Surly Megathread of destruction and doom. [BEWARE VERY DOOMY]

[Captainant 27468]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

He seems to be a two faced bitch. He's all what about my injustice, but if you hurt his honey pot's feelings about thier injustice, he'll tell you to shut up.

So you're more upset about the rich black man's hypocrisy than the unequal application of force by the state against black people? Just want to make sure I understand what your important issues are, since that's what you're trying to redirect the conversation with and all

[Wally Pryor 5244]

53 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 Lebron is THE MOST FAKE player/person in the NBA.  He sticks his finger in the air to get a feel for what he should protest or support next.  

He first checks with Maverick.  Then sticks his finger in the air to get a feel for what he should protest or support next.

Get your facts straight. 

[thrillhammer 683]

not sure why this thread is not in the cloak room.  they dt has gotten real fucking cloak roomy in the last few months.

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

So you're more upset about the rich black man's hypocrisy than the unequal application of force by the state against black people? Just want to make sure I understand what your important issues are, since that's what you're trying to redirect the conversation with and all.

I didn't throw his name in the mix, it was already posted. I just added my two cents that he can fuck off, and why. I never said anything about the state, but here you go, it can fuck off too. 

[Hate 20103]

Sure, that's true.
A true middle-of-the-road type would be seeing all sides and providing balanced commentary. You'd look through their statements and see a healthy mix of posts critical of BLM tactics and critical of anti-BLM tactics and critical of police tactics. A middle-of-the-road person wouldn't be constantly quoting social media grifters and pot-stirrers.
I think that's all fair. Agree/Disagree?
So what if you had someone who was rarely critical of BLM (often defensive on their behalf), somewhat critical or rioters/looters, and highly critical of anti-BLM and police? You wouldn't call that person "middle-of-the-road not really taking a side" with a straight face. (Me, obviously, right?)
And what if you had someone who was rarely critical of police/anti-BLM (often defensive of their behalf) and highly critical of BLM and rioters/looters? Would THAT person be considered "middle-of-the-road not really taking a side"?
Because that's the version of reality that hate and baba yaga and onboard and myriad others are trying to sell right now.
(And before the whining begins, all we have to do is read and count posts. It's no more complicated than that. Read and count the posts.)

I’m Forrest Gump picking up that lady’s binder when she drops it walking into the building because that’s what you do when someone drops something.

[bad_teammate 13132]

8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I didn't throw his name in the mix, it was already posted. I just added my two cents that he can fuck off, and why. I never said anything about the state, but here you go, it can fuck off too. 

Why do you think you're so motivated to jump in the attack against Lebron but you are so reticent to criticize the state?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

15 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

not sure why this thread is not in the cloak room

I haven't seen a single political post in here lately. Why?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

 I don't really agree, because I think it's symbolic of the real problem of racial inequality that white people feel like they get to determine what that "appropriate" level of outrage and protest is. 

 

No the law says what's allowable its not a white people get to pick what's accepable.  Society as a whole will judge whats acceptable or not, but the law is what determines legality. 

The law is not racist, right of assembly laws aren't racist, laws against theft (looting) aren't racist, laws against rioting aren't racist.

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No the law says what's allowable its not a white people get to pick what's accepable.

What?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

I would love for silence to be defined. Then how specifically that definition is the same as collusion. Further, how exactly that post is avoiding said collision.

Apparently just sitting at a restaurant is worthy of assault, and harassment..

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What?

You should ask that question of bradintexas. Apparently he thinks white people get to pick what's outrageous and that's how we enforce a response to that outrage.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Apparently just sitting at a restaurant is worthy of assault, and harassment..

Well if it's Applebee's, yeah.

[Wally Pryor 5244]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well if it's Applebee's, yeah.

Was going to say Cheddar's.   But carry on.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well if it's Applebee's, yeah.

I can't really argue with that sound logic.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Just now, Wally Pryor said:

Was going to say Cheddar's.   But carry on.

I also considered Waffle House, not because of the food but statistically you're more likely to get in a kerfuffle. there.

[Brisketexan 104636]

18 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The law is not racist, right of assembly laws aren't racist, laws against theft (looting) aren't racist, laws against rioting aren't racist.

Agree.  Objectively speaking, it's hard to find a law that is facially racist.  But what about in their application?

Think about the rule against holding in football.  It's an objective rule, it's not pro or anti UT.  But if we can look at game film, and determine that UT OLs hold at generally the same rate as all other Big 12 OLs, but whenever we play OSU, for example, the refs call it at a 3 to 1 rate against UT....and it happens year in and year out.....smells like there's a problem.

To take that back to a law, look at jaywalking laws.  We all do it -- seriously, jaywalking happens all the time, by everyone.  But are tickets given out in proportion to the general population ratios?

Quote

All but one of the jaywalking tickets issued by NYPD cops in the first quarter of this year went to blacks or Hispanics, according to city data that confirms — and worsens — a racially suspect policy first exposed by Streetsblog earlier this year.

From Jan. 1 to March 31, the NYPD wrote 80 tickets for illegal crossing — less than one a day in a city of more than eight million people — and only one went to a person identified in police logs as “white.”

The rest — 78 of the 79 tickets for which a race was listed, or 99 percent — went to black or Hispanics, who comprise about 55 percent of the population (chart below or weblink here).

Smells like there's a problem.  When laws are enforced and applied in a disproportionate and apparently discriminatory manner, that's a problem.  And when we have written laws that make police effectively immune from any consequences of those actions, that compounds the problem.

The nature of the problems is complex -- it's the laws, their enforcement, the lack of accountability, broader social pressures/excuses for behavior, etc.

We all understand the basic concept of fairness -- when the refs call every ticky-tacky holding against our guys, but let the other OL get away with flat-out takedowns, we get pissed off and throw shit at the TV.  It's how people react to apparent unfairness in the application of what, facially, seems like an objective and fair rule.  Today, people see unequal application of the law in how minorities are treated compared to white people (more likely to be stopped and pulled over, get harassed for jaywalking, and a thousand other things), and they see an unequal power dynamic in how the laws are written that turns police into a class of super-citizens who are above the rule of law that the rest of us are bound by.  In short, 1) I'm getting fucked over, and 2) the refs are untouchable and can do this shit with impunity.  That pisses people off, and makes them throw shit at the TV.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Brisketexan 104636]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I also considered Waffle House, not because of the food but statistically you're more likely to get in a kerfuffle. there.

Seriously, I would think that any choice to go to Waffle House can only be made after you affirmatively decide 1) I want some hash browns, smothered and covered, and 2) I wanna see some shit go down.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously, I would think that any choice to go to Waffle House can only be made after you affirmatively decide 1) I want some hash browns, smothered and covered, and 2) I wanna see some shit go down.

Or 3. You and you’re buddies just got out of the scrip club after getting into a scuffle and are really drunk. You should go home but it might be a good idea to stay low key and get some waffles because you’re buddy took a lot of xanex and you a little afraid he could die. Let’s hope we don’t run into those guys from the club tho....

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

3 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Or 3. You and you’re buddies just got out of the scrip club after getting into a scuffle and are really drunk. You should go home but it might be a good idea to stay low key and get some waffles because you’re buddy took a lot of xanex and you a little afraid he could die. Let’s hope we don’t run into those guys from the club tho....

I always thought if you wanted to put Waffle House or Denny's out of business, just require customers to pass a breathalyzer before entering.

[bad_teammate 13132]

15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Apparently he thinks white people get to pick what's outrageous and that's how we enforce a response to that outrage.

White people do get to pick what they find outrageous.

He's essentially arguing that white people need to not just immediately be dominated by their angry reactions to these situations, calm down, and try to take a more nuanced view with an understanding that racial prejudice is real and pervasive. You have your autonomy, he's just arguing (I think, anyway) that you should use that autonomy to be as charitable as possible when evaluating what someone else is doing, especially when that person is historically oppressed.

