DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted August 25, 2017 They're not standing up for you. They're uninformed teenage or early twenty something mouthbreathers who are participating in self-gratification. You ask any of those people in the video for a history lesson and reasoning behind what they're doing and all you'll get is dumb looks and a bunch of stuttering as they try to remember the catch phrases from the TV. They're worthless idiots who nobody takes seriously You don't need to be a history major to understand that when a monument is created to celebrate someone's participation in maintaining racial dominance over other races, it should be removed. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted August 25, 2017 To me this is the same thing as not having the Ten Commandments and shit at court houses. They're public buildings and they shouldn't be there. These people were in open rebellion to the US. They don't have to be destroyed, just get them off government property. It's pretty cut and dry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted August 26, 2017 (edited) Sure, that's the only possible explanation. Is that what we do now, just assume everyone is lying if it fits our agenda for them to be doing so? Its now an assault on our rights! People should be protesting in the streets because one guy- as far as we know if we aren't assuming shit- agreed with his employer not to cover a game! Not every decision- poor or not- is because things are this mega-evil corporation bent on suppressing freedom of speech or being as PC as possible. I hate this tactic that is pulled by extremists on both sides. They make this ridiculous comparison using extreme hyperbole to try to say that one thing is equal to another. Do you guys *really* think that people are being racist to Asians by not protesting in the streets over this? C'mon, man. I didn't say they had to be lying. That was one of two options I gave. You randomly suggested that I said they were definitely lying. I think that falls on you, not me. You are trying to assign my position for me so that you can argue a certain point with the rest of your post. If you actually look at what I said and respond to that, all of a sudden the rest of your post is worthless. Your entire reply is based on a lie. Lol. Although I came here to post this (not in response to anyone, just in general). It's old (from last year) but I am just seeing it for the first time so I just wanted to say.. WHAT A BOSS. Get wrekt. Goodnight. Edited August 26, 2017 by Olenna4Ever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted August 26, 2017 (edited) First off, the entirety of that post was not directed at you, which is my fault because I didn't specify that. Only the first part of it is. ESPN specifically said they gave him the option. If you are claiming they did not, in fact, give him said option, they are lying. We can argue semantics or whatnot, but its still lying. Your post obviously was assuming the former of the two options. "Cmon now, do people *really* believe ESPN was worried about people making memes about him?" Sure they could be extreme idiots, or perhaps given how explosive the situation has become they wanted to quietly avoid controversy by doing this in private. Which of course backfired given the leak that occurred. I don't really think ESPN's actions here were necessary, but I can follow the logic. The internet can be a horrible place sometimes. It seems like most people are assuming ESPN took this action because they were afraid of people being offended at his name. I don't know, maybe I'm screwing up by giving them the benefit of the doubt here, I just feel like they'd have to be even more colossal idiots than you think they are if they removed him because they were afraid of someone being offended at his name. Edited August 26, 2017 by Thanatos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted August 26, 2017 (edited) ESPN specifically said they gave him the option. If you are claiming they did not, in fact, give him said option, they are lying. We can argue semantics or whatnot, but its still lying. Your post obviously was assuming the former of the two options. "Cmon now, do people *really* believe ESPN was worried about people making memes about him?" Sure they could be extreme idiots, or perhaps given how explosive the situation has become they wanted to quietly avoid controversy by doing this in private. Which of course backfired given the leak that occurred. I don't really think ESPN's actions here were necessary, but I can follow the logic. The internet can be a horrible place sometimes. It seems like most people are assuming ESPN took this action because they were afraid of people being offended at his name. I don't know, maybe I'm screwing up by giving them the benefit of the doubt here, I just feel like they'd have to be even more colossal idiots than you think they are if they removed him because they were afraid of someone being offended at his name. As I mentioned before.. they themselves said they went to him and they "eventually agreed" to move him off it. That doesn't sound like they were leaving the decision to him. That sounds like a boss going to an employee and pretty much telling him what they wanted done but in a nice way. More than likely Mr. Lee was like, eh, this is pretty stupid but not worth fighting over. I guess if you guys really want to move me, whatever. If that isn't what happened, "eventually agreed" is very odd language to use. If the scenario was ESPN is concerned about jokes and memes about Robert Lee so they go to him and seek his input wherein in he immediately agrees its best he moves game.. I don't think you say that you eventually agreed to it. And like I said.. Let's say they are being honest and wanted to get a jump on this. They actually wanted to move Robert Lee off this game because of his best interest. Why then, in their statement, would they come out and talk about how they did this to get ahead of jokes and memes? As I mentioned, previously.. If you are going to tell the internet something that you don't want them to do... They WILL do it. Do you know how many Robert Lee memes I saw BEFORE ESPN's statement. 0. That doesn't mean they didn't exist beforehand, but if they did, they were pretty irrelevant. Do you know how many memes and jokes I've seen AFTER their statement? DOZENS. Maybe they were just trying to do the right thing... Maybe. Even if so, the way they handled that statement was not great. Even with 100% purely good intentions originally, they made happen what they said they were trying to avoid. Which is their fault, whether somebody leaked the information or not. It's their choice how to handle that leak. I honestly feel bad for Robert Lee. Whether it was intentional or not (probably not), ESPN really fucked him over. https://twitter.com/NotKennyRogers/status/900162807382933504 https://twitter.com/TheFoundingSon/status/900332935865413632 https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/900344465331601413 Edited August 26, 2017 by Olenna4Ever 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted August 26, 2017 As I mentioned before.. they themselves said they went to him and they "eventually agreed" to move him off it. That doesn't sound like they were leaving the decision to him. That sounds like a boss going to an employee and pretty much telling him what they wanted done but in a nice way. More than likely Mr. Lee was like, eh, this is pretty stupid but not worth fighting over. I guess if you guys really want to move me, whatever. If that isn't what happened, "eventually agreed" is very odd language to use. If the scenario was ESPN is concerned about jokes and memes about Robert Lee so they go to him and seek his input wherein in he immediately agrees its best he moves game.. I don't think you say that you eventually agreed to it. And like I said.. Let's say they are being honest and wanted to get a jump on this. They actually wanted to move Robert Lee off this game because of his best interest. Why then, in their statement, would they come out and talk about how they did this to get ahead of jokes and memes? As I mentioned, previously.. If you are going to tell the internet something that you don't want them to do... They WILL do it. Do you know how many Robert Lee memes I saw BEFORE ESPN's statement. 0. That doesn't mean they didn't exist beforehand, but if they did, they were pretty irrelevant. Do you know how many memes and jokes I've seen AFTER their statement? DOZENS. Maybe they were just trying to do the right thing... Maybe. Even if so, the way they handled that statement was not great. Even with 100% purely good intentions originally, they made happen what they said they were trying to avoid. Which is their fault, whether somebody leaked the information or not. It's their choice how to handle that leak. I honestly feel bad for Robert Lee. Whether it was intentional or not (probably not), ESPN really fucked him over. https://twitter.com/NotKennyRogers/status/900162807382933504 https://twitter.com/TheFoundingSon/status/900332935865413632 https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/900344465331601413 Hey look, someone who gets it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites