The Poojer Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 sorry but from the little I know of you...no YOU cannot say that in a song...may not be 'fair', but YOU cannot. I mean you can, but I would highly recommend you don't. I should preface by saying I wholeheartedly feel that you cannot/should not. Oh, cool. So I can sing Nigga in a song, but I can't say !@#$. It's all making sense to me now. MLK, Jr. would love what we have established right hurr.
boyst Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 sorry but from the little I know of you...no YOU cannot say that in a song...may not be 'fair', but YOU cannot. I mean you can, but I would highly recommend you don't. I should preface by saying I wholeheartedly feel that you cannot/should not. sarcasm meter broken? I don't listen to that type of stuff often, and when I do it is to work out or something and usually I can't understand what they say and I just like the beat.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Oh, cool. So I can sing Nigga in a song, but I can't say !@#$. It's all making sense to me now. MLK, Jr. would love what we have established right hurr. One of the myriad of shouldn't-need-to-be-explained differences in what he said and did in the past, and what he did now, was that in both of the major court cases against him accusing him of racism, the other side took the money and a settlement, one time for 2.7 million and another time with lawyer fees alone at 4.9m I think. Maybe you should blame them for the NBA not taking action beforehand. You also seem to be arguing two different diametrically opposed issues, one that free speech is dead, and the other that the NBA should long ago have kicked Sterling out for exercising free speech. Please clear up your stance if that is not the case. Edited April 29, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
The Poojer Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 phew, personally i do like alot of hip hop or rap, i think there are a lot of artists that are very good at their craft and I also enjoy how they use the rhythm tracks, plus a lot of songs are pretty intense in their subject matter....subject matter that is very foreign to me sarcasm meter broken? I don't listen to that type of stuff often, and when I do it is to work out or something and usually I can't understand what they say and I just like the beat.
boyst Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 You also seem to be arguing too different diametrically opposed issues, one that free speech is dead, and the other that the NBA should long ago have kicked Sterling out for exercising free speech. Please clear up your stance if that is not the case. I don't think they should have kicked him out. I think they should have tried to nip it in the bud. If more could have been done in the past maybe the present would not be what it is today. If players know the guy and his MO and still went to the team knowing what they know... I just don't understand why we should be upset about it? Maybe I do not understand who "we" is, too. If the players don't have a problem with this then I do not have a problem with it. And, even if they did then I would still probably not care. I am still amazed this is news.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I don't think they should have kicked him out. I think they should have tried to nip it in the bud. If more could have been done in the past maybe the present would not be what it is today. If players know the guy and his MO and still went to the team knowing what they know... I just don't understand why we should be upset about it? Maybe I do not understand who "we" is, too. If the players don't have a problem with this then I do not have a problem with it. And, even if they did then I would still probably not care. I am still amazed this is news. Did you listen to what he actually said on the tape? Do you really not see the difference between saying something that is racist, and, say, wearing a KKK hood? You really believe that racism is racism? You really don't see the difference between even calling someone the n-word and saying black people are not a whole person? And do not show up in public or take a picture of a black person in a league that is 75% black? That is racism as usual?
boyst Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Did you listen to what he actually said on the tape? Do you really not see the difference between saying something that is racist, and, say, wearing a KKK hood? You really believe that racism is racism? You really don't see the difference between even calling someone the n-word and saying black people are not a whole person? And do not show up in public or take a picture of a black person in a league that is 75% black? That is racism as usual? The Constitution said that black people are not whole people. Just saying. Ignorance is ignorance is ignorance. Racism is racism is racism. I don't see the difference between big or small, it's still inexcusable. Sure, it can be more if it is "big" but it is still racism and doesn't change a thing.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 The Constitution said that black people are not whole people. Just saying. Ignorance is ignorance is ignorance. Racism is racism is racism. I don't see the difference between big or small, it's still inexcusable. Sure, it can be more if it is "big" but it is still racism and doesn't change a thing. That is just laughable. Sorry. Saying "Black people are slightly less intelligent than white people" is exactly the same as "black people should be slaves or strung up by white people." Same thing. Both extremely racist. Both extremely ignorant. Big or small, inexcusable, same thing. Got it. No degrees or context or intention or hurtful or anything. It's all the same. Makes sense.