Say a BLM group interrupts your brunch. You're drinking a bloody mary with a fat strip of bacon in it and a bunch of people start yelling at you about oppression or racism or whatever. You are going to feel threatened and upset and annoyed, that's just natural. And you might be tempted to promote the annoyance and upset you felt at being interrupted at brunch ABOVE whatever suffering or oppression that motivated that demonstration. Does that make sense? Then the outrage of the white person has, in white society, superseded the outrage the prompted the protest.

Brad is saying this is bad.

I think he is saying that a better way would be to be annoyed and upset temporarily, calm down over time, and come to a conclusion like, "I was upset and annoyed that happened to me, and I don't think it should happen that way, but I still acknowledge that the thing that upset THEM is far worse than whatever they did to me."

17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Apparently just sitting at a restaurant is worthy of assault, and harassment..

No one here has argued this. False victimhood.

[VABuckeye 2472]

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

In the 1970s 70% of white people opposed King's sit-ins and marches.

He was murdered in 1968.  You should know this.  The sit-ins and protests in the early 1970's were almost exclusively about the Vietnam War.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously, I would think that any choice to go to Waffle House can only be made after you affirmatively decide 1) I want some hash browns, smothered and covered, and 2) I wanna see some shit go down.

[gernblansten 3188]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agree.  Objectively speaking, it's hard to find a law that is facially racist.  But what about in their application?

Think about the rule against holding in football.  It's an objective rule, it's not pro or anti UT.  But if we can look at game film, and determine that UT OLs hold at generally the same rate as all other Big 12 OLs, but whenever we play OSU, for example, the refs call it at a 3 to 1 rate against UT....and it happens year in and year out.....smells like there's a problem.

To take that back to a law, look at jaywalking laws.  We all do it -- seriously, jaywalking happens all the time, by everyone.  But are tickets given out in proportion to the general population ratios?

Smells like there's a problem.  When laws are enforced and applied in a disproportionate and apparently discriminatory manner, that's a problem.  And when we have written laws that make police effectively immune from any consequences of those actions, that compounds the problem.

The nature of the problems is complex -- it's the laws, their enforcement, the lack of accountability, broader social pressures/excuses for behavior, etc.

We all understand the basic concept of fairness -- when the refs call every ticky-tacky holding against our guys, but let the other OL get away with flat-out takedowns, we get pissed off and throw shit at the TV.  It's how people react to apparent unfairness in the application of what, facially, seems like an objective and fair rule.  Today, people see unequal application of the law in how minorities are treated compared to white people (more likely to be stopped and pulled over, get harassed for jaywalking, and a thousand other things), and they see an unequal power dynamic in how the laws are written that turns police into a class of super-citizens who are above the rule of law that the rest of us are bound by.  In short, 1) I'm getting fucked over, and 2) the refs are untouchable and can do this shit with impunity.  That pisses people off, and makes them throw shit at the TV.

I'll ask again because I'm sincere and curious.  Have you considered running for office to fix the problems?  I've read a lot of your posts and I believe in them at various points you've identified the problems and the way to fix them.  Others don't see the problem; still more don't know how to fix them.  

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, VABuckeye said:

He was murdered in 1968.  You should know this.  The sit-ins and protests in the early 1970's were almost exclusively about the Vietnam War.

Settle down, Beavis, it was a typo.

[VABuckeye 2472]

Fuck off.  You want to correct everyone in this thread but get sand in your vagina when corrected.

Edited September 24, 2020 by VABuckeye

[Brisketexan 104636]

19 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Or 3. You and you’re buddies just got out of the scrip club after getting into a scuffle and are really drunk. You should go home but it might be a good idea to stay low key and get some waffles because you’re buddy took a lot of xanex and you a little afraid he could die. Let’s hope we don’t run into those guys from the club tho....

....hypothetically, of course.

[BradInATX 9208]

24 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

Fuck off.  You want to correct everyone in this thread but get sand in your vagina when corrected.

So do you have anything constructive to add, or did you want to address any of the multiple paragraphs of content posted, or are you just here to be a petulant bitch and correct people's spelling?

