Stephen A Smith responds to being labelled a ?
Options
Comments
-
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »He'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.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused.
He's called a ? for his comments like saying if black people dressed a certain way we wouldn't be targeted by race soldiers.
Bruh I've heard older black people my entire life say that ? . That's not coonish it's ignorant as ? but cooning is something different -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »He'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.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused.
He's called a ? for his comments like saying if black people dressed a certain way we wouldn't be targeted by race soldiers.
And how does that make him a ? ? You can disagree with him without calling him names. Lots of people believe that. Lots of people believe that if black youth carried themselves in a way that distinguished them from the stereotypical black criminal that they would not have the problems they have. Those people are wrong of course, but wouldn't it be more useful to point out why they are wrong and educate them rather than just calling them ? and dismissing them?
I think it's not about correcting them (SAS) in terms of what they/he is saying, but it's correcting them in terms of them/(SAS) making those remarks in front of millions of white folks. That's the ? part.. Jason Whitlock is another one.
If SAS stated those comments in a back yard full of black ppl, Would ppl still consider him a backward ass person or a ? , prolly, but he would have other black ppl to correct him on spot, the fact that SAS is saying this and there is not another black person or person near him to correct him, makes those comments coonish, but calling him a ? in my example at the back yard party, most wouldn't do it. But if he's stating those same remarks in a back yard, and and in his case in front of white millions of ppl knowing dayum well, it's not something that should be stated in front of an audience like that..then I feel that's cooning, espeically when there is evidence out there for him to research to see what he's saying in front of white ppl is a lie. That's the cooning part there..when you state things like that in front of your oppressor when there is evidence out there that what you are saying is not true and the very ppl that you are talking too has made your statement untrue, and yet you still stand on your statement to justify whites for what they are doing to your ppl, that's the cooning part there..that's where the frustration from black ppl come from..Like how could you even say things like that, especially in front of millions of white of folks.
IF SAS was a Jew talking to members of Hilter's army that were in attendance on his show and he stated "All Jews would be treated nice and wouldn't have gotten burned to a crisp if they did x, y and z."
Would Jews call him a sell-out?... -
5th Letter wrote: »Why would I need to educate a grown man about why he's wrong for saying ? like that? If at his age he doesn't know that it doesn't matter how you dress and that they'll find excuses to target you then there is nothing much i or anyone can say to him.
That's not true. Some of you guys oversimplify things. It's not about being grown. Black people are not a monolith. We hear plenty of black people say that all the time when dealing with white people, but never seem apply it when dealing with other black people.
Not all of us have the same background or set of experiences. If you're a black man that's been straight edged all your life and managed to achieve some success for yourself, you're not necessarily going to see the same thing as someone who may have dabbled in crime and is having a hard time keeping his head above water.
Saying he's a grown man so he should no better doesn't make any sense. Because if in his experience dressing better has helped him and if its advice that he's given to others and it helped them too, then he's going to champion that as something that should be done. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm sure he has some reasoning for what he's saying besides him just being a ? . Like @blackrain said it's been advice that's been given for forever. Hell, it's not even limited to blacks. You don't think whites get told the same thing? They absolutely do. So again, you can disagree with him, but provide a counterargument that shows him or others listening why he's wrong. Don't just call him a ? because that serves no purpose and may be inaccurate.
-
Like others have said, SAS tries to appeal both sides to appear even-handed and hold "his people" accountable
To me he's not really an outright ? , but he be housenigging sometimes
He has house ? tendencies. -
so he's a ? for calling out black people that's consistently ? up their opportunities?
and apologizing for a comment that offended WOMEN?(yes a white woman said something but i also remember him saying his mother AND sister checked him on that ? too)
SAS is a loudmouth and hard to listen to and agree with at times but he's far from a ?
Calling out is 1 thing but sometimes he serves as a megaphone for racists. Meaning, he harshly says the things about black athletes bigots can't say out loud
And Beadle is the most openly racist person on ESPN. He had no business bowing down to her -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »He'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.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused.
He's called a ? for his comments like saying if black people dressed a certain way we wouldn't be targeted by race soldiers.
Bruh I've heard older black people my entire life say that ? . That's not coonish it's ignorant as ? but cooning is something different
These same older folks are wrong about a lot of things bruh. Cooning is calling out black people for things but then rarely if ever doing the same to white folks. We have seen far too many examples of this from to give him the benefit of the doubt. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »Why would I need to educate a grown man about why he's wrong for saying ? like that? If at his age he doesn't know that it doesn't matter how you dress and that they'll find excuses to target you then there is nothing much i or anyone can say to him.
That's not true. Some of you guys oversimplify things. It's not about being grown. Black people are not a monolith. We hear plenty of black people say that all the time when dealing with white people, but never seem apply it when dealing with other black people.
Not all of us have the same background or set of experiences. If you're a black man that's been straight edged all your life and managed to achieve some success for yourself, you're not necessarily going to see the same thing as someone who may have dabbled in crime and is having a hard time keeping his head above water.
Saying he's a grown man so he should no better doesn't make any sense. Because if in his experience dressing better has helped him and if its advice that he's given to others and it helped them too, then he's going to champion that as something that should be done. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm sure he has some reasoning for what he's saying besides him just being a ? . Like @blackrain said it's been advice that's been given for forever. Hell, it's not even limited to blacks. You don't think whites get told the same thing? They absolutely do. So again, you can disagree with him, but provide a counterargument that shows him or others listening why he's wrong. Don't just call him a ? because that serves no purpose and may be inaccurate.
You don't need to have dabbled in crime to understand that you are a target regardless of what you wear. Coming from where Stephen A came from he should understand this, but he prefers to kiss white ass. -
5th Letter wrote: »These same older folks are wrong about a lot of things bruh. Cooning is calling out black people for things but then rarely if ever doing the same to white folks. We have seen far too many examples of this from to give him the benefit of the doubt.
lol This is the problem right here man. Ya'll got like 50 different definitions for the word "? ." Right now there is a thread on this board saying what Desiigner did is the perfect example of cooning. That ? he did has nothing to do with the definition you just gave. Ya'll want to use the word ? as some catch all for anything a black person does that you don't like, and when you stretch a word out like that, it has no meaning at all.5th Letter wrote: »
You don't need to have dabbled in crime to understand that you are a target regardless of what you wear. Coming from where Stephen A came from he should understand this, but he prefers to kiss white ass.
lol That was just an example. And how long has it been since SAS was coming up wherever he came up. And how was he when he came up. Dude is dressing up a certain way and carrying himself a certain now and is probably shown respect wherever he goes. Maybe all of that is different than his experience when he was coming up and maybe that's what has led to his belief that dressing the part can help. Again, everybody has their own perspective. Ya'll want to call him a ? for saying that without knowing what it is that has led him to that belief. That's where discussion comes in.
And honestly, what he's saying isn't as ridiculous as some people make it. Will dressing in a suit stop you from being harassed by a racist cop? Probably not, but will dressing in a suit when you're going up for a job interview or going to court potentially push the odds in your favor. Yes it will, and it's not just people like SAS and Rza saying ? like that. Judges, lawyer, hiring managers, etc... say the same thing, so how do comments like that make a person a ? ? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »These same older folks are wrong about a lot of things bruh. Cooning is calling out black people for things but then rarely if ever doing the same to white folks. We have seen far too many examples of this from to give him the benefit of the doubt.
lol This is the problem right here man. Ya'll got like 50 different definitions for the word "? ." Right now there is a thread on this board saying what Desiigner did is the perfect example of cooning. That ? he did has nothing to do with the definition you just gave. Ya'll want to use the word ? as some catch all for anything a black person does that you don't like, and when you stretch a word out like that, it has no meaning at all.5th Letter wrote: »
You don't need to have dabbled in crime to understand that you are a target regardless of what you wear. Coming from where Stephen A came from he should understand this, but he prefers to kiss white ass.
lol That was just an example. And how long has it been since SAS was coming up wherever he came up. And how was he when he came up. Dude is dressing up a certain way and carrying himself a certain now and is probably shown respect wherever he goes. Maybe all of that is different than his experience when he was coming up and maybe that's what has led to his belief that dressing the part can help. Again, everybody has their own perspective. Ya'll want to call him a ? for saying that without knowing what it is that has led him to that belief. That's where discussion comes in.
And honestly, what he's saying isn't as ridiculous as some people make it. Will dressing in a suit stop you from being harassed by a racist cop? Probably not, but will dressing in a suit when you're going up for a job interview or going to court potentially push the odds in your favor. Yes it will, and it's not just people like SAS and Rza saying ? like that. Judges, lawyer, hiring managers, etc... say the same thing, so how do comments like that make a person a ? ?
Because there is more than one definition for ? .
Or maybe Stephen A is just a white washed ? in the mold of Ben Carson? Why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt? He wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt if something happens to you at the hands of a race soldier. -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »These same older folks are wrong about a lot of things bruh. Cooning is calling out black people for things but then rarely if ever doing the same to white folks. We have seen far too many examples of this from to give him the benefit of the doubt.
lol This is the problem right here man. Ya'll got like 50 different definitions for the word "? ." Right now there is a thread on this board saying what Desiigner did is the perfect example of cooning. That ? he did has nothing to do with the definition you just gave. Ya'll want to use the word ? as some catch all for anything a black person does that you don't like, and when you stretch a word out like that, it has no meaning at all.5th Letter wrote: »
You don't need to have dabbled in crime to understand that you are a target regardless of what you wear. Coming from where Stephen A came from he should understand this, but he prefers to kiss white ass.
lol That was just an example. And how long has it been since SAS was coming up wherever he came up. And how was he when he came up. Dude is dressing up a certain way and carrying himself a certain now and is probably shown respect wherever he goes. Maybe all of that is different than his experience when he was coming up and maybe that's what has led to his belief that dressing the part can help. Again, everybody has their own perspective. Ya'll want to call him a ? for saying that without knowing what it is that has led him to that belief. That's where discussion comes in.
And honestly, what he's saying isn't as ridiculous as some people make it. Will dressing in a suit stop you from being harassed by a racist cop? Probably not, but will dressing in a suit when you're going up for a job interview or going to court potentially push the odds in your favor. Yes it will, and it's not just people like SAS and Rza saying ? like that. Judges, lawyer, hiring managers, etc... say the same thing, so how do comments like that make a person a ? ?
Because there is more than one definition for ? .
Or maybe Stephen A is just a white washed ? in the mold of Ben Carson? Why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt? He wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt if something happens to you at the hands of a race soldier.
Again, that's the problem. Ya'll have basically given the word so many definitions that it can apply to anything a black person does that you don't like. That's silly.
And comparing SAS to Ben Carson is just ridiculous. I don't even like SAS, so I'm mad you got me defending this dude, but SAS has stood up for black people in the past too. For every comment of his that you can argue is coonish, there is at least one you can argue is supportive of the black race. He's also always been quick to say that he's black and proud. You can't say either of those things about Ben Carson.
I'm not giving SAS the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying I don't know what is at play to give him the perspective he has and neither do you, so rather than just dismissing him and people like him, wouldn't it be more prudent to enter into discussions to figure out where they are coming from and to correct them. That's something that could be productive for the people in the discussion as well as those that witness the discussion. Calling names and being dismissive isn't productive for anyone. -
I don't understand why folks are trying or try to pin one definition to the word ? .
? can be a noun, verb, adj thus being this, it will yield different definitions/terms with one's action.
No such thing as one solid definition for a ? ..just like there is not a single concrete definition for the word ? or ?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »These same older folks are wrong about a lot of things bruh. Cooning is calling out black people for things but then rarely if ever doing the same to white folks. We have seen far too many examples of this from to give him the benefit of the doubt.
lol This is the problem right here man. Ya'll got like 50 different definitions for the word "? ." Right now there is a thread on this board saying what Desiigner did is the perfect example of cooning. That ? he did has nothing to do with the definition you just gave. Ya'll want to use the word ? as some catch all for anything a black person does that you don't like, and when you stretch a word out like that, it has no meaning at all.5th Letter wrote: »
You don't need to have dabbled in crime to understand that you are a target regardless of what you wear. Coming from where Stephen A came from he should understand this, but he prefers to kiss white ass.
lol That was just an example. And how long has it been since SAS was coming up wherever he came up. And how was he when he came up. Dude is dressing up a certain way and carrying himself a certain now and is probably shown respect wherever he goes. Maybe all of that is different than his experience when he was coming up and maybe that's what has led to his belief that dressing the part can help. Again, everybody has their own perspective. Ya'll want to call him a ? for saying that without knowing what it is that has led him to that belief. That's where discussion comes in.
And honestly, what he's saying isn't as ridiculous as some people make it. Will dressing in a suit stop you from being harassed by a racist cop? Probably not, but will dressing in a suit when you're going up for a job interview or going to court potentially push the odds in your favor. Yes it will, and it's not just people like SAS and Rza saying ? like that. Judges, lawyer, hiring managers, etc... say the same thing, so how do comments like that make a person a ? ?
Because there is more than one definition for ? .
Or maybe Stephen A is just a white washed ? in the mold of Ben Carson? Why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt? He wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt if something happens to you at the hands of a race soldier.
Again, that's the problem. Ya'll have basically given the word so many definitions that it can apply to anything a black person does that you don't like. That's silly.
And comparing SAS to Ben Carson is just ridiculous. I don't even like SAS, so I'm mad you got me defending this dude, but SAS has stood up for black people in the past too. For every comment of his that you can argue is coonish, there is at least one you can argue is supportive of the black race. He's also always been quick to say that he's black and proud. You can't say either of those things about Ben Carson.
I'm not giving SAS the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying I don't know what is at play to give him the perspective he has and neither do you, so rather than just dismissing him and people like him, wouldn't it be more prudent to enter into discussions to figure out where they are coming from and to correct them. That's something that could be productive for the people in the discussion as well as those that witness the discussion. Calling names and being dismissive isn't productive for anyone.
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? -
Willie D called him a ? . I trust his judgement.
-
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 ? -
Knock_Twice wrote: »I don't understand why folks are trying or try to pin one definition to the word ? .
? can be a noun, verb, adj thus being this, it will yield different definitions/terms with one's action.
No such thing as one solid definition for a ? ..just like there is not a single concrete definition for the word ? or ?
Nah people will use ? just because a black person says something they disagree with. That's not cooning that's just a disagreement -
so he's a ? for calling out black people that's consistently ? up their opportunities?
and apologizing for a comment that offended WOMEN?(yes a white woman said something but i also remember him saying his mother AND sister checked him on that ? too)
SAS is a loudmouth and hard to listen to and agree with at times but he's far from a ?
Calling out is 1 thing but sometimes he serves as a megaphone for racists. Meaning, he harshly says the things about black athletes bigots can't say out loud
And Beadle is the most openly racist person on ESPN. He had no business bowing down to her
and that may be one of the reason's he does it so said ? up can stop ? up and stop giving the bigot more reason to be a bigot.....he knows the bigots are looking at said ? up as a representation of all of us and feels said ? up needs to represent themselves and us better....the tone can be off putting yes but is the message really that incorrect?
again....did he really bow down to her or apologize to all the women not only in his life (cuz Kari, the moderator is a woman also and was openly offended as well) but in this world that he may have offended?....did he publicly say "I'm sorry" to Michele Beadle?.....did he donate to her charity or something?
-
Does a ? come to the defense of LeBron James after Phil Jackson's "posse" comments?
-
https://youtu.be/Bd7YDAKlCo8
-
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. -
The fact that he even took 30 minutes of his time to talk to these guys tells me he is not that. Sometimes he comes across the wrong way because he has a small window to deliver strong points and can't always give all the background to his belief so it seems short sighted. He just chooses a method that will get the most attention and highlight his biggest points.
Listening to this though, this man is vastly intelligent and empathetic to the problems plaguing our communities. Sometimes certain individuals deserve to be ostracized regardless of their color or their causes, because they approach things the wrong way and actually take away from the strength of what they are fighting for.
As a "media giant" he knows how quick they are to invalidate anybody who stands for anything real, so he is no ? when it comes to nonsense. If you want to represent change, be active, be sensible, be calculated.
With that being said, I seldom listen to his takes or watch his show, I honestly can't stand all the analysis that goes into sports, and all the ? and drama that ESPN puts into it. I love the games, but all the wondering they do about wondering and the stats they make about stats are beyond pandering. -
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.
-
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. -
You can't take the ? SAS says seriously. I don't think he even believe half the ? he says.
-
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 -
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.
