[madenine]

> Thinking of Lebron James who hypocritically spoke up about BLM and not about human rights abuses in China[1].

I don't understand this take.

Why does LeBron James have to address human rights in China before he, a Black American, can address human rights abuses against Black Americans in America?

[defen]

> Why does LeBron James have to address human rights in China before he, a Black American, can address human rights abuses against Black Americans in America?

Because as bad as the human rights abuses against Black Americans in America are, they pale in comparison to what China is doing. But that's not the only issue. The bigger issue is that LeBron James chooses to make hundreds of millions of dollars by staying silent on the China issue. I think he could have a tremendous impact by rejecting that money and denouncing China...what are the Lakers going to do, fire him? He can do both things. With BLM he's just one of many, many, MANY celebrities saying the same thing. What people with his level of reach are saying anything about China?

[smithza]

This is the point exactly. China brings in 10% of the NBA's revenue[1]. I am arguing alongside you that we can really effect change if we use our economic leverage and not merely our political leverage. We cannot stand for these abuses. I also really do not want to distract from the race issue we are working through today; it seems our news cycle can only handle one thing at a time though.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nba-needs-china-revenue-growt...

[bobbyz]

'Pale in comparison' is kind of icky sounding...

[aww_dang]

I don't see it as an either or proposition. He can speak up for both, but he chose to take an apologist stance on HK. The NBA made fans remove or cover up their HK freedom t-shirts.

[twobuy]

You're right that he shouldn't feel the same obligation to speak out in defense of Tibet. But the issue with James is his history of comments that support the PRC's regime in Uyghur land. He isn't neutral on the issue of China. See: his comments during the Houston fiasco.

[adventured]

That's a false choice, as James can do both things. He can choose to focus to a greater degree on matters in the US, and focus to a lesser degree on China, since his priorities are obviously in the US.

Why should he take an interest? Beyond the matter of being a world famous person with a giant bullhorn to speak from, he's also making an obscene sum of money from China and its people and stands to keep doing so. That's vulgar morally if you then simultaneously ignore what's going on there and refuse to say anything with your platform.

It is not difficult in terms of time or technically, for James to say something about China's human rights abuses on his prominent Twitter account (whether about Xinjiang or Hong Kong as two prominent examples). It would take a very small amount of effort and time. He doesn't do it because he's a hypocritical coward and knows China is a giant financial golden ticket and he doesn't dare upset them because he knows how they would react (the same reason so many are afraid of China and yet not afraid to say something against the US). The whole of the NBA is very terrified of China economically, the NBA hasn't been very subtle about their trembling post the Houston Rockets incident.