in this case are framed as the "little guys," will not translate into meaningful change for poor, working-class, or even middle-class black folks. But that is the narrative that LaVar is implicitly pushing and that I see many people implicitly (or explicitly) buying into. LaVar is appealing to these sentiments in marketing his brand in order to enrich himself and his family, which is fine, but let's call it what it is.

And too often a version of this logic is touted as the solution to issues plaguing black communities--that what is promoted by and benefits black elites is somehow good for all black people in some indirect or even tangible way.


The way things like education, infrastructure, healthcare, and financial services have been turn into commodities that are hand out in unequal amounts and unequal quality, instead of being viewed as public goods is the real danger. I am pretty lefty that believe America and the black community needs to warm up to socialist solutions but I don't vilify capitalism that much. Because that is that same type of thinking as the person that vilifies socialism because of a few scumbag dictators.

The main problem is not capitalism itself, it is how we practice capitalism. American love to preach about the effeminacy of markets and the beauty of perfect competition but we practice crony capitalism, hand firms monopolistic power, and indulge them in all their rent seeking behaviro. Black people are the lower classes (poor whites too) are told to the most basic of services have to be excludable and rivialous so we better prepared to practice some rugged individualism. At the same time a more robust welfare state is built for the white and rich.

No reasonable socialist imo should be running around demonizing capitalism, it should be pointing out how toxic the America verity is, why it should not be used in some instances, and why well regulated markets would be the better option in other times.

I largely agree with this. I was speaking within the context of American, neoliberal capitalism here, a system in which the top 0.1% of households own as much wealth as the bottom 90%.


The Umar Johnson example was because Johnson wanted black people to give him money to fund a school and pitched it as it was the black community responsibility to help him get the school because "look at how the education system treats black kids". The problem is systemic, and needs a policy solution to address the multiple system issues. Giving a person like Umar Johnson a school would have done little to nothing to solve the issue. Just give most black folk something to route for, while it would be helping a select few. I have a very low opinion of Johnson anyway, but bringing him up was not meant to be an indictment of him personally.

This was basically my response to the Obama's plan to donate $2 million for jobs in Chicago in lieu of a systemic policy solution, a response which you derided :lol:

I mean, if BBB is successful--and that is a BIG if--what is the "best-case scenario" over the next 20 years? That two dozens wildly wealthy families of NBA pottery picks enrich themselves even further and put a small dent in the athletic corporate establishment? OK, that's fine, but we should understand that's where the potential benefits of this would end.


Even if I could wish a ton more public services into America’s economy. And free the black community from the economic barriers it faces, a dude like LaVar would still be allowed to exist.

As he should be. But dudes still shouldn't be bamboozled by self-interest being promoted as collective empowerment.


Just that if dem shoes ain’t ship by December. The Federal Finesser Enforcement Bureau might be on his *** :lol:

:lol:

-If you want to keep making the assertion of the "revolutionary" sentiment going on in this thread, I'm going to need receipts. Who are these people giving LaVar a blank check, or saying this is a replacement for more systemic changes. Dudes are happy for the brother, when he oversteps people that support him have been critical. I can understand you having an issue with this sentiment in general. but I really don't see it being this rampant in this thread.

-American's problem with capitalism can't just be labeled as neoliberalism and be done with it. There can be conditions where labor has too much power, too much money is being spent on the welfare state that it creates poverty traps and markets are over regulated. We definitely so not live in this world though. But If we lived in that world I would be begging for some "neoliberalism". Neoliberalism seems to have just become a buzzword more than anything to vilify market solutions and free trade.

-There doesn't have to be something deeper than a couple black families finessed the situation to their advantage. So what, good for them, who are they hurting? Why should I shed tears for Nike and Adidas. Yes we have to be weary of black people using the utility they gain from supporting black business as a replacement for true economic justice, then again supporting black folk in capitalist endeavors and fighting for socialist solutions problems don't have to be mutually exclusive. LaVar and the rest of dem black families can get dat coins, and I will be happy for them, but Imma want them to run them tax dollars to fund single payer, job programs, education grants, etc.

-Obama and Umar Johnson are not the same. Obama took 2 million of his own money to donate to a program that social scientist have proven to make a difference, he committed and act of charity, and lets remember the brother fought year after year for jobs programs. Umar Johnson ran around and demanded black people give him money to get his school and shamed black people that didn't support his cause. Anyone with sense could have spotted the finesse move that would have came next. Proper context matters

Here are a couple of receipts for you. I don't have the time or patience to comb through the thread for more, but they are there.


Lavar's idea is brilliant, how he's gone about idk tho but the idea is revolutionary


Eagerly anticipating this epic failure of a brand to fall flat on its face. I'm sure I'm not the only one

Your not and thats so sad.

I wasn't a BBB supporter until I realized what he's doin.

I advise every black male with means to buy these shoes.

I know what neoliberalism is, and I understand it to be a driving force behind the historic inequalities in the United States in the twenty-first century. I have no idea why you're constructing alternative hypothetical scenarios in which neoliberalism might be a good thing. As you admit, that's definitely not the world we live in. So...?

As I've stated ad nauseum at this point, it's fine for the Ball's to do their thing. My issue is when folks buy into the marketing narrative that the Ball's personal/familial enrichment is some type of wider victory for black folks or for the "little guy" as I see it being touted. This has been my stated issue this entire time. Is it the absolute worst thing in the world? Obviously not. But it is the conversation at hand.

Obviously Obama and Umar Johnson are not the same. I was drawing a parallel in terms of private charity in both cases being promoted as the solution to complex social issues that realistically require serious policy interventions. You point out some legitimate contextual differences that you feel make the parallel problematic. I will leave this be, as I've witnessed your stamina for defending Obama from criticism from the left, and I simply don't have the interest to engage in a prolonged exchange about this particular topic. No shade, for real.

-Ok, cool. Point proven

-You missed my point on neoliberalism. All I wanted to argue is that it not some abstract concept, because when it is viewed like that it is hard to pin down exactly what it is. I see neoliberalism as an ideology that makes humans compete over the even the most basic of services, prioritizes “efficient” markets over equitable ones, taxation and regulation should be minimum, privatizing of public services and views trade unions as a market distortion. From there we can discuss specific policy solutions. I have come to dislike the term because now the far-left labels anything they deem unsatisfactory as “neoliberalism”. The center left on the economic spectrum are not neoliberals not matter how much new age socialist and progressive try to slander them as that. That is why I gave the scenario of why it could be good, to show that at the end of the day it is ideology that breeds certain policies. It wasn’t to insult you, it was to just make that point.

-My third paragraph was in response to this.....

I mean, if BBB is successful--and that is a BIG if--what is the "best-case scenario" over the next 20 years? That two dozens wildly wealthy families of NBA pottery picks enrich themselves even further and put a small dent in the athletic corporate establishment? OK, that's fine, but we should understand that's where the potential benefits of this would end.

You're trying to project the best-case scenario of LaVar and copycat’s actions, on the corporate establishment. So, I focused my answer in the context of what their success would mean. I'm sorry you had to restate your point at nauseam, but I tried to best answer the question in the context it was asked.

Last I was not trying to be combative but it was a reach to say I derided you for comment in the political thread. All I need was try to point out the other factors at play with what you wanted, and it was kinda a stretch to assume what you did regarding the man's motive. Now you say you don't have the interest to debate this issue because of my stamina to defend the man, ok whatever. But it was not me that brought his name up, you did, and you brought him up to imply I was being hypocritical, which I wasn't.

I get your point about neoliberalism and that's mostly fair. But if we're going to talk neoliberalism in terms of specific policies, you can't at the same time make the blanket assertion that politicians who are center-left economically aren't neoliberals. For example, almost every elected official in this country seemingly supports the proliferation of charter schools, a movement based on notions of "free markets," "consumer choice," increased competition, privatization, etc.--all cornerstones of neoliberalism.

I presented a "best-case scenario" for the BBB situation because you did so for Umar Johnson's proposed school to show the impact here is also ultimately very--extremely--limited in scope. That's fine and all, but we should recognize this in both cases and not make either out to be something greater than what they would be--which many people have been doing.

Lastly, you derided Umar Johnson's approach to educating black kids in part because:

"The problem is systemic, and needs a policy solution to address the multiple system issues. Giving a person like Umar Johnson a school would have done little to nothing to solve the issue. Just give most black folk something to route for, while it would be helping a select few."

That was essentially my same criticism of Obama's Chicago jobs effort. That was my point. Sure there are other factors influencing both Obama and Johnson's approaches to the issues they're focusing on, but they can both be criticized on the grounds you stated above. Derided was possibly too strong a word, but "took issue with" at the very least.

I know this is a couple of weeks late, but **** it. That's why I don't post much on here. Just can't keep up with the back-and-forth too much :lol:
 
They were both acting like fools on that show.
Lol at Lavar getting his points across effectively. It may seem that he is effective at getting his points across to some of you, but that may be because the people interviewing him hardly ever do any follow up questions that are difficult. When Lavar gets asked a difficult question he has a tendency to deflect answering that question or the interviewer lets him off the hook. It would now take $3 billion dollars for him to meet with a major brand now, how can anyone defend this valuation? 
The only think outrageous that he's said would be that he would beat Jordan in his prime. This triggered many of y'all cause y'all worship Jordan (another man would bleeds the same blood as you) as God.The man has every right to evaluate his company how he see's fit. It's his company.

Are you forgetting where he said 'Zo is the best player in the world? :lol:

You don't even have to be a Jordan fan to find his statement absolutely ridiculous.

And the public has every right to give their outspoken opinion about him and his company. Whether you like or he likes it or not. it's their opinion.

Lavar has every right to come out and speak on behalf of his company. No argument there. But to choose the manner that's he done it, well be prepared to receive some not so positive reception. That's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
I can immediately tell a person who hasn't looked at any Lavar Ball clips when they use sound bites to justify his / her opinion.

Removing context / nuance is easy for him because his bombastic personality... Calls for easy criticism.
 
IMO Lavar to speak on Ky's mom like that was out of pocket. All Irving said was you have to let your son fight his own fights in the most respectful way possible. To say Ky doesn't know what it's like being a father (even though Kyrie has a kid) and to then bring up him and his dad have this artificial relationship because his mom ain't around( even though she couldn't be around because she passed) is completely out of line. Lonzo's mom is sick so idk what would compel Lavar to try and send shots like that but bro is buggin
 
They were both acting like fools on that show.
Are you forgetting where he said 'Zo is the best player in the world? :lol:

You don't even have to be a Jordan fan to find his statement absolutely ridiculous.

And the public has every right to give their outspoken opinion about him and his company. Whether you like or he likes it or not. it's their opinion.

Lavar has every right to come out and speak on behalf of his company. No argument there. But to choose the manner that's he done it, well be prepared to receive some not so positive reception. That's just the way it is.
We fortune tellers out here now ? We haven't seen his son play anyone in the NBA yet, so how can we tell if he's the best or not. Lavar, Drake, Lebron and Bieber got y'all way down in y'all bag.


IMO Lavar to speak on Ky's mom like that was out of pocket. All Irving said was you have to let your son fight his own fights in the most respectful way possible. To say Ky doesn't know what it's like being a father (even though Kyrie has a kid) and to then bring up him and his dad have this artificial relationship because his mom ain't around( even though she couldn't be around because she passed) is completely out of line. Lonzo's mom is sick so idk what would compel Lavar to try and send shots like that but bro is buggin
Did you actually see the full thing or are you going based off that little clip ?
 
IMO Lavar to speak on Ky's mom like that was out of pocket. All Irving said was you have to let your son fight his own fights in the most respectful way possible. To say Ky doesn't know what it's like being a father (even though Kyrie has a kid) and to then bring up him and his dad have this artificial relationship because his mom ain't around( even though she couldn't be around because she passed) is completely out of line. Lonzo's mom is sick so idk what would compel Lavar to try and send shots like that but bro is buggin

This.
 
They were both acting like fools on that show.
Are you forgetting where he said 'Zo is the best player in the world? :lol:

You don't even have to be a Jordan fan to find his statement absolutely ridiculous.

And the public has every right to give their outspoken opinion about him and his company. Whether you like or he likes it or not. it's their opinion.

Lavar has every right to come out and speak on behalf of his company. No argument there. But to choose the manner that's he done it, well be prepared to receive some not so positive reception. That's just the way it is.
We fortune tellers out here now ? We haven't seen his son play anyone in the NBA yet, so how can we tell if he's the best or not. Lavar, Drake, Lebron and Bieber got y'all way down in y'all bag.


IMO Lavar to speak on Ky's mom like that was out of pocket. All Irving said was you have to let your son fight his own fights in the most respectful way possible. To say Ky doesn't know what it's like being a father (even though Kyrie has a kid) and to then bring up him and his dad have this artificial relationship because his mom ain't around( even though she couldn't be around because she passed) is completely out of line. Lonzo's mom is sick so idk what would compel Lavar to try and send shots like that but bro is buggin
Did you actually see the full thing or are you going based off that little clip ?
Saw the full clip, Kyrie mom got nothing to do with letting your child be there own child. Lavar has ZERO NBA experience and the same goes for Lonzo. And he has to send shots to the first NBA player actually not hating and offering good advice? Lavar a lame for that straight up
 
We fortune tellers out here now ? We haven't seen his son play anyone in the NBA yet, so how can we tell if he's the best or not. Lavar, Drake, Lebron and Bieber got y'all way down in y'all bag.
Did you actually see the full thing or are you going based off that little clip ?
Don't be ridiculous bro. If he was the best in the world would he not have won the NCAA Championship? If he was the best in the world he would not have been outclassed by De'Aaron Fox in the Sweet 16, right? Don't support outlandish statements like that.
 
They were both acting like fools on that show.
Are you forgetting where he said 'Zo is the best player in the world? :lol:

You don't even have to be a Jordan fan to find his statement absolutely ridiculous.

And the public has every right to give their outspoken opinion about him and his company. Whether you like or he likes it or not. it's their opinion.

Lavar has every right to come out and speak on behalf of his company. No argument there. But to choose the manner that's he done it, well be prepared to receive some not so positive reception. That's just the way it is.
We fortune tellers out here now ? We haven't seen his son play anyone in the NBA yet, so how can we tell if he's the best or not. Lavar, Drake, Lebron and Bieber got y'all way down in y'all bag.


Put down the Lavar juice dude. Please tell the rest of us what exactly has he done to even come close to support the "Best Player in the World" statement? That's right, nothing! You obviously have some type of personal emotion attached to this whole thing. You want to believe the words coming out of his father's mouth so much, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. But don't expect the rest of us to hop on the same train. Seeing is believing. When I see it, I'll believe it.
 
Last edited:
Ehhhh I mean, lavar has his times when he gets serious and gives a very clear answer. Those responses really show that he isn't a fool. He also throws the other stuff out there for his amusement it seems.

Yup. The cowherd interview really over shadowed the great, thoughtful and reasonable interview with Skip and Shannon
 
Don't be ridiculous bro. If he was the best in the world would he not have won the NCAA Championship? If he was the best in the world he would not have been outclassed by De'Aaron Fox in the Sweet 16, right? Don't support outlandish statements like that.
they didnt have the footspeed fam, you know this
 
You know the best player rarely wins the championship in college right? :lol:


I ain't even saying Lonzo is the best but 14.6, 6, 7.6 on 55%, 41% in college is pretty damn good for a PG.
 
Last edited:
You know the best player rarely wins the championship in college right? :lol:


I ain't even saying Lonzo is the best but 14.6, 6, 7.6 on 55%, 41% in college is pretty damn good for a PG.

