OT: Stephen A. Smith: Stop the Black-on-Black Crime

[NyKnicks1714]

Funny, the only chick I see in this or that past convo is you. {You shouldnt use a word like gay in that context, waah, waah, etc}

I'm a grown man, and self employed. If I wanted to be told what to do, what I should or shouldn't say then I'd live elsewhere and for someone. People who think they can impose their view of right or wrong on others in the context you previously tried are liberal fascists. You only agree with free speech when it furthers your misguided dogma. But anything that threatens your self righteous sense of moral turpitude is a threat and immediately needs to be met with ridicule. It's a sad way to approach life, and I wake up everyday thankful that I haven't been poisoned with a similar thought process.

Since liberalism or whats the PC term now? Progressivism, is devoid of logic having a conversation with you would be tantamount to having one with my wall.

So good day madame. Good day.

I guess you didn't get the Sarah Palin reference. And seriously I have no idea what your point is in this thread other to bash liberals. I don't know what I said in this thread to spark anything, all I did was insult Stephen A Smith, which I've always done.

[VinnyTheMick]

Funny, the only chick I see in this or that past convo is you.

Fail.

[mugzi]

Funny, the only chick I see in this or that past convo is you.

Fail.

Riight , stick to the Giants Vinny, that seems to be your area of expertise. Armchair modding isn't your thing.

[VinnyTheMick]

Funny, the only chick I see in this or that past convo is you.

Fail.

Riight , stick to the Giants Vinny, that seems to be your area of expertise. Armchair modding isn't your thing.

So, did you get the Sarah Palin reference or not? It seems like you didn't because you went into this "you're the girl!" tirade when the point of calling you "Sarah" had nothing at all to do with gender.

Moreover, no one can see the gif you posted. What the hell was it?

[mugzi]

No, contrary to popular belief I dont follow Palin all that much. I just thought he made a Sarah reference as a way to indirectly insult my manhood. But if that wasn't the intent then for that I was incorrect. But this wasn't about that, the point I was making was that there was a hint of hypocrisy in his initial post.

Last week, I made a refernce to K-Marts- we're better than the Lakers comment on the wiretap by starting a thread with the old nickname of Gay-Mart that this board used to have for him when he was on the Nets. So then 1714 immediately starts a post admonishing me to paraphrase it was something like"I shouldnt make a derogatory refernce about gay people that way, that its analogous to hateful rhetoric etc," and all the other PC, liberal double speak that I refuse to succumb to.

So now he gets on this thread, trying to be a comedian saying " I'm ok with black-on-black crime, as long as the black man being attacked is Stephen A. Smith."

I'll bet my left nut 1714 isn't black. He's a 20 something white guy raised as a liberal who thinks his world view is superior to those who don't agree with it.

So I posted the gif of the little kid saying "Thats racist!" to illustrate his hypocrisy. Here is someone who inadvertently made a racist and un-PC comment, and I called him on it.

Its something I would normally never do, except for the fact that he hijacked my thread last week as " The defender of any and all things Gay" and now he refuses to see he's done the same thing he's criticized me for doing last week.

I just don't like hypocrites, elitists and people who think their shyt dont stink and he's guilty of all three.

Im done.

[NyKnicks1714]

No, contrary to popular belief I dont follow Palin all that much. I just thought he made a Sarah reference as a way to indirectly insult my manhood. But if that wasn't the intent then for that I was incorrect. But this wasn't about that, the point I was making was that there was a hint of hypocrisy in his initial post.

Last week, I made a refernce to K-Marts- we're better than the Lakers comment on the wiretap by starting a thread with the old nickname of Gay-Mart that this board used to have for him when he was on the Nets. So then 1714 immediately starts a post admonishing me to paraphrase it was something like"I shouldnt make a derogatory refernce about gay people that way, that its analogous to hateful rhetoric etc," and all the other PC, liberal double speak that I refuse to succumb to.

So now he gets on this thread, trying to be a comedian saying " I'm ok with black-on-black crime, as long as the black man being attacked is Stephen A. Smith."

I'll bet my left nut 1714 isn't black. He's a 20 something white guy raised as a liberal who thinks his world view is superior to those who don't agree with it.

So I posted the gif of the little kid saying "Thats racist!" to illustrate his hypocrisy. Here is someone who inadvertently made a racist and un-PC comment, and I called him on it.

Its something I would normally never do, except for the fact that he hijacked my thread last week as " The defender of any and all things Gay" and now he refuses to see he's done the same thing he's criticized me for doing last week.

I just don't like hypocrites, elitists and people who think their shyt dont stink and he's guilty of all three.

Im done.

LOL, you used a homosexual term as an insult. Did I use an African-American term as an insult? No. I didn't do anything even remotely close to that. The ONLY thing I did was take a shot at Stephen A. If you can't see the difference here, I can't help you.

[mugzi]

Well, I see your not going to be silenced without being bludgeoned over the head with logic, so let me break it down so you can understand.

Now I'm using your quote here, so these are your words.

" I'm ok with black-on-black crime and this bolded part of the sentence pertains to the gif






as long as the black man being attacked is Stephen A. Smith."

Then you try to cover your tracks with this. Now Stephen A. Smith is a black man right?

So why would you advocate black on black crime against any black man???????

You've just advocated black on black crime against a specific member of a specific race, which in this case is African Americans.

You've been ACORN'd {Exposed by your own words}

Wow, now I see why liberals are the way they are. It's fun in a twisted sort of way to twist and mold someones words to suit your own agenda.

Class dismissed.

[VinnyTheMick]

LOL, you used a homosexual term as an insult.

....ghey.

[NyKnicks1714]

Well, I see your not going to be silenced without being bludgeoned over the head with logic, so let me break it down so you can understand.

Now I'm using your quote here, so these are your words.

" I'm ok with black-on-black crime and this bolded part of the sentence pertains to the gif






as long as the black man being attacked is Stephen A. Smith."

Then you try to cover your tracks with this. Now Stephen A. Smith is a black man right?

So why would you advocate black on black crime against any black man???????

You've just advocated black on black crime against a specific member of a specific race, which in this case is African Americans.

You've been ACORN'd {Exposed by your own words}

Wow, now I see why liberals are the way they are. It's fun in a twisted sort of way to twist and mold someones words to suit your own agenda.

Class dismissed.

Seriously, please. You broke down my post, saying I advocate black on black crime, then you claim that I covered my tracks by saying "as long as the black man is Stephen A Smith". That is beyond ridiculous, and you know it. It's a whole statement, designed to express my dislike for Stephen A Smith. In no way do I insult black people, in no way do I advocate any sort of violence towards anyone other than Stephen A (obviously I'm not advocating actual physical violence). Actually on second thought, if someone wants to throw a punch at SAS, I wouldn't mind.

It's obvious that I hit a nerve the other day, and you were looking for something (anything) in a post of mine to retaliate with. This is all you could find so you pounced on it. Sooo weak. The word stretch doesn't even apply here.

[CoolKids]

Well, I see your not going to be silenced without being bludgeoned over the head with logic, so let me break it down so you can understand.

Now I'm using your quote here, so these are your words.

" I'm ok with black-on-black crime and this bolded part of the sentence pertains to the gif






as long as the black man being attacked is Stephen A. Smith."

Then you try to cover your tracks with this. Now Stephen A. Smith is a black man right?

So why would you advocate black on black crime against any black man???????

You've just advocated black on black crime against a specific member of a specific race, which in this case is African Americans.

You've been ACORN'd {Exposed by your own words}

Wow, now I see why liberals are the way they are. It's fun in a twisted sort of way to twist and mold someones words to suit your own agenda.

Class dismissed.

Your an idiot

[mugzi]

Well, I see your not going to be silenced without being bludgeoned over the head with logic, so let me break it down so you can understand.

Now I'm using your quote here, so these are your words.

" I'm ok with black-on-black crime and this bolded part of the sentence pertains to the gif






as long as the black man being attacked is Stephen A. Smith."

Then you try to cover your tracks with this. Now Stephen A. Smith is a black man right?

So why would you advocate black on black crime against any black man???????

You've just advocated black on black crime against a specific member of a specific race, which in this case is African Americans.

You've been ACORN'd {Exposed by your own words}

Wow, now I see why liberals are the way they are. It's fun in a twisted sort of way to twist and mold someones words to suit your own agenda.

Class dismissed.

Seriously, please. You broke down my post, saying I advocate black on black crime, then you claim that I covered my tracks by saying "as long as the black man is Stephen A Smith". That is beyond ridiculous, and you know it. It's a whole statement, designed to express my dislike for Stephen A Smith. In no way do I insult black people, in no way do I advocate any sort of violence towards anyone other than Stephen A (obviously I'm not advocating actual physical violence). Actually on second thought, if someone wants to throw a punch at SAS, I wouldn't mind. :D

It's obvious that I hit a nerve the other day, and you were looking for something (anything) in a post of mine to retaliate with. This is all you could find so you pounced on it. Sooo weak. The word stretch doesn't even apply here.

I could put you on ignore if you did, but you've started something you can't finish. Ive never backed down from an argument and I never will.

I did exactly what you tried to do to me the other day and you have to do a mea culpa for it now. I highlighted and underlined your damage control.

Only differnce being is I never apologized for saying "Gay-Mart" nor will I ever. It was something you like any other overly sensitive PC wussbag saw as an opportunity to pounce on and you just didn't like it that I didn't cow tow to you.

The point of this whole back and forth on this thread is that race, gay, etc. threads don't belong on this board. You want to talk politics? There's a thread for that. You want to try to hijack a basketball thread started by me over a single word and the "context" in which it was used keep it off my threads, unless you want to be forced to defend yourself wherever you go on this board. You started this, I'm ending it.

And CoolKids- considering you have a lame arse Metrosexual/retro/no talent group as your screen name, I'll take your witty retort as a compliment. Stay out of grown folks business youngin.

[waxtermite]

Funny, the only chick I see in this or that past convo is you. {You shouldnt use a word like gay in that context, waah, waah, etc}

I'm a grown man, and self employed. If I wanted to be told what to do, what I should or shouldn't say then I'd live elsewhere and Id work for someone or some company. People who think they can impose their view of right or wrong on others in the context you previously tried are liberal fascists. You only agree with free speech when it furthers your misguided dogma. But anything that threatens your self righteous sense of moral turpitude is a threat and immediately needs to be met with ridicule. It's a sad way to approach life, and I wake up everyday thankful that I haven't been poisoned with a similar thought process.

Since liberalism or whats the PC term now? Progressivism, is devoid of logic having a conversation with you would be tantamount to having one with my wall.

So good day madame. Good day.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect our right to be on this board. You made a comment that some of your fellow posters thought was over the line. Someone must have agreed with them as evidenced by the fact that your post was subsequently edited.

No one infringed upon your rights. No one requested that you be hauled off to jail here. Furthermore, if it IS a violation of a man's freedom of speech to simply inform him that you disagree with what he said, then you've violated 1714's rights in this very post. You really are being a drama queen.

Incidentally, is it ever OK to tell someone that you disapprove of something they said? If you had called another poster a f*ggot, would it be OK for others to censure you? why or why not?

[mugzi]

Two posters expressed that view. Some mod, I dont know which caved and changed the thread title.

I dont have power over what a mod does.

And what qualifies you to say " no one infringed my rights?"

Don't I have the right to create a thread without it being hijacked off the topic of the thread with someone elses politics???

And where did this pearl of wisdom come from?

"Furthermore, if it IS a violation of a man's freedom of speech to simply inform him that you disagree with what he said, then you've violated 1714's rights in this very post."

Do you even understand the whole point of the last three pages?

I have no problem with free speech, Im a big fan of it actually. What I do take issue with is that specific poster's agenda to use Saul Alinksky esque tactics to " freeze" " polarize" and "ridicule" my choice of a word that wasn't intended to disrespect anyone but Kenyon Martin. He made it into a capital case about gay rights.

So I did the same exact thing back to him. I know his original intention likely wasn't meant to be racist, but he opened the door with that statement. I have the memory of an elephant, meaning I dont forget.

THIS IS ABOUT THE "CONTEXT" OF WORDS.

You don't like what a post title says?? Dont post in it. Ignore it. Put me on block, but when you come onto a thread acting as if you are the moral police that's a chump move plain and simple.

Disagreements on this board are common and perfectly fine. Otherwise this board wouldnt exist. But thread hijacking to try to impose one's sense of morality on another I dont approve of and I'll make an issue out of it everytime.

And to answer your last questions, I have never called another poster that, nor would I, but if I did it would be grounds for suspension because it is in direct violation of the Terms of Service.

Anyone whose been on this board knows that there is not nearly as much free speech afforded to an individual here as there is in 2009 America.

Now if there's nothing else, raise up, unless you 1714, CoolKids, etc want some more. I can fight a battle on multiple fronts.

[NyKnicks1714]

LOL, I love how all this stems from me saying that using a gay term as an insult isn't right, and than insulting Stephen A Smith. I think mugzi is using any excuse he can to go on anti-liberal rants.

[ElMatatan]

first thread that 1714 actually makes sense.....


as far as Stephen A. Smith, ...why does he feel that now he can enlighten people with his imagination...it failed before and I don't see why it would work now..

[mugzi]

Aaah I see my fan club is starting to come out of the woodwork.

So we've got 1714, CoolKids, ElProgressivo...

All thats missing is Dicky Hutnik, Duetta, Wingo....

Come one, come all. The champ ducks no challengers.


And this all stems from you're inflated sense of self importance and your propensity to hijack threads and down talk other posters with your holier than thou attitude. I've seen you do it for years, I'm only calling you on it now because you tried it with me. You keep poking bears with a stick, eventually you'll wake one up who'll tear you from limb to limb.

And this one's for you Wanda, I mean 1714, cause your just so sensitive and just.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS0GVOQPs0

[Mecca]

These threads by Andrewym00, annoy me, because this is all he posts about, and it becomes constant fighting/baiting. Well, that's why I have him on ignore. Oh well.

[NyKnicks1714]

And this all stems from you're inflated sense of self importance and your propensity to hijack threads and down talk other posters with your holier than thou attitude. I've seen you do it for years, I'm only calling you on it now because you tried it with me. You keep poking bears with a stick, eventually you'll wake one up who'll tear you from limb to limb.

Keep going, this is great!

[waxtermite]

Two posters expressed that view. Some mod, I dont know which caved and changed the thread title.

I dont have power over what a mod does.

And what qualifies you to say " no one infringed my rights?"

Don't I have the right to create a thread without it being hijacked off the topic of the thread with someone elses politics???

And where did this pearl of wisdom come from?

It comes from a rudimentary understanding of the scope of The Constitution. The Constitution doesn't protect our right to remain on this board, the terms of service do. Why would you invoke The Constitution by bringing upfreedom of speech if you understand that it doesn't apply to our activities here?

Do you even understand the whole point of the last three pages?

I have no problem with free speech, Im a big fan of it actually. What I do take issue with is that specific poster's agenda to use Saul Alinksky esque tactics to " freeze" " polarize" and "ridicule" my choice of a word that wasn't intended to disrespect anyone but Kenyon Martin. He made it into a capital case about gay rights.

So I did the same exact thing back to him. I know his original intention likely wasn't meant to be racist, but he opened the door with that statement. I have the memory of an elephant, meaning I dont forget.

I know exactly what you're referring to. I read the other post. Two people disagreed with your decision to use the word gay as a slur, and they informed you. You then took 1714's post out of context in an attempt to parlay that minor incident into a capital case on freedom of speech.


By the way, do you have any evidence that that 1714's decision to voice his disapproval was in any way influenced by Alinsky? Had you even heard of Alinsky before the presidential election?

THIS IS ABOUT THE "CONTEXT" OF WORDS.

You don't like what a post title says?? Dont post in it. Ignore it. Put me on block, but when you come onto a thread acting as if you are the moral police that's a chump move plain and simple.

Disagreements on this board are common and perfectly fine. Otherwise this board wouldnt exist. But thread hijacking to try to impose one's sense of morality on another I dont approve of and I'll make an issue out of it everytime.

But no one HAS to ignore you.

Anything you say on this board is subject to the scrutiny of your peers. If you can't stand the idea that someone out there in cyberspace might disapprove of something that you type, you really aren't built for this.

Furthermore, couldn't you take your own advice? Couldn't you put him on block? Isn't it inherently contradictory for you to say that you disapprove of other posters saying that they disapprove of what you have to say?

And to answer your last questions, I have never called another poster that, nor would I, but if I did it would be grounds for suspension because it is in direct violation of the Terms of Service.

Anyone whose been on this board knows that there is not nearly as much free speech afforded to an individual here as there is in 2009 America.

Now if there's nothing else, raise up, unless you 1714, CoolKids, etc want some more. I can fight a battle on multiple fronts.

Freedom of speech, as it's generally understood, doesn't exist here. We're subject to the will of mods and admins.
Our governing document is the terms of service and the terms of service prohibit speech that is vulgar, obscene, profane, or otherwise objectionable. While we all can weigh in on whether or not your post was in violation of the TOS, it's ultimately a matter for the mods to decide. In this case, they decided against you.

And by the way, you didn't answer the question.

[mugzi]

It comes from a rudimentary understanding of the scope of The Constitution. The Constitution doesn't protect our right to remain on this board, the terms of service do. Why would you invoke The Constitution by bringing upfreedom of speech if you understand that it doesn't apply to our activities here?


I know exactly what you're referring to. I read the other post. Two people disagreed with your decision to use the word gay as a slur, and they informed you. You then took 1714's post out of context in an attempt to parlay that minor incident into a capital case on freedom of speech.


By the way, do you have any evidence that that 1714's decision to voice his disapproval was in any way influenced by Alinsky? Had you even heard of Alinsky before the presidential election?

But no one HAS to ignore you.

Anything you say on this board is subject to the scrutiny of your peers. If you can't stand the idea that someone out there in cyberspace might disapprove of something that you type, you really aren't built for this.

Furthermore, couldn't you take your own advice? Couldn't you put him on block? Isn't it inherently contradictory for you to say that you disapprove of other posters saying that they disapprove of what you have to say?



Freedom of speech, as it's generally understood, doesn't exist here. We're subject to the will of mods and admins.
Our governing document is the terms of service and the terms of service prohibit speech that is vulgar, obscene, profane, or otherwise objectionable. While we all can weigh in on whether or not your post was in violation of the TOS, it's ultimately a matter for the mods to decide. In this case, they decided against you.

And by the way, you didn't answer the question.

Allow me to use brevity here.

This was never a "constitutional issue" or freedom of speech issue. How about you show me where I made it one?? {In my OWN words specifically referring to the constitution}

Those two people the 2nd of which doesn't hide his sexual preference. I respected him for being man enough to admit he took offense and reported it.

I made it a capital case about thread hijacking.

I made it a capital case about the intent of his post.

I made it a capital case about his polarizing persona.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Now you want to question my knowledge?

Okay I'll play along. Yes I heard of Alinsky as a teenager in the 90s when Slick Willy was in office, I've read Alexis de Tocqueville, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, the I ching, the Torah, the bible, the quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Huxley, Hawking, Bukowski, etc, etc

If you'd like to discuss American or World History, I'm sure the Bachelors in History I earned from UCLA will allow me to keep up with you.

They don't have to ignore me, sure but why wouldn't you if you dont like what I say?

You want to lecture me about the scrutiny of my peers? LMAO. Ive been here for 8 years bud, Ive offended, lectured, taught, fought and have passed that test a 1000 times and then some.

I could put him on block, but right now I wont, thats my choice.

I choose to stay and finish what he started and I'll know that job is done when he cowers back to the hole he came from and doesn't post on this or any other non-basketball related thread Im in anymore.

No mod decided against me, if they did, Id be suspended. They simply exercised what they thought was good judgment in changing the title of the thread.

Anything else?

Or do you need help off your high horse now?