No. I’m saying that our idea of what an athlete should be, male or female, is based on traditional masculine stereotypes. It’s not enough that an athlete plays his or her best. They have to overcome all odds and triumph over adversity. If they do that by signing a contract with a good team rather than by scraping and…

I brought up masculinity because that’s what you’re talking about. You’re using coded language, but when you call a player “soft” or say he’s not competitive enough, you are making that judgement based on stereotypes about what a man (and in this case an athlete specifically) should be. I’m not sure why you keep…

No. What you’re talking about doing is absolutely handicapping yourself. You’re saying that a player should willfully choose to play for a worse team. For reasons. You can phrase it however you want, but that’s the bottom line. A player chose to play with the best teammates rather than the second or third of 15th best…

But you’re not stepping back to question why you think that and whether it makes logical sense to feel that way. You have an outdated, childish view of masculinity and you’re sticking to it for no reason.

It’s anti-competitive for the league. Not for Durant. It allows him to compete at a higher level than he’s ever competed before. It allows him to win a title, which again, everyone says should be his ultimate goal. You still haven’t explained why you think a player should handicap himself out of some obligation to be…

Answer me this, would you be fine with the top 26 players (2 full rosters) in the league all signing vet minimums to form two superteams? Because that’s the logical conclusion to your argument.

I’m not confused about that at all. I simply think that’s a flawed line of reasoning. Why does wanting to play on a less talented team make you a better competitor? Why does a desire to put the best possible players around you make you soft? You have this fanatical belief in your own definition of competitiveness and…

I get that. But the expectations are higher than they’ve ever been. Anything less than an absolutely breathtaking performance by him and a walk to the title for his team would be seen as a failure. In fact, he’s giving you both of those and you’re still calling him a failure.

The Warriors aren’t the only team that plays primarily off of ball movement.

Yes. It does sound meaningful. You act like “doing what he’s always done” means picking up the paper from his front lawn in the morning and then taking a nap. What he’s always done is be one of the best 2-5 players in the league. Talented or not, there’s nothing easy about that.

Choosing to play on a good team that’s suited to his strengths rather than a frustratingly inept team does not make Durant “soft.” That’s such bullshit. Choosing to go back to OKC wouldn’t have made him a different player or proven his mettle. The fact that he’s playing at a stellar level has everything to do with…

Durant isn’t just averaging a couple more points than Curry. He’s also playing much better defense. He’s a huge part of why they’re playing so well and has been the best player on the floor for most of the series. Durant was stuck on a frustratingly inept team with a star who sucks to play with in a boring,…

First of all, that’s probably not true. This same Warriors team lost to the Cavs last year and that was with Bogut and Barnes, who are much better than the other supporting players they have right now. The reason they’re dominating this postseason is because of Durant, not in spite of him. But beyond that, you guys…

Yes. How you win matters. And Durant is winning by playing great. In fact, he’s playing better than he’s ever played before. Some of that is absolutely attributable to playing with his new teammates. Which is why he went to Golden State in the first place. Not to relieve pressure, but to play with guys who actually…

no more to pressure to do anything other than Be Kevin Durant

It’s an easier road to a title, but winning a title is not all he’s being judged on. It’s really that simple.

You can’t be a coattail rider as the best player on a team. That goes against the very definition or riding coattails. Again, he could have stayed on the bench and potentially won a ring, but he didn’t. He played like a champion. Your hypotheticals are meaningless. You’re still failing to understand that there are…

Dude...the fact that he went to an already great team and is facing an enormous amount of criticism from basically all the fans means he’s under more pressure to win and play great than he ever has before. You can certainly argue that the great players around him alleviates some of that, but to say it’s not existent…

There’s still pressure though. I don’t know why you guys don’t seem to be able to grasp this concept. His legacy is at stake. If he was anything other than great in this series, he’d be forever branded as a guy who had to ride someone else’s coattails. He’s faced more criticism over the last 11 months than he has at…

All I’m saying is that, whether his team could potentially win without him or not, there is significant pressure on him in terms of perception and his ultimate legacy. There is still pressure to be great even though he’s surrounded by other good players. If you can’t understand such a simple concept, you should…