PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

OT - NBA

Geez, thought GS was dead in the water. Not dead yet.

I don’t watch enough NBA (like 20 minutes or less per year, usually zero!) to have known this, but an explainer last night really made me laugh:

When they have the coach mic’d up in huddles, they are prohibited from playing back strategy. I didn’t know this, but I used to think I could be an NBA coach because all they ever seemed to do was repeat platitudinous BS to their guys.

I assumed it was because NBA guys knew what to do on the floor so all that you could add was some armchair psychology.

No new career for me.

You probably could get as much authority as Tyronn Lue, I wouldn’t give up hope yet.

This was thrilling when experienced in real time. Nice breakdown:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/LmxDqcYik6k[/youtube]

Rondo was suspended only 1 game earlier this season for this:

"Kennedy and fellow referee Ben Taylor described Rondo’s post-ejection diatribe as including the statements: “You’re a mother------- faggot. … You’re a f------ faggot, Billy.”

Seham reported that a third official, Bennie Adams, outside of hearing distance, “affirmed that Rondo aggressively pursued referee Bill Kennedy and had to be restrained by teammates and escorted off the floor by Sacramento team security.”<<<

And? I’m not sure what your point is Skeeza.

It makes no sense to me what the NBA and other entertainers are boycotting NC. I get it, they don’t like the law. But aren’t they punishing the citizens of the state, not to mention those that might be negatively affected by the law, by pulling the game? They’re hurting the fans a lot more than they are hurting the state.

North Carolina deserves very little sympathy. They’ve been gerrymandering the hell out of their districts to be able to pass this kind of legislation. NBA has the right to do with their game as they please, and bringing it to a location that is openly discriminating on the LGBT community doesn’t look good for them either.

This is a horrendously bad law. The more people/organizations that speak out and take actions against it, the absolute better. I have no idea how the law passed but clearly those who voted for it either didn’t think through their vote or are horribly bigoted.

Just today, a couple of us were having a post round cocktail discussing the NC law, when a fellow 19th hole patron stated “I’m in favor of the law, I don’t want any of ‘them’ in the bathroom with my daughter”.

Excuse me? Do you realize what you are actually saying? Am I to believe that you want this guy

forced to go to the bathroom with your daughter because his birth certificate says he’s female? How does that make any sense?

There’s some pretty incredible gerrymandering going on in North Carolina. I’d highly recommend a Google search as there’s not just one article that will give you the full run down.

[quote="Tom, post:10, topic:4765"]It makes no sense to me what the NBA and other entertainers are boycotting NC. I get it, they don't like the law. But aren't they punishing the citizens of the state, not to mention those that might be negatively affected by the law, by pulling the game? They're hurting the fans a lot more than they are hurting the state.[/quote]

This is a horrendously bad law. The more people/organizations that speak out and take actions against it, the absolute better. I have no idea how the law passed but clearly those who voted for it either didn’t think through their vote or are horribly bigoted.

Just today, a couple of us were having a post round cocktail discussing the NC law, when a fellow 19th hole patron stated “I’m in favor of the law, I don’t want any of ‘them’ in the bathroom with my daughter”.

It always amazes me how people vilify those who do not agree with their own position. You can simply label them as “bigots” or, as we like to do, drop an overall label on them as rednecks or unwashed country hicks.

Do you know what the law is Skeeza? It’s a law that allows discrimination of the LGBT community because of their affiliation with that community. It isn’t so out of line to call the law bigoted or the people that passed it bigoted either. It is a clearly pro-discrimination law based solely on sexual orientation and identification.

1.) What “law” are you talking about?

2.) Explain how this “law” is bigoted?

I remember legislation that is to create anti-discrimination measure was blocked, but I don’t remember a “law that allows discrimination”.

Again, not sure you’ve read the law or even understand it from what you say.

  1. The law is the HB-2 law in North Carolina.

  2. The law clearly is bigoted towards the LGBT community. Transgender people have to use a bathroom that they don’t want to and identify with. The picture above is a good example of a man who would have to use the female dressing room and bathroom in North Carolina. As Larry put it, how does that even remotely make sense? Mind, the most devastating outcome of the law is that it overrode all local ordinances concerning wage, employment and public accommodation. This clearly is a law that will allow and outright validate discrimination of people based on their status in the LGBT community. So, say the city of Charlotte, NC wants to pass a bill saying that businesses in Charlotte offering a public accommodation cannot choose to refuse service upon someone based on their sexual orientation. They are now prevented from doing so because of HB-2.

So the answer to your question is YES, the law does promote discrimination against the LGBT community and local governments can’t do anything about it. I’d love for you to explain why this law isn’t bigoted.

[quote=“greenmanRD, post:17, topic:4765”]Again, not sure you’ve read the law or even understand it from what you say.

  1. The law is the HB-2 law in North Carolina.

  2. The law clearly is bigoted towards the LGBT community. Transgender people have to use a bathroom that they don’t want to and identify with. The picture above is a good example of a man who would have to use the female dressing room and bathroom in North Carolina. As Larry put it, how does that even remotely make sense? Mind, the most devastating outcome of the law is that it overrode all local ordinances concerning wage, employment and public accommodation. This clearly is a law that will allow and outright validate discrimination of people based on their status in the LGBT community. So, say the city of Charlotte, NC wants to pass a bill saying that businesses in Charlotte offering a public accommodation cannot choose to refuse service upon someone based on their sexual orientation. They are now prevented from doing so because of HB-2.

So the answer to your question is YES, the law does promote discrimination against the LGBT community and local governments can’t do anything about it. I’d love for you to explain why this law isn’t bigoted.[/quote]

Understand, I am on the fence with this one. As I pointed out earlier, I just find it bizarre how everyone tries to describe things as ‘bigoted’ when they do not agree with it.
Lar provided ONE PIC of ONE PERSON who looks male. Perhaps some would not like someone who is actually male, and looks EVEN MORE male. Again, I’m not taking sides, but I find is strange that someone does not want the person in the photo using the stall next to their daughter, but is OK with an actual man doing so. Personally, I don’t see much of a difference. I think we should just eliminate a men’s or women’s room, and just have one huge place called “bathroom” that everyone uses. THAT would truly eliminate discrimination, wouldn’t it?

BTW… Lar’s picture, the one you reference, creates more problems than it cures. You do not want to deal with stereotypes, but here he goes throwing out a stereotype of his own. Just because he found a pic of a woman that looks like a chiselled guy, does that mean anyone else would be making a “good point” by showing pictures of guys who identify as female, but do a really bad job of it, looking like a hulking drag queen?

If it’s not OK to use those examples one way, then it’s not OK to use it the other. Just because someone feels they are in the moral right, they seem to think that these rules do not apply to them.

[quote="greenmanRD, post:17, topic:4765"]Again, not sure you've read the law or even understand it from what you say.
  1. The law is the HB-2 law in North Carolina.

  2. The law clearly is bigoted towards the LGBT community. Transgender people have to use a bathroom that they don’t want to and identify with. The picture above is a good example of a man who would have to use the female dressing room and bathroom in North Carolina. As Larry put it, how does that even remotely make sense? Mind, the most devastating outcome of the law is that it overrode all local ordinances concerning wage, employment and public accommodation. This clearly is a law that will allow and outright validate discrimination of people based on their status in the LGBT community. So, say the city of Charlotte, NC wants to pass a bill saying that businesses in Charlotte offering a public accommodation cannot choose to refuse service upon someone based on their sexual orientation. They are now prevented from doing so because of HB-2.

So the answer to your question is YES, the law does promote discrimination against the LGBT community and local governments can’t do anything about it. I’d love for you to explain why this law isn’t bigoted.[/quote]

Understand, I am on the fence with this one. As I pointed out earlier, I just find it bizarre how everyone tries to describe things as ‘bigoted’ when they do not agree with it.
Lar provided ONE PIC of ONE PERSON who looks male. Perhaps some would not like someone who is actually male, and looks EVEN MORE male. Again, I’m not taking sides, but I find is strange that someone does not want the person in the photo using the stall next to their daughter, but is OK with an actual man doing so. Personally, I don’t see much of a difference. I think we should just eliminate a men’s or women’s room, and just have one huge place called “bathroom” that everyone uses. THAT would truly eliminate discrimination, wouldn’t it?

BTW… Lar’s picture, the one you reference, creates more problems than it cures. You do not want to deal with stereotypes, but here he goes throwing out a stereotype of his own. Just because he found a pic of a woman that looks like a chiselled guy, does that mean anyone else would be making a “good point” by showing pictures of guys who identify as female, but do a really bad job of it, looking like a hulking drag queen?

If it’s not OK to use those examples one way, then it’s not OK to use it the other. Just because someone feels they are in the moral right, they seem to think that these rules do not apply to them.

I’m curious as to what the problem is that the law is trying to fix? Has North Carolina suddenly been overrun with transgendered people assaulting women in restrooms? I don’t think so.

I think we can all agree that the bigger issue in NC is voter fraud.