Whats wrong with giving girls molly?? VOL. U AINT EVEN KNO IT

[MajinZuub]

Rappers started hopping on that Molly hype after Juicy J started talking about it on every other song he made.

 

[illphillip]

"As long as black artists stay in their box, of talking about killing each other, we aint got no problem. You hop outta the box and now we have a standard"

That was real as hell.

How did he hop outta that box though?

He didn't say he was drugging a white woman.

So what does this have to do with "black artists" and the box they're in?

Nothing. Which is why that's a ridiculous statement.

I've said it before. There IS a line between murder and rape. I can understand reasons why someone would resort to murder. Raping one of my female relatives would be one of those reasons.

There is nothing that can excuse rape though. Even dudes in jail know that. Even murderers look down on rapists and child molesters.

Crazy that criminals even have a code of ethics that other people can't understand.

 

[victor page]

How did he hop outta that box though?

He didn't say he was drugging a white woman.

So what does this have to do with "black artists" and the box they're in?

Nothing. Which is why that's a ridiculous statement.

I've said it before. There IS a line between murder and rape. I can understand reasons why someone would resort to murder. Raping one of my female relatives would be one of those reasons.

There is nothing that can excuse rape though. Even dudes in jail know that. Even murderers look down on rapists and child molesters.

Crazy that criminals even have a code of ethics that other people can't understand.

He made that statement in regards to Reeboks sponsorship of Rick Ross. 

A corporate sponsor recognizes a line between murder and rape too? That's ok to you?

Whatever me, you, or anyone else's opinions on rape itself is irrelevant. The fact that they chose him to sponsor their product even though he pushed a product that dealt with murder and drugs among other things WAS PERFECTLY OK to them...but putting molly in champagne...na you can't sell our shoes anymore.

 

[illphillip]

He made that statement in regards to Reeboks sponsorship of Rick Ross. 

A corporate sponsor recognizes a line between murder and rape too? That's ok to you?

Whatever me, you, or anyone else's opinions on rape itself is irrelevant. The fact that they chose him to sponsor their product even though he pushed a product that dealt with murder and drugs among other things WAS PERFECTLY OK to them...but putting molly in champagne...na you can't sell our shoes anymore.

I get what you're saying. I'm pretty sure that in their statement when they terminated him, Reebok was CLEAR about the fact that a big part of the reason they let him go was that he couldn't even issue a proper apology about this ****.

So if you're going to say dumb ****....then say more dumb **** on top of that dumb ****.....then do that a 2nd time.....yea, you might not be fit to represent my brand.

 

[victor page]

I get what you're saying. I'm pretty sure that in their statement when they terminated him, Reebok was CLEAR about the fact that a big part of the reason they let him go was that he couldn't even issue a proper apology about this ****.

So if you're going to say dumb ****....then say more dumb **** on top of that dumb ****.....then do that a 2nd time.....yea, you might not be fit to represent my brand.

But my thing is...what made him fit to represent their brand IN THE FIRST PLACE? Rick Ross is not an athlete. They didn't choose him to sell their clothes and shoes for them because he averages 30 points a game or ran for 30 touchdowns. They identified him as one of the biggest entertainers in the music business. How was content not a factor from the jump? I'm trying to figure out what made it OK for him to kill someone in every song, sell drugs in every song, and plenty of other ****...but the kill switch was a rape reference?

If John Wall tweeted that he had a choppa in his car...or that sold cocaine...he probably would be in hot water for that right? But what made it ok for them to sponsor an entertainer that makes references to these things in his "form of entertainment"? 

I'm not a fan of selective sensitivity. 

Just like the first athlete that makes a statement not waving the gay flag for Jason Collins...he's going to be in hot water and people will ready to jump down their throat thru the media. Meanwhile...that same athlete could get caught with a prostitute and he'd be reprimanded...but it'd be no more than a blurb on sportscenter for a couple days. 

 

[illphillip]

Well, we all have a threshhold for what we're sensitive to and what we're not. So "selective sensitivity" is a reality.

I listen to music about drug dealing and murder. Guns etc.

These are things that I understand. These are things I've been exposed to in some capacity or another.

I've obviously never murdered anyone, but I can certainly understand how someone could be driven to that point as I stated above. You **** with my family, it could get hectic.

Yet amidst that, I thought the "slip this in her drink" line was way out of pocket. That is where I draw the line. That is where I'm selectively sensitive I guess. So be it.

Reebok did a sneaker with Jay. They did a sneaker with 50.

There is obviously some content they are OK with aligning their brand with, and some content they are not.

 

[-Red-]

You do understand that if Black folks formed some kind of organization that actively and strategically fought against rappers rapping about murdering other Black people, selling drugs in Black communities, etc. that these corporations would be more responsive and sensitive toward those concerns and demands, right?

However, that is not the case.