boyst Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 That is just laughable. Sorry. Saying "Black people are slightly less intelligent than white people" is exactly the same as "black people should be slaves or strung up by white people." Same thing. Both extremely racist. Both extremely ignorant. Big or small, inexcusable, same thing. Got it. No degrees or context or intention or hurtful or anything. It's all the same. Makes sense. Ah, wow, you got me. Wait. how? What did you say? You're saying that saying different things... with different intention... in different contexts makes things different? Well, no shiz. Do you even realize how silly you sound? All I am saying is they are both racist. I don't care if one is lesser or more to some people or you or your Aunt Charlene. I just see it as racism. You really don't get it and are trying to argue nothing. Settle down, simmer down, breath and realize that I can do this for days on end because it is funny to me.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Ah, wow, you got me. Wait. how? What did you say? You're saying that saying different things... with different intention... in different contexts makes things different? Well, no shiz. Do you even realize how silly you sound? All I am saying is they are both racist. I don't care if one is lesser or more to some people or you or your Aunt Charlene. I just see it as racism. You really don't get it and are trying to argue nothing. Settle down, simmer down, breath and realize that I can do this for days on end because it is funny to me. It's obvious they are both racist. That's like saying "they were both said in the English language." It's self-evident. That is not at all what you're saying. You're saying that all racism is the same, you said it repeatedly, and it's not. In any way. Is it all wrong? No. I say racist **** all the time. Everyone does. Most of it is a joke. ALL of it needs to be taken within context, knowing the history of the person and other essential elements. There are intentions and degrees, which make it wrong or not, offensive or not. A LOT of that falls under the opinion category, if not all of it. But to say racism is racism is the height of ignorance. And what you also said is that you are surprised this is even news. The biggest punishment in the history of sport is surprising to you that it's even news, because racism is racism; ignorance is ignorance. Ignorance is clearly not ignorance. Edited April 29, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
The Poojer Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 he took out an ad thanking himself for donating to UCLA???? http://goo.gl/50K64Z
Deranged Rhino Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 It's all a lot of hypocrisy to me. The guy was publicly known as a racist bigot for decades now it seems and now, just now, is it a big deal. Just sad. I don't know if it's hypocrisy or the power of social media to be honest. People "knew" about Sterling's past for decades (if they cared about the Clippers/NBA or lived in Los Angeles at least), but reading second hand accounts in the paper or in court documents does not have the same power as hearing the words with your own two ears. Because of social media (and the tech boom in general), people woke up with the audio recordings on their phones Saturday morning. Not just NBA fans, but anyone on twitter, facebook, et al. Hearing the words, from his own mouth, is what turned people against him so quickly. That was never possible before in human history, let alone NBA history. The NBA couldn't get rid of the guy before because there wasn't enough support to do so and his words and actions weren't costing the NBA potentially millions when sponsors began to pull out. This wasn't because people were less angry about it, it's because not as many people knew. And now, people not only know (whether they look for the story or not), but the audio is available on their devices. That's the power of information. So I don't see it being hypocritical as much as it's a testament to the digital age we live in.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 You're purposefully being obtuse. I said that my "property" comment was said tongue in cheek. You can have all the final words. I have things to do. You win. It's not so much that I win, but rather that you've lost, regardless of your revisionism. Feel free to burn out your Nikes running. I don't know if it's hypocrisy or the power of social media to be honest. People "knew" about Sterling's past for decades (if they cared about the Clippers/NBA or lived in Los Angeles at least), but reading second hand accounts in the paper or in court documents does not have the same power as hearing the words with your own two ears. Because of social media (and the tech boom in general), people woke up with the audio recordings on their phones Saturday morning. Not just NBA fans, but anyone on twitter, facebook, et al. Hearing the words, from his own mouth, is what turned people against him so quickly. That was never possible before in human history, let alone NBA history. The NBA couldn't get rid of the guy before because there wasn't enough support to do so and his words and actions weren't costing the NBA potentially millions when sponsors began to pull out. This wasn't because people were less angry about it, it's because not as many people knew. And now, people not only know (whether they look for the story or not), but the audio is available on their devices. That's the power of information. So I don't see it being hypocritical as much as it's a testament to the digital age we live in. The real test of this, is will the mob back his (assuming) ex-girlfriend now that she's been exposed as having leaked his private recorded conversation on his own property, or will they back away, and allow her to suffer a criminal verdict, and civil verdict that could range into the billions in real damages, assuming he decides to pursue her in court given CA law. It's time to put your money where your mouth is, internet heroes. My guess is she serves time, and also manages to be attached for assets, present and future.
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 he took out an ad thanking himself for donating to UCLA???? http://goo.gl/50K64Z From what I have read they do this every time he does something good in hopes it offsets all the crap he does.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 The real test of this, is will the mob back his (assuming) ex-girlfriend now that she's been exposed as having leaked his private recorded conversation on his own property, or will they back away, and allow her to suffer a criminal verdict, and civil verdict that could range into the billions in real damages, assuming he decides to pursue her in court given CA law. It's time to put your money where your mouth is, internet heroes. My guess is she serves time, and also manages to be attached for assets, present and future. ... How is this rant in any way relevant to the conversation at hand? Who thinks the woman isn't a complete piece of trash herself? I've yet to hear anyone extol her virtues -- so there's no way the mob can "turn" on her. They have her face plastered all over the news in SoCal wearing a solar mask for Pete's sake. You need to take a deep breath, buddy. This thing has hit a weird nerve somehow and you're off the rails.
NoSaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) So silver says the lifetime ban was based only on this tape but that fitness as an owner will consider the full résumé, if I heard correct? Edited April 30, 2014 by NoSaint
Kelly the Dog Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 It's not so much that I win, but rather that you've lost, regardless of your revisionism. Feel free to burn out your Nikes running. The real test of this, is will the mob back his (assuming) ex-girlfriend now that she's been exposed as having leaked his private recorded conversation on his own property, or will they back away, and allow her to suffer a criminal verdict, and civil verdict that could range into the billions in real damages, assuming he decides to pursue her in court given CA law. It's time to put your money where your mouth is, internet heroes. My guess is she serves time, and also manages to be attached for assets, present and future. She has already addressed this apparently, and says he knew about the recordings. In fact, she said that early on in the hour long conversation that is the whole tape, only 15 minutes of it have been released, that it clearly shows he knows he is being recorded. That is why the thing came out in the first place, he wanted her to sign a confidentiality agreement and she wouldn't, and then she played the tape back to him to remind him what he said, which she said she did a lot.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 So silver says the lifetime ban was based only on this tape but that fitness as an owner will consider the full résumé, if I heard correct? I think they were just covering their own ass. I don't believe what he said was true, but I understand why he said it. It makes the statement that it is intolerable for anyone saying this kind of stuff, even if it is a one time thing. And it allows the owners to say that this is a recurring thing that is no longer tolerable, so that it doesn't set a precedent. It's all calculated to get a desired effect. I don't believe Silver though. I do think he is well within his jurisdiction to do what he did without the earlier allegations. But he is deflecting the responsibility of his predecessors and himself for not doing anything about it. Then it gets into grey areas.
Rob's House Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 That is just laughable. Sorry. Saying "Black people are slightly less intelligent than white people" is exactly the same as "black people should be slaves or strung up by white people." Same thing. Both extremely racist. Both extremely ignorant. Big or small, inexcusable, same thing. Got it. No degrees or context or intention or hurtful or anything. It's all the same. Makes sense. No, it isn't. It isn't even close. Those two statements aren't even similar. I'll illustrate by using the same logical comments but taking the racially charged element out. If I say, Dan is slightly less intelligent than Jim, I've in no way implied that Dan should be enslaved or strung up by Jim. BTW, if you were being sarcastic, my bad.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 No, it isn't. It isn't even close. Those two statements aren't even similar. I'll illustrate by using the same logical comments but taking the racially charged element out. If I say, Dan is slightly less intelligent than Jim, I've in no way implied that Dan should be enslaved or strung up by Jim. BTW, if you were being sarcastic, my bad. I was arguing that they are in no way similar. Not even close, to someone that was saying all racism is racism, and all the same.
Recommended Posts