Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
You "almost quite literally"(what?) are taking awfully creative gymnastics to not make a relevant point.
LTG said it wasn't LeBron's responsibility to speak on Morey's comments regarding China, on top of saying there's no real reason to be upset with LeBron's own comments on the subject because it was a "business decision". So I think the fact that LeBron chose to speak on Morey's comments, and LeBron's stance on China is in direct contradiction of his own stated self-perception of being important, "too important", to the oppressed is totally relevant.
You start with a preposterous statement(almost quite literally) you'd fillet anyone for to take a cynical shot at a guy who was bombarded with questions about an ethnic minority halfway around the world and pair it with his stands on people be identifies with throughout his lifetime and you think it's valid? No.
Quote:
"I mean too much to society [to 'shut up and dribble']," James told reporters. "I mean too much to the youth, I mean too much to so many kids that feel like they don't have a way out and they need someone to help lead them out of the situation they're in."
So you're saying that when LeBron James says to reporter "I mean too much to society", that we're supposed to interpret that as him saying he only means "too much" to a certain, specific society, and not society in general? And when he says "I mean too much to so many kids that feel like they don't have a way out", we're supposed to know that he's only talking about a specific group of kids in a specific circumstance and in a specific geographical location; And we're not at ALL supposed to think that LeBron meant "society at-large" when he said "I mean too much to society" with no other qualifiers?
Look, it's obvious you desperately want it to be the case that LeBron was speaking specifically rather than generally, but let me ask you:
If LeBron were speaking generally when he made his "I mean too much to society" comments, and then turned around and refused to side with oppressed people in Hong Kong, in fact calling someone else siding with them "not educated" on the subject, would that be a horrible thing for him to do? Would it make him a hypocrite worthy of scorn?