Furthermore, if that were the case, such an organization and such leaders would draw the hatred of countless rappers and hip-hop fans. This is not without historical precedent.

Is that what you want? For rappers to face consequences similar to Reebok dropping Ross for talking about selling drugs and murdering people? If not, what exactly are you arguing here?

 

[-Red-]

Well, we all have a threshhold for what we're sensitive to and what we're not. So "selective sensitivity" is a reality.

I listen to music about drug dealing and murder. Guns etc.

These are things that I understand. These are things I've been exposed to in some capacity or another.

I've obviously never murdered anyone, but I can certainly understand how someone could be driven to that point as I stated above. You **** with my family, it could get hectic.

Yet amidst that, I thought the "slip this in her drink" line was way out of pocket. That is where I draw the line. That is where I'm selectively sensitive I guess. So be it.

Reebok did a sneaker with Jay. They did a sneaker with 50.

There is obviously some content they are OK with aligning their brand with, and some content they are not.

I don't even think it was an issue with Reebok being cool with some content and not with other content at face value. It seems like it was effective public pressure by women's groups that forced Reebok's hand. Without the public outcry, I doubt they would have cared, just as they don't care about lyrics about selling drugs and murdering people specifically because Black folks weren't exerting public pressure on them to drop Ross for those types of lyrics...

 

[victor page]

You do understand that if Black folks formed some kind of organization that actively and strategically fought against rappers rapping about murdering other Black people, selling drugs in Black communities, etc. that these corporations would be more responsive and sensitive toward those concerns and demands, right?

However, that is not the case.

Furthermore, if that were the case, such an organization and such leaders would draw the hatred of countless rappers and hip-hop fans. This is not without historical precedent.

Is that what you want? For rappers to face consequences similar to Reebok dropping Ross for talking about selling drugs and murdering people? If not, what exactly are you arguing here?

You're trying way too hard or looking way too deep into it.

All I'm saying...how are you ok placing your stamp on a guy who promotes a product that's not necessarily G rated, for promoting one more controversial element of that SAME non G rated product?

I'm not "arguing" anything. I'm just asking a question. 

Or are you saying...it's ok to start considering how your brand is presented when people make a fuss about it?

And somehow you're placing issues in the black community...in the same basket with "women's groups"...to say that if there were perhaps "black community issues groups" that maybe they won't choose a guy who says he has "choppas in his car" to sell some product?

OK.

 

[-Red-]

You do understand that if Black folks formed some kind of organization that actively and strategically fought against rappers rapping about murdering other Black people, selling drugs in Black communities, etc. that these corporations would be more responsive and sensitive toward those concerns and demands, right?


However, that is not the case.


Furthermore, if that were the case, such an organization and such leaders would draw the hatred of countless rappers and hip-hop fans. This is not without historical precedent.


Is that what you want? For rappers to face consequences similar to Reebok dropping Ross for talking about selling drugs and murdering people? If not, what exactly are you arguing here?

You're trying way too hard or looking way too deep into it.

All I'm saying...how are you ok placing your stamp on a guy who promotes a product that's not necessarily G rated, for promoting one more controversial element of that SAME non G rated product?

I'm not "arguing" anything. I'm just asking a question. 

Or are you saying...it's ok to start considering how your brand is presented when people make a fuss about it?

And somehow you're placing issues in the black community...in the same basket with "women's groups"...to say that if there were perhaps "black community issues groups" that maybe they won't choose a guy who says he has "choppas in his car" to sell some product?

OK.

Black rappers talking about killing other Black people, selling drugs in Black communities, etc. has become an accepted part of American life at this point. Calling women ******* and **** has as well. This is not a surprise to you nor do you seem to have a problem with this, given your regular presence in the Chief Keef thread. Rappers openly talking about date raping women by giving them drugs without their knowledge or consent has not become part of American life at this point. People generally have a problem with this, including a lot of hip-hop people, as you can see in this thread. I don't know how this reality is difficult to understand...

There is essentially no "risk" in having rappers who promote Black-on-Black violence and selling drugs endorse a product at this point. People don't really care that rappers glorify these things in 2013. When national leaders were speaking out against such musical content in the 1990s, including white folks (Dan Quayle, Tipper Gore, etc.) as well as Black folks (Rev. Calvin Butts, C. Delores Tucker, etc.) they received incredible backlash from rappers and drew the ire of rap fans. People have basically given up on those fights. Would you rather they hadn't? Would you rather there be organized public campaigns denouncing Chief Keef?

Women's groups have their issues, which are, by definition, related to women. They have not given up these fights. In this situation, they organized and spoke out on these issues with an express purpose. Ross then completely blundered an "apology" further insulting not only the groups protesting his lyrics but the general public as well. He got the ax.

What about this is hard to understand?

 

[victor page]

Black rappers talking about killing other Black people, selling drugs in Black communities, etc. has become an accepted part of American life at this point. Calling women ******* and **** has as well. This is not a surprise to you nor do you seem to have a problem with this, given your regular presence in the Chief Keef thread. Rappers openly talking about date raping women by giving them drugs without their knowledge or consent has not become part of American life at this point. People generally have a problem with this, including a lot of hip-hop people, as you can see in this thread. I don't know how this reality is difficult to understand...

There is essentially no "risk" in having rappers who promote Black-on-Black violence and selling drugs endorse a product at this point. People don't really care that rappers glorify these things in 2013. When national leaders were speaking out against such musical content in the 1990s, including white folks (Dan Quayle, Tipper Gore, etc.) as well as Black folks (Rev. Calvin Butts, C. Delores Tucker, etc.) they received incredible backlash from rappers and drew the ire of rap fans. People have basically given up on those fights. Would you rather they hadn't? Would you rather there be organized public campaigns denouncing Chief Keef?

Women's groups have their issues, which are, by definition, related to women. They have not given up these fights. In this situation, they organized and spoke out on these issues with an express purpose. Ross then completely blundered an "apology" further insulting not only the groups protesting his lyrics but the general public as well. He got the ax.

What about this is hard to understand?

What is hard FOR YOU to understand than I'm not making an argument about whether rapping about black on black violence is wrong or not?

I'm asking SPECIFICALLY how does a rapper that promotes things which are frown upon in CORPORATE AMERICA pick up a CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP and then get dropped from it for promoting one negative element of MANY that he typically promotes?

It doesn't make any sense.

Allen Iverson, obviously more of a cash cow, got in hot water with the same brand for that rap song he put out back in the day. He didn't mention anything about rape...and people STILL called for him to face consequences for it. He got away from that situation...but my point is they clearly had a problem with an athlete promoting those things. So they were ok with promoting "Hip-Hop" in his image. "Wear your baggy clothes and wear your cornrows AI...but you start making a song sounding like DMX"...and that's not ok. Just like I mentioned earlier...if John Wall (when he was on Reebok) did something similar or mentioned some element of violence atypical of what an athlete is expected to promote...they'd be ready to crucify him as all. So how does a guy like Rick Ross get a sponsorship in the first place...when his entire image is rooted in violence, sex, drugs, etc.? 

You're ranting and raving about issues im not even addressing right now. Miss me with that "no risk" **** because I just gave you an example of the same company about to drop the hammer on their #1 athlete for making a violent rap song over a decade ago. 

 

[-Red-]

Black rappers talking about killing other Black people, selling drugs in Black communities, etc. has become an accepted part of American life at this point. Calling women ******* and **** has as well. This is not a surprise to you nor do you seem to have a problem with this, given your regular presence in the Chief Keef thread. Rappers openly talking about date raping women by giving them drugs without their knowledge or consent has not become part of American life at this point. People generally have a problem with this, including a lot of hip-hop people, as you can see in this thread. I don't know how this reality is difficult to understand...


There is essentially no "risk" in having rappers who promote Black-on-Black violence and selling drugs endorse a product at this point. People don't really care that rappers glorify these things in 2013. When national leaders were speaking out against such musical content in the 1990s, including white folks (Dan Quayle, Tipper Gore, etc.) as well as Black folks (Rev. Calvin Butts, C. Delores Tucker, etc.) they received incredible backlash from rappers and drew the ire of rap fans. People have basically given up on those fights. Would you rather they hadn't? Would you rather there be organized public campaigns denouncing Chief Keef?


Women's groups have their issues, which are, by definition, related to women. They have not given up these fights. In this situation, they organized and spoke out on these issues with an express purpose. Ross then completely blundered an "apology" further insulting not only the groups protesting his lyrics but the general public as well. He got the ax.


What about this is hard to understand?

What is hard FOR YOU to understand than I'm not making an argument about whether rapping about black on black violence is wrong or not?

I'm asking SPECIFICALLY how does a rapper that promotes things which are frown upon in CORPORATE AMERICA pick up a CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP and then get dropped from it for promoting one negative element of MANY that he typically promotes?

It doesn't make any sense.

Allen Iverson, obviously more of a cash cow, got in hot water with the same brand for that rap song he put out back in the day. He didn't mention anything about rape...and people STILL called for him to face consequences for it. He got away from that situation...but my point is they clearly had a problem with an athlete promoting those things. So they were ok with promoting "Hip-Hop" in his image. "Wear your baggy clothes and wear your cornrows AI...but you start making a song sounding like DMX"...and that's not ok. Just like I mentioned earlier...if John Wall (when he was on Reebok) did something similar or mentioned some element of violence atypical of what an athlete is expected to promote...they'd be ready to crucify him as all. So how does a guy like Rick Ross get a