Streak-breaker game-winner ... did you want a miss?

I'm probably the only one rooting for them to lose. I want that top 5 pick.

 

You should have made your poll public so we can see who voted yes and who voted no. I don't have any problem stating that I was wanting a miss and was glad to see it!

 

LOL... these types of posts make me laugh a bit. I don't watch basketball for any type of examples or reinforcements of humanity; I watch it to be entertained. To paraphrase Barkley, NBA athletes are entertainers and not role models. Now could they be a role model? Sure, but I certainly am not seeking that from them nor do I expect that from them. At the end of the day, it's about the franchise providing me entertainment and while I am still watching them and watching them them lose, winning is the actual dominant factor of keeping fans entertained here. For us, that means making sure we tank ourselves into a top 3 pick so we can start a rebuild process. It means trading away the likes of Dipo and Wall to shed salary so we can sign a high value FA to go along with our top 3 pick. Do I care that the players and coach get frustrated in the process? Not one iota. This season was a wash as soon as we lost our GM, owner, and superstar player, even as brain dead idiots cheered "ball movement" despite us playing losing basketball. Where are those idiots now, by the way? That's right, we aren't winning so they aren't around.

While I can certainly sympathize when players and coaches and execs encounter personal tragedies, it's extremely unrealistic and silly to ask that fans be able to emphasize with NBA players. These are the 1% of society who...

• Come closer to achieving their dreams compared to 99% of humanity
• Willingly chose entertainment as a career and thus, putting a microscope on their own lives
• Make more money than the majority of this forum combined in a job that is essentially a game
• Are honestly responsible for most of the hardships that befall them in life (bad investments, lifestyle of debauchery, plain dumb **** like bringing guns to a locker room or doing drugs in a public place)

If all the stuff that comes with their chosen profession in the entertainment industry gets too hard for them to deal with, they can choose to retire and move on to something else in life. It most likely will make them happier mentally, but most won't because they love the money they get being entertainers even more. Everyone gets dealt bad hands in life from time to time, but few are so fortunate to be in a position where they can (from at least a financial standpoint) be able to use easily move on to something else if they really wanted to.

For the record, if that last shot decides whether we win or lose, I will pick miss every time for at least this season.

 

That's the wrong part of the video.

 

Pretty much. I watched part of the game versus Philly but then the electricity thankfully went out.

 

I’m a little pissed that Wall didn’t run the play that was supposedly called. Does it reflect more poorly on Wall or the lack of respect that Silas has with the players?

I would love to keep this years draft pick. I understand the team sucks and has a plan, but damn...

 

While I'm not sure Silas is in a bad enough position to be worth serious pity... that is not how empathy works. Do you need your son to die before you can empathize with a parent who lost a child?

And I believe the above remains true whether we're talking about empathy or sympathy. You don't need to have had the exact same experience to understand why it would suck.

 

No, but you would have to have experienced a comparable sense of loss such as a loved one to properly understand why it sucks. While I can sympathize that losing is frustrating, I certainly can't emphasize with it given that 1) it's in the best interest for the franchise to lose as many games as possible this season and 2) these guys are getting paid handsomely regardless as they have a contract.

 

this exchange reminds me of a somewhat long-ish section of Harry Frankfurt's essay "On Bullshit" where Frankfurt discusses Wittgenstein's dismissal of someone's complaining that they felt "like a dog that has been run over":

and Frankfurt concludes Wittgenstein's disgust is over the nonsensical, 'bullshit' aspects of such a statement.

 

That's why we should win a few games and aim for that 3rd worst record instead. Same odds of getting 1st, 2nd, or 3rd pick, but if we do land outside of top 4, hope we end up 7th instead of 5th, screw with the OKC haha

 

I actually put money on the game so I wanted them to win but by the time that shot was in the air, there was no way they were covering the -4.5 line so I wanted it to miss especially cause Wall's bum ass lost me money. I was hoping for overtime and if it's true that the original play was a pick and roll but Wall decided to take an iso 3 then I hate him even more now.

 

Gotta love semantic debates, but I think the issue here is that you guys define "empathize" as knowing the exact emotions someone is feeling. I don't think that's accurate. It just means you can understand that what they're going through must suck, and why it must suck. Even if you don't know exactly what the sufferer is thinking or feeling.

Like all other types of emotions or beliefs, there is a full spectrum of how strong or "accurate" your empathy is, and if you haven't experienced something very similar, then yes, your empathy may not be as complete as someone who has. But that doesn't mean you can't empathize at all. If you are a socially adjusted adult, I think you can empathize to some reasonable extent with just about any kind of real human suffering.

Also, I want to say that all these athletes and coaches are well beyond the point of diminishing returns with regards to money. As long as any of us has enough money to where we're not worried about having a roof and food on the table, then for the most part, suffering is suffering. Whether you have $10 million or $10 thousand in your bank, losing hurts just the same. Money doesn't remove loss. As cliche as it sounds, psychology proves the whole "money doesn't buy happiness" adage time and time again.

 

I partially disagree withy your stance on empathy. I definitely do not define empathy as feeling exactly the same emotions, however I do strongly believe that you had to have had a comparable experience to be able to properly empathize. You don't need to lose a child to empathize with a parent that lost theirs, but you do however need to have lost someone of great emotional significance to you. Now if the comparison is between a parent who lost their child and someone losing their pet gerbil, then I don't care how old they are or "socially adjusted", they will not be able to empathize with that parent who lost that child to any reasonable extent. To say that someone can is as stupid as it is wrong.

As for your perspective on money, I personally find it very idealistic / naive. While money cannot buy true happiness, it can buy the next best thing... comfort. There is a reason why damn near everyone always wants more money. Even if you have enough to afford food and shelter, more money makes you live life more comfortably. That's why people buy newer, better houses. That's why people buy better cars and go to better restaurants. That's why NBA players suffering from psychological disorders and health issues insist on still playing. We are all chasing an even better standard of living for tomorrow than the one we had yesterday.

 

Firstly, I'm not sure you understand what a semantic debate is, because you keep going deeper into one. I think we're at an impasse with the empathy discussion because we just define too many terms differently. I don't think empathizing with that parent to a "reasonable extent" has to mean you know what they're feeling, but if you've ever lost anyone important in your life and suffered, you can probably imagine losing a child sucks more than that. Which I think is a reasonable expectation for empathy in that situation.

As for money, science (and, IMO, intuition) has shown time and time again that what you're saying is just not true. We want more money for sociological and anthropological reasons, not because it measurably makes us happier. People who get money (or the things that we associate with money, be it power, accomplishment, fame, etc) tend to be the most ambitious, successful, or talented; and we admire those people, historically. But the money doesn't make them happy. If anything, happiness makes them money. I recommend reading "The Happiness Advantage", "Thinking Fast and Slow", or "Stumbling Upon Happiness" for far better explanations and examples of research than I can give, but essentially, we're all stuck in a hamster wheel. No matter how high we climb on the money ladder, we eventually fall back to the same baseline of happiness, and feel the same trauma from unwelcome life events*.

* Again, this is assuming you have at least enough money to have relative stability. If you or anyone reading is stressfully living paycheck to paycheck (or worse), as many people do, I am not trying to minimize your struggles. Money would absolutely buy you some security and happiness.

 

We both have the same definition of empathy, which is the ability to be aware of and / or relate to someone else's emotions, thoughts, and experiences. This automatically makes your usage of "semantic debate" wholly inaccurate. Where we disagree on is what we consider at which point where one can actually empathize with another. It's funny to me actually, because your post just now regarding empathy states the exact same thing as I did. The original discussion however was whether or not we can empathize with NBA athletes and outside of situations of personal tragedies, I don't think we can or do I care to. The scope of experiences on most things between me and someone who makes millions playing a game is simply too great to be comparable. Going to your analogy of loss, it would be like someone who lost a pet gerbil trying to empathize with someone who lost child. So no, this is not a semantic debate. We agree on the definition of empathy and the general terms that go into it, just not the scope to which that definition can be applied.

Again... reading comprehension, man. I literally said "While money cannot buy true happiness, it can buy the next best thing... comfort." One is a mental pursuit, the other one is a materialistic one. You can survive with or without happiness, but money on the other hand? More money means you survive more comfortably. That's why money makes the world go 'round and why everyone chases endlessly after it.

 

You just told me it was "stupid" to believe many people can "reasonably empathize" with a grieving parent if they haven't also lost a kid. I strongly believe that is categorically false, and I explained why. So no, I am not saying the same thing as you, and no, we are not in semantic agreement.

As for the money thing, I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you saying we don't want more money to be happy, but we want more money to be comfortable? Why would people kill themselves (and each other) trying to get more "comfortable" while knowing full well they won't actually be happier? Unless, again, by "comfortable", you mean people need to be able to live without worry of having a livelihood, then I agree.

But either way, that's a pretty big digression from your original point that we shouldn't feel bad for these guys just because they have lots of money. Because again, money doesn't remove pain. No amount of money already sitting in your bank account can take away the pain of losing. These guys are competitors, and they want to win. If anything, losing makes an NBA coach MORE unhappy than us armchair coaches.

 

LOL... what? That's not what I said at all. I suggest you go back and re-read what I had said because you are just making crap up at this point.

I think I said it pretty plainly, so I am done. You apparently don't get it.

Not what I said at all. Again, just making crap up.