Stephen A Smith responds to being labelled a ?
Options
Comments
-
Do i need to say more?
https://youtu.be/HnfJGfLgq2g -
I just said y'all overuse the word. Lil Wayne is a ? idiot and is one of tthe worst rappers of all time so adding him to your quote does nothing.blackamerica wrote: »
Or, reporter ask rapper who is black in a black culture "What about black lives matter", rapper "errhhhh ughhh, wat iz dat? People get shot everyday, I don't care, ma'am I'm a gangbanga"welcome to McDonald's, how may I help you?
Can I have a burger with fries?
You want cheese on that burger?
No.
? .
^That's how much people use that work now. Can't even have a disagreement without being called a ? now. Wonder if kids can pass their classes if they called their teacher a ? after failing them.
You ? really don't think these ? are ? huh -
I don't think he's a ? , just like other posters said, he tries to play the middle too much. I think Shannon Sharpe is much better than SAS when speaking on anything involving race.
This is true but Shannon Sharpe have problems articulating his thoughts. He will start one sentence and midway will change it to another sentence and then midway through that will change to another sentence. Pretty sloppy. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »blackamerica wrote: »
Or, reporter ask rapper who is black in a black culture "What about black lives matter", rapper "errhhhh ughhh, wat iz dat? People get shot everyday, I don't care, ma'am I'm a gangbanga"welcome to McDonald's, how may I help you?
Can I have a burger with fries?
You want cheese on that burger?
No.
? .
^That's how much people use that work now. Can't even have a disagreement without being called a ? now. Wonder if kids can pass their classes if they called their teacher a ? after failing them.
You ? really don't think these ? are ? huh
Again, if you take the word ? and stretch definitions or add definitions to suit your own desires, then yes, they are ? . If we just added definitions to the word as we pleased, everybody in the world would be a ? . Let's just take a look at the actual accepted definition of the word. I know that means reading and some of you ? hate educating yourselves, but just work with me here.From Dictionary.com
? - 1. (informal) short for racoon; 2. (offensive, slang) a Black person or Native Australian, 3. (South African, offensive) a person of mixed race
Word origin -
The insulting U.S. meaning "black person" was in use by 1837, said to be ultimately from Portuguese barracoos "building constructed to hold slaves for sale." No doubt boosted by the enormously popular blackface minstrel act "Zip ? " (George Washington Dixon) which debuted in New York City in 1834. But it is perhaps older (one of the lead characters in the 1767 colonial comic opera "The Disappointment" is a black man named Raccoon). ? 's age is 1843, American English, probably an alteration of British a crow's age.
So basically, the word is like ? in that it was used by whites to disparage blacks. However, unlike ? , that's blacks have redefined to be less negative in an attempt to take the power away from it, you guys are taking this word that whites used to attack blacks and using it to...attack blacks. How stupid is that? And yeah, language is fluid, so it's natural for words to take on new meanings. The problem is that, as I keep saying, most of ya'll just add definitions to the word so you have some kind of catch all to address everything you don't like.
Oh, he didn't vote for Obama -> ?
Oh, she has a different perspective than I do on something -> ?
Oh, he's acting in a way that I believe is unbecoming -> ?
Oh, they like to hang around people of other cultures -> ?
Oh, she's got a white husband -> ?
Oh, they don't think we should be shooting cops - ?
Oh, he went to an Ivy League school instead of an HBCU - ?
Oh, she doesn't worship this black person that every other black person thinks is godlike - ?
Oh, they don't value the things that I think all black people should value - ?
That's basically how you use the word now. If you were really down for blacks, you wouldn't use that word at all because what person would take a weapon that a common enemy has used against his brother and then attack his brother with that same weapon? But even if you believe we've "redefined" the word, any with half a brain cell would understand that using a word in this way is pointless and can only cause division which is the last thing our community needs.
Oh, they standing during the national anthem. - ? -
4 pages huh ? So what has the ? court decided ?
-
vagrant-718 wrote: »I don't think he's a ? , just like other posters said, he tries to play the middle too much. I think Shannon Sharpe is much better than SAS when speaking on anything involving race.
This is true but Shannon Sharpe have problems articulating his thoughts. He will start one sentence and midway will change it to another sentence and then midway through that will change to another sentence. Pretty sloppy.
Still articulates on the issues I care about netter than Stephen A. Even if its sloppy, the points he make are authentic.. -
How am I tripping? I said his only issue is articulating the message. Didn't say anything about his actual message
-
blackamerica wrote: »
He criticizes everybody that's not the problem. It's how he criticizes and the difference in tone he uses when addressing ? . Barkley the known ? house ? , said recently cops SHOULD target black folks because we are basically all savages. Now anybody knows thats wrong. But Stephen A comes out and says he AGREES with Barkley and doesn't give a damn who don't like it. That's the essence of coonery. Don't let these Captain Save-A-? negroes in here tell you differentHe's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
Real talk dude goes in on everybody but ? dont like when he goes in on them bout some true ? so they call him a ?
I'm not trying to be funny but when did Charles and Steven A. Smith do what was stated above? I seriously need to see the video -
Yeah Barkley is a better example of a ? . He's basically lost. At first, he just seemed like someone who has been rich for so long that he was just out of touch with the average African American experience. But more and more he's gone off the deep end. I remember his saying something close to what @blackamerica said. I think it was overstated a little because I don't believe he said all blacks were savages, but he did imply that enough of us are savages that police immediately thinking that during a confrontation was reasonable.
I don't like the use of the word ? , but even in saying that, I admit that by the most common modern definition of it people like Charles Barkley, Jason Whitlock, Stacy Dash, and Sheriff Clarke are most definitely ? . -
Huh? ? was calling Martin a ? back in the 60's. That word is not a new word "we" made up on the internet or IC. We dont need a ? named Lonious Monk to lecture us on the word. ? ur Webster dictionary term, that word BEEN thrown around regarding Uncle Tom negros. You dumb & outta touchThe Lonious Monk wrote: »Again, if you take the word ? and stretch definitions or add definitions to suit your own desires, then yes, they are ? . If we just added definitions to the word as we pleased, everybody in the world would be a ? . Let's just take a look at the actual accepted definition of the word. I know that means reading and some of you ? hate educating yourselves, but just work with me here.
Here's what you posted about the word earlier. Saying we don't use the word correctly enough:
THEN you use the word ? to describe Charles Barkley in derogatory wayThe Lonious Monk wrote: »From Dictionary.com
? - 1. (informal) short for racoon; 2. (offensive, slang) a Black person or Native Australian, 3. (South African, offensive) a person of mixed race
Word origin -
The insulting U.S. meaning "black person" was in use by 1837, said to be ultimately from Portuguese barracoos "building constructed to hold slaves for sale." No doubt boosted by the enormously popular blackface minstrel act "Zip ? " (George Washington Dixon) which debuted in New York City in 1834. But it is perhaps older (one of the lead characters in the 1767 colonial comic opera "The Disappointment" is a black man named Raccoon). ? 's age is 1843, American English, probably an alteration of British a crow's age.
So you can call someone else a ? but come to the defense of every ? ? you idolize (Ray Lewis, Lil Wayne, RZA). Them ? is not different than BarkleyThe Lonious Monk wrote: »Yeah Barkley is a better example of a ? . He's basically lost. At first, he just seemed like someone who has been rich for so long that he was just out of touch with the average African American experience. But more and more he's gone off the deep end. I remember his saying something close to what @blackamerica said. I think it was overstated a little because I don't believe he said all blacks were savages, but he did imply that enough of us are savages that police immediately thinking that during a confrontation was reasonable.
-
SAS is a New York gasbag, but he does care about black people and wants us to prosper.
David Clarke seems like the type that cannot even relate with the average black person.
-
I just don't like how he always lean on that ? "black on black crime" diversion tactic to appease white America. It's like he can't ? on white America without trying to find some way to play both sides.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
So when those uprisings were going on in Ferguson and Baltimore and deflected into what about black on black crime that's not cooning? You think people are saying this about him for nothing? Doesn't that go along with my previous definition of ? and why he's one? Did he go talk to cats like Kaepernick before he opened his mouth to criticize them?
No, I've already admitted he's said some coonish stuff. I certainly wouldn't say that he's beyond criticism. He deserves to be criticized and he deserves to be checked for some of the things that he's said and when he's said them. But just calling him a ? isn't checking him. It isn't setting him straight. It isn't beating his argument. It's just name calling. SAS is a habitual line stepper. Like I said, I don't know if he's a ? or not, but calling him that every time you don't like what he says something you don't like serves no purpose.
I don't want to show him right from wrong he's said way too much coonish ? for me to not suspect that it may come from a certain place. You don't try to reason with trolls all they'll do is twist your words and in the end you're annoyed becsuse "they're not getting your point". It's the same way with ? reasoning with ? will not work. So you either mock them and make them feel stupid or you ignore them. That's how you combat trolls and ? . -
blackamerica wrote: »Huh? ? was calling Martin a ? back in the 60's. That word is not a new word "we" made up on the internet or IC. We dont need a ? named Lonious Monk to lecture us on the word. ? ur Webster dictionary term, that word BEEN thrown around regarding Uncle Tom negros. You dumb & outta touch
Here's what you posted about the word earlier. Saying we don't use the word correctly enough:
THEN you use the word ? to describe Charles Barkley in derogatory wayThe Lonious Monk wrote: »From Dictionary.com
? - 1. (informal) short for racoon; 2. (offensive, slang) a Black person or Native Australian, 3. (South African, offensive) a person of mixed race
Word origin -
The insulting U.S. meaning "black person" was in use by 1837, said to be ultimately from Portuguese barracoos "building constructed to hold slaves for sale." No doubt boosted by the enormously popular blackface minstrel act "Zip ? " (George Washington Dixon) which debuted in New York City in 1834. But it is perhaps older (one of the lead characters in the 1767 colonial comic opera "The Disappointment" is a black man named Raccoon). ? 's age is 1843, American English, probably an alteration of British a crow's age.
So you can call someone else a ? but come to the defense of every ? ? you idolize (Ray Lewis, Lil Wayne, RZA). Them ? is not different than Barkley
Yo, some of ya'll ? make it hard as hell not to be just be insulting. Your whole stupid stance falls apart when you actually put my post in its entirety instead of cherry picking the part that you feel serves your cause.The Lonious Monk wrote: »Yeah Barkley is a better example of a ? . He's basically lost. At first, he just seemed like someone who has been rich for so long that he was just out of touch with the average African American experience. But more and more he's gone off the deep end. I remember his saying something close to what @blackamerica said. I think it was overstated a little because I don't believe he said all blacks were savages, but he did imply that enough of us are savages that police immediately thinking that during a confrontation was reasonable.
I don't like the use of the word ? , but even in saying that, I admit that by the most common modern definition of it people like Charles Barkley, Jason Whitlock, Stacy Dash, and Sheriff Clarke are most definitely ? .
I specifically point out that those people would be ? by more modern definitions for the word. And I already point out that my problem is not with people redefining the word. We've already been over that. My problem is with silly ? like you overusing the word as some way to attack any black person with views and actions that differ from your own.
The rest of your post is just stupid. Everyone you claim I've defended, I've been critical of. And how is Lil Wayne my hero when I don't like anything about him. At the end of the day, all you can do is make dumb personal attacks. You're either too lazy or too stupid to actually make a rational point and defend it with logic and reason. That's why the word ? is so important to you. It's the only tool you have. And that's fine, do you, but other people will listen and get it, and that's why I and others will attack your stupidity every time the opportunity arises. And I don't need to misuse a word to do it. -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
So when those uprisings were going on in Ferguson and Baltimore and deflected into what about black on black crime that's not cooning? You think people are saying this about him for nothing? Doesn't that go along with my previous definition of ? and why he's one? Did he go talk to cats like Kaepernick before he opened his mouth to criticize them?
No, I've already admitted he's said some coonish stuff. I certainly wouldn't say that he's beyond criticism. He deserves to be criticized and he deserves to be checked for some of the things that he's said and when he's said them. But just calling him a ? isn't checking him. It isn't setting him straight. It isn't beating his argument. It's just name calling. SAS is a habitual line stepper. Like I said, I don't know if he's a ? or not, but calling him that every time you don't like what he says something you don't like serves no purpose.
I don't want to show him right from wrong he's said way too much coonish ? for me to not suspect that it may come from a certain place. You don't try to reason with trolls all they'll do is twist your words and in the end you're annoyed becsuse "they're not getting your point". It's the same way with ? reasoning with ? will not work. So you either mock them and make them feel stupid or you ignore them. That's how you combat trolls and ? .
To a certain extent I'd agree with that. I don't like SAS and I believe you're probably right. He is one of those people that won't listen. But that's part of what I get at before. Checking someone in a rational manner isn't always for that person's benefit. Like when SAS came out and said some dumb ? recently. Shannon Sharpe poignantly shot it down with thoughtful answers. Others saw what Shannon said and came to better insight, so even if SAS didn't get the error of his ways, others who may have thought SAS had a point came to see the light. If Shannon just called him a ? and dismissed him, then you don't just lose SAS, you may lose those others listening. You can't build a community by just tearing people within it down. That's what some of these people don't understand.I just don't like how he always lean on that ? "black on black crime" diversion tactic to appease white America. It's like he can't ? on white America without trying to find some way to play both sides.
I think it's more that ? like him can't understand the importance of timing. He's said it himself. That he should be able to check whites and check blacks, and that's true. However, he doesn't understand that if you check blacks in the midst of trying to check whites, you can basically nullify the point you're making against whites. Basically, his mouth is bigger than his brain. He likes to talk, but he doesn't like to think things through.