I agree. Those numbers aren't anything to ignore. I think if he had better form, there would be less pessimism
 
Last edited:
Carmelo at 19 was arguably better than Lebron at 19. Don't mean anything now. That being said Lonzo is no where near lebron's level at 19
 
Don't be ridiculous bro. If he was the best in the world would he not have won the NCAA Championship? If he was the best in the world he would not have been outclassed by De'Aaron Fox in the Sweet 16, right? Don't support outlandish statements like that.
Your name suits you well. A championship defines a player ? You realize that if you put the best player in the league on a trash team and match them up against an all around better team, they'll likely not win right ? Thats like putting Jordan on the Nets and thinking cause he's the best player they'll be able to beat GS in a best of 7 or even in a single match.You definitely a lightweight with that kind of thinking
 
Last edited:
Your name suits you well. A championship defines a player ? You realize that if you put the best player in the league on a trash team and match them up against an all around better team, they'll likely not win right ? Thats like putting Jordan on the Nets and thinking cause he's the best player they'll be able to beat GS in a best of 7 or even in a single match.You definitely a lightweight with that kind of thinking


Yeah famb drunk with those comments
 
My point is that the few examples you probably have seen, those same dudes have probably criticized him at some other point. I'm sure they are dude blanketly riding for LaVar but most people that have support him in this thread have called him out when he crossed the line. The race aspect has mostly been about how he is portrayed in the media.

And I agree with how America capitalism and let down the black community, but LaVar Ball is really not an example of that. Yes he is a capitalist and yes he hustling, yes he is only out for himself but famb is harmless in the grander scale of things. He is slanging sneakers, the most damage he can do is become a competitive fringe to Nike, or Adidas.

The issue isn't what LaVar is doing. The issue is in seeing what he's doing as some type of revolutionary, pro-black stand and in seeing supporting BBB as some meaningful act of racial solidarity and support for the "little guy." These types of responses are abundant in this thread. Increased success by the black wealthy, who in this case are framed as the "little guys," will not translate into meaningful change for poor, working-class, or even middle-class black folks. But that is the narrative that LaVar is implicitly pushing and that I see many people implicitly (or explicitly) buying into. LaVar is appealing to these sentiments in marketing his brand in order to enrich himself and his family, which is fine, but let's call it what it is.

And too often a version of this logic is touted as the solution to issues plaguing black communities--that what is promoted by and benefits black elites is somehow good for all black people in some indirect or even tangible way.


The way things like education, infrastructure, healthcare, and financial services have been turn into commodities that are hand out in unequal amounts and unequal quality, instead of being viewed as public goods is the real danger. I am pretty lefty that believe America and the black community needs to warm up to socialist solutions but I don't vilify capitalism that much. Because that is that same type of thinking as the person that vilifies socialism because of a few scumbag dictators.

The main problem is not capitalism itself, it is how we practice capitalism. American love to preach about the effeminacy of markets and the beauty of perfect competition but we practice crony capitalism, hand firms monopolistic power, and indulge them in all their rent seeking behaviro. Black people are the lower classes (poor whites too) are told to the most basic of services have to be excludable and rivialous so we better prepared to practice some rugged individualism. At the same time a more robust welfare state is built for the white and rich.

No reasonable socialist imo should be running around demonizing capitalism, it should be pointing out how toxic the America verity is, why it should not be used in some instances, and why well regulated markets would be the better option in other times.

I largely agree with this. I was speaking within the context of American, neoliberal capitalism here, a system in which the top 0.1% of households own as much wealth as the bottom 90%.


The Umar Johnson example was because Johnson wanted black people to give him money to fund a school and pitched it as it was the black community responsibility to help him get the school because "look at how the education system treats black kids". The problem is systemic, and needs a policy solution to address the multiple system issues. Giving a person like Umar Johnson a school would have done little to nothing to solve the issue. Just give most black folk something to route for, while it would be helping a select few. I have a very low opinion of Johnson anyway, but bringing him up was not meant to be an indictment of him personally.

This was basically my response to the Obama's plan to donate $2 million for jobs in Chicago in lieu of a systemic policy solution, a response which you derided :lol:

I mean, if BBB is successful--and that is a BIG if--what is the "best-case scenario" over the next 20 years? That two dozens wildly wealthy families of NBA pottery picks enrich themselves even further and put a small dent in the athletic corporate establishment? OK, that's fine, but we should understand that's where the potential benefits of this would end.