[Thatguy 8515]

3 hours ago, gernblansten said:

"Silence is collusion" is a nice saying and all, but it doesn't seem to address Hate's post at all.  What is his "Silence"?  Or, is it the diners and drivers' silence?  Collusion in what?  Are you trying to tell Hate, "yes, protestors shouting at people eating dinner and banging on cars while blocking traffic will gain support from those diners and drivers because they'll realize if they themselves don't get out and shout at diners and drivers they are silent racists"?  Are you trying to tell Hate "you should not be eating dinner or driving  while anyone is oppressed"?  Or, are you just saying "Hate, I don't know you but you're a racist because you don't seem to agree 100% with my position on ________"?

   Simple terms. If you say you are against racism and police brutality, but do nothing when you hear or see it, then your silence is taken as approval. If you say that you think that think that the war on drugs should end, but then silently vote for law and order guy....collusion. That's how it works. People who say nothing and do nothing only serve to help continue whatever act is happening. Pretty simple concept.

[Rougarou 594]

30 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

He was murdered in 1968.  You should know this.  The sit-ins and protests in the early 1970's were almost exclusively about the Vietnam War.

You know what they say when you're great? / It's not murder; it's assassinate

SO ASSASSINATE ME B***H! 

[bad_teammate 13132]

The cop who ran over the guy's head with his bike is under investigation.

Piggy steered right into him.

Commendation and promotion incoming.

(Another example of "silence is collusion" is all the good apples who just watched the bad apple and did/said nothing.)

Edited September 24, 2020 by bad_teammate

[gernblansten 3188]

5 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   Simple terms. If you say you are against racism and police brutality, but do nothing when you hear or see it, then your silence is taken as approval. If you say that you think that think that the war on drugs should end, but then silently vote for law and order guy....collusion. That's how it works. People who say nothing and do nothing only serve to help continue whatever act is happening. Pretty simple concept.

Thank you for your response.  I thought I had a pretty good handle on the concept, and your interpretation confirmed it.  I still don't understand why you posted in response to the below post.  I appreciate the communication and believe actual discussion and attempts to understand someone's thinking is much more productive then just disregarding people or assigning labels to them.  Do you think Hate, or anyone really, is a silent racist if they don't think protestors shouting down people at a restaurant or blocking traffic and banging on cars is a reasonable form of protest?

4 hours ago, Hate said:

Do you think that the protesters shouting at people eating dinner are going to garner the support of the diners? Do you think that protesters blocking traffic and banging on cars is going to garner the support of the drivers?

And my point earlier is that for a lot of us, me anyway, I didn’t grow up during segregation. I’ve never been to a restaurant with separate dining rooms for black or white people. I’ve never been to a movie theatre that forced black people to sit in the balcony. I never was on a little league team that did not allow black kids to participate. The idea that it ever existed is appalling. Are things perfect now? No, of course not. Are things better for “my generation” than they were before? I would say so. Are things perfect or the way they should be? No obviously not. Should we continue to make strides and should those strides be bigger and quicker to come? Yes we should. Is this wrong? Does this make me a silent racist?

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

White people do get to pick what they find outrageous.

He's essentially arguing that white people need to not just immediately be dominated by their angry reactions to these situations, calm down, and try to take a more nuanced view with an understanding that racial prejudice is real and pervasive. You have your autonomy, he's just arguing (I think, anyway) that you should use that autonomy to be as charitable as possible when evaluating what someone else is doing, especially when that person is historically oppressed.

Say a BLM group interrupts your brunch. You're drinking a bloody mary with a fat strip of bacon in it and a bunch of people start yelling at you about oppression or racism or whatever. You are going to feel threatened and upset and annoyed, that's just natural. And you might be tempted to promote the annoyance and upset you felt at being interrupted at brunch ABOVE whatever suffering or oppression that motivated that demonstration. Does that make sense? Then the outrage of the white person has, in white society, superseded the outrage the prompted the protest.

Brad is saying this is bad.

I think he is saying that a better way would be to be annoyed and upset temporarily, calm down over time, and come to a conclusion like, "I was upset and annoyed that happened to me, and I don't think it should happen that way, but I still acknowledge that the thing that upset THEM is far worse than whatever they did to me."

No one here has argued this. False victimhood.

Matters not if anyone here defends it, the BLM peaceful protesters ARE doing it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

WTF, why has everyone forgotten IHOP..  you're gonna make a white man very angry.

Gotta love an Ihop

[MissingInAction 24824]

Any of this bullshit gets close to my home then I start shooting motherfuckers.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Agree.  Objectively speaking, it's hard to find a law that is facially racist.  But what about in their application?

Think about the rule against holding in football.  It's an objective rule, it's not pro or anti UT.  But if we can look at game film, and determine that UT OLs hold at generally the same rate as all other Big 12 OLs, but whenever we play OSU, for example, the refs call it at a 3 to 1 rate against UT....and it happens year in and year out.....smells like there's a problem.

To take that back to a law, look at jaywalking laws.  We all do it -- seriously, jaywalking happens all the time, by everyone.  But are tickets given out in proportion to the general population ratios?

Smells like there's a problem.  When laws are enforced and applied in a disproportionate and apparently discriminatory manner, that's a problem.  And when we have written laws that make police effectively immune from any consequences of those actions, that compounds the problem.

The nature of the problems is complex -- it's the laws, their enforcement, the lack of accountability, broader social pressures/excuses for behavior, etc.

We all understand the basic concept of fairness -- when the refs call every ticky-tacky holding against our guys, but let the other OL get away with flat-out takedowns, we get pissed off and throw shit at the TV.  It's how people react to apparent unfairness in the application of what, facially, seems like an objective and fair rule.  Today, people see unequal application of the law in how minorities are treated compared to white people (more likely to be stopped and pulled over, get harassed for jaywalking, and a thousand other things), and they see an unequal power dynamic in how the laws are written that turns police into a class of super-citizens who are above the rule of law that the rest of us are bound by.  In short, 1) I'm getting fucked over, and 2) the refs are untouchable and can do this shit with impunity.  That pisses people off, and makes them throw shit at the TV.

Yeah you got some racist assholes who abuse the law, but that doesn't change the fact the law isn't racist, we as white people don't get to pick what gets enforced.

Look at how many mayors have told police to stand down, and allow looting, riots, and other shit that is flat out illegal this Summer.  It's bitten several of them in the ass as the protesters have come at them.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

we as white people don't get to pick what gets enforced.

 

The fuck? What country do you live in? Of course we do. Bonus if you're wealthy and white.

[BradInATX 9208]

Nevermind, not going to reply to the CR post. @BurntEyes - take that to the CR my dude.

Edited September 24, 2020 by BradInATX

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The fuck? What country do you live in? Of course we do. Bonus if you're wealthy and white.

Wealth buys access regardless of color.. WTF country do you live in ?

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Wealth buys access regardless of color.. WTF country do you live in ?

Even if that were purely true (which I acknowledge there's definitely truth to your statement), being white is the easiest path to wealth, so your modification of my statement doesn't change anything.

[BabaYaga 15214]

8 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Any of this bullshit gets close to my home then I start shooting motherfuckers.

House set on fire

48 hour as always in effect, but this is going to spin out of control with people's houses being set on fire.  JFC....

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

10 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

WTF, why has everyone forgotten IHOP..  you're gonna make a white man very angry.

IHOP is high end, man.  I’ve never seen a drunk cabbie gnawing and slobbering on a pork chop bone and then passing out on the table at IHOP.  

Not so CSB bro, that same cabbie then proceeded to go get in his minivan cab, cut too sharp and hit the car next to him while backing out and drive off.  This was 7:30am at the Denny’s at Riverside and Ben White a couple years back.  

[Thatguy 8515]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus you are almost too stupid for words.  First of all, China absolutely said shut the fuck up and dribble and he did.  Try another avenue.  Michael Rapaport is goods friends with many current NBA players.  Is a hyper-democrat, and has stated publicly from conversations with current players that Lebron is THE MOST FAKE player/person in the NBA.  He sticks his finger in the air to get a feel for what he should protest or support next.  This is coming from current players calling him on his bullshit, so maybe take this deflection bullshit somewhere else for a player that inserts himself into this shit and then cries foul when pushed on it.  

   Remind me who is the player is that married his high school sweetheart, hasn't gotten caught up in BS all these years, has a school he built for underprivileged kids, and multiple other charities? I can't seem remember that player's name...

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Even if that were purely true (which I acknowledge there's definitely truth to your statement), being white is the easiest path to wealth, so your modification of my statement doesn't change anything.

Your comment that white people determine what gets enforced is not accurate. The law is the standard. That there are people who don't follow the law doesn't change that fact that for the most part.

Creating wealth is easier if you're white, I would agree with that.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Your comment that white people determine what gets enforced is not accurate. The law is the standard.

Your contention is that police officers and our judicial system correctly apply the law 100% of the time?

Edited September 24, 2020 by BradInATX

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Your contention is that police officers and our judicial system correctly apply the law 100% of the time?

Do you not read good and stuff ?  I said there are racists, and assholes who don't follow the law.  The majority of people do.

Show me anything that is followed 100% of the time in all instances.

[BradInATX 9208]

fuck

Edited September 24, 2020 by BradInATX

[dcar00 14036]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Do you not read good and stuff ?  I said there are racists, and assholes who don't follow the law.  The majority of people do.

Show me anything that is followed 100% of the time in all instances.

of course he no read good but to your query, I submit "aggy roller-coaster" for consideration.

[BradInATX 9208]

 

Quote

Remind me who is the player is that married his high school sweetheart, hasn't gotten caught up in BS all these years, has a school he built for underprivileged kids, and multiple other charities? I can't seem remember that player's name...

Look, let's not accuse BabaYaga of being a racist. I want to be fair here.

Now just imagine if you asked a racist his or her thoughts on the NBA.

I imagine the first thing they'd talk about is how they've stopped watching because of "all of the politics" and how the NBA is a dying sport full of SJWs

"There is a reason golf and the UFC are killing it in the ratings and basketball ratings are down 40% despite playoff implications.  People have stated again and again how inundated politics is in every facet of their lives.  How sports used to be/is a bastion of relief and escape from it all.  

They see the hypocrisy with these athletes virtue signalling on selective topics and avoiding others all together"

Then they'll typically go off on a rant about LeBron James, as he is sort of the face of BLM and activism in the NBA

Jesus you are almost too stupid for words.  First of all, China absolutely said shut the fuck up and dribble and he did.  Try another avenue.  Michael Rapaport is goods friends with many current NBA players.  Is a hyper-democrat, and has stated publicly from conversations with current players that Lebron is THE MOST FAKE player/person in the NBA.  He sticks his finger in the air to get a feel for what he should protest or support next.  This is coming from current players calling him on his bullshit, so maybe take this deflection bullshit somewhere else for a player that inserts himself into this shit and then cries foul when pushed on it.  

Then of course, when they get a few drinks in them, they'll let it out a bit and let you know that NBA players are all thugs

First time NBA players have ever pulled out of something......

That's the extent of posts that Baba has made about basketball or the NBA on here. Zero other posts, no contributions to the basketball threads, etc. His sole interest in the NBA are ratings, LeBron James, and SJWs. He seems to know or care nothing for the actual sport itself, but he's oddly well read on LeBron's politics and how people feel about it, the NBA's ratings as compared to other sports, and the NBA players' off court behavior.

So look, we can't definitively say that BabaYaga is a racist. Let's be fair. All we can say is that if you were to sketch out exactly how a racist would respond to a conversation about the NBA, it would look identical to how he behaves.

Edited September 24, 2020 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Do you not read good and stuff ?  I said there are racists, and assholes who don't follow the law.  The majority of people do.

Show me anything that is followed 100% of the time in all instances.

So you agree that (while the law is not racist), the police and justice system that enforce it are?

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

of course he no read good but to your query, I submit "aggy roller-coaster" for consideration.

That's a regional example. Your results may vary