Even if I could wish a ton more public services into America’s economy. And free the black community from the economic barriers it faces, a dude like LaVar would still be allowed to exist.

As he should be. But dudes still shouldn't be bamboozled by self-interest being promoted as collective empowerment.


Just that if dem shoes ain’t ship by December. The Federal Finesser Enforcement Bureau might be on his *** :lol:

:lol:

-If you want to keep making the assertion of the "revolutionary" sentiment going on in this thread, I'm going to need receipts. Who are these people giving LaVar a blank check, or saying this is a replacement for more systemic changes. Dudes are happy for the brother, when he oversteps people that support him have been critical. I can understand you having an issue with this sentiment in general. but I really don't see it being this rampant in this thread.

-American's problem with capitalism can't just be labeled as neoliberalism and be done with it. There can be conditions where labor has too much power, too much money is being spent on the welfare state that it creates poverty traps and markets are over regulated. We definitely so not live in this world though. But If we lived in that world I would be begging for some "neoliberalism". Neoliberalism seems to have just become a buzzword more than anything to vilify market solutions and free trade.

-There doesn't have to be something deeper than a couple black families finessed the situation to their advantage. So what, good for them, who are they hurting? Why should I shed tears for Nike and Adidas. Yes we have to be weary of black people using the utility they gain from supporting black business as a replacement for true economic justice, then again supporting black folk in capitalist endeavors and fighting for socialist solutions problems don't have to be mutually exclusive. LaVar and the rest of dem black families can get dat coins, and I will be happy for them, but Imma want them to run them tax dollars to fund single payer, job programs, education grants, etc.

-Obama and Umar Johnson are not the same. Obama took 2 million of his own money to donate to a program that social scientist have proven to make a difference, he committed and act of charity, and lets remember the brother fought year after year for jobs programs. Umar Johnson ran around and demanded black people give him money to get his school and shamed black people that didn't support his cause. Anyone with sense could have spotted the finesse move that would have came next. Proper context matters

Here are a couple of receipts for you. I don't have the time or patience to comb through the thread for more, but they are there.


Lavar's idea is brilliant, how he's gone about idk tho but the idea is revolutionary


Eagerly anticipating this epic failure of a brand to fall flat on its face. I'm sure I'm not the only one

Your not and thats so sad.

I wasn't a BBB supporter until I realized what he's doin.

I advise every black male with means to buy these shoes.

I know what neoliberalism is, and I understand it to be a driving force behind the historic inequalities in the United States in the twenty-first century. I have no idea why you're constructing alternative hypothetical scenarios in which neoliberalism might be a good thing. As you admit, that's definitely not the world we live in. So...?

As I've stated ad nauseum at this point, it's fine for the Ball's to do their thing. My issue is when folks buy into the marketing narrative that the Ball's personal/familial enrichment is some type of wider victory for black folks or for the "little guy" as I see it being touted. This has been my stated issue this entire time. Is it the absolute worst thing in the world? Obviously not. But it is the conversation at hand.

Obviously Obama and Umar Johnson are not the same. I was drawing a parallel in terms of private charity in both cases being promoted as the solution to complex social issues that realistically require serious policy interventions. You point out some legitimate contextual differences that you feel make the parallel problematic. I will leave this be, as I've witnessed your stamina for defending Obama from criticism from the left, and I simply don't have the interest to engage in a prolonged exchange about this particular topic. No shade, for real.

-Ok, cool. Point proven

-You missed my point on neoliberalism. All I wanted to argue is that it not some abstract concept, because when it is viewed like that it is hard to pin down exactly what it is. I see neoliberalism as an ideology that makes humans compete over the even the most basic of services, prioritizes “efficient” markets over equitable ones, taxation and regulation should be minimum, privatizing of public services and views trade unions as a market distortion. From there we can discuss specific policy solutions. I have come to dislike the term because now the far-left labels anything they deem unsatisfactory as “neoliberalism”. The center left on the economic spectrum are not neoliberals not matter how much new age socialist and progressive try to slander them as that. That is why I gave the scenario of why it could be good, to show that at the end of the day it is ideology that breeds certain policies. It wasn’t to insult you, it was to just make that point.

-My third paragraph was in response to this.....

I mean, if BBB is successful--and that is a BIG if--what is the "best-case scenario" over the next 20 years? That two dozens wildly wealthy families of NBA pottery picks enrich themselves even further and put a small dent in the athletic corporate establishment? OK, that's fine, but we should understand that's where the potential benefits of this would end.

You're trying to project the best-case scenario of LaVar and copycat’s actions, on the corporate establishment. So, I focused my answer in the context of what their success would mean. I'm sorry you had to restate your point at nauseam, but I tried to best answer the question in the context it was asked.

Last I was not trying to be combative but it was a reach to say I derided you for comment in the political thread. All I need was try to point out the other factors at play with what you wanted, and it was kinda a stretch to assume what you did regarding the man's motive. Now you say you don't have the interest to debate this issue because of my stamina to defend the man, ok whatever. But it was not me that brought his name up, you did, and you brought him up to imply I was being hypocritical, which I wasn't.

I get your point about neoliberalism and that's mostly fair. But if we're going to talk neoliberalism in terms of specific policies, you can't at the same time make the blanket assertion that politicians who are center-left economically aren't neoliberals. For example, almost every elected official in this country seemingly supports the proliferation of charter schools, a movement based on notions of "free markets," "consumer choice," increased competition, privatization, etc.--all cornerstones of neoliberalism.

I presented a "best-case scenario" for the BBB situation because you did so for Umar Johnson's proposed school to show the impact here is also ultimately very--extremely--limited in scope. That's fine and all, but we should recognize this in both cases and not make either out to be something greater than what they would be--which many people have been doing.

Lastly, you derided Umar Johnson's approach to educating black kids in part because:

"The problem is systemic, and needs a policy solution to address the multiple system issues. Giving a person like Umar Johnson a school would have done little to nothing to solve the issue. Just give most black folk something to route for, while it would be helping a select few."

That was essentially my same criticism of Obama's Chicago jobs effort. That was my point. Sure there are other factors influencing both Obama and Johnson's approaches to the issues they're focusing on, but they can both be criticized on the grounds you stated above. Derided was possibly too strong a word, but "took issue with" at the very least.

I know this is a couple of weeks late, but **** it. That's why I don't post much on here. Just can't keep up with the back-and-forth too much :lol:

Yes I can make the assertion that the center left (I talking about the Hillary Clinton and Obamas of the world, not true centrist the Bill Clintons and Joe Libermans of the world) politicians aren't really neoliberals. You seem to try to make the augment that if you support the private sector handling things that it makes you a neoliberal. Neoliberlaism also means have little to no regulation. The center left wants/cool with well funded public schools, and well regulated charter schools serving an area. The center left is not calling for our education system to be privatized. Right wingers who are true neoliberals want all the things you mentioned plus want to cut funding to public schools and want little to no regulation over Charter Schools, which leads us down the road to privatization.

This why I have an issue with your describing neoliberlism, because it is conflating the center left with the right wing, and it is the right wing economics that has been the real drivers of inequality. Inequality has really picked up over the last 35 years, and that is because our public policy has been right wing or center right on the economics spectrum, not center left. Your labeling ignores important hallmarks of neoliberlism like fiscal austerity and rampant deregulation (in some cases deregulation is a good thing btw, but that is a topic for another day).

And to avoid the talking about you know who, once again It frustrating because you want context to be stripped away for your compassion to work. In the end one person who is committed to systemic changes did an act or charity, acts of person charity he has been doing for a long time, and he didn't present it as a systemic solution. The other person want funding for what was essentially a business venture and he presented it as a solution to a systemic problem. The person you took issue with would generally agree with your calls for jobs programs. He spent much of his presidency asking Congress for funding some.

-Since we have probably strayed off topic you can PM me if you want to continue to continue in the Politics thread. Don't worry, nearly everyone in the thread has decided to freeze out Ninja, so the pointless back and forths are at an all time low. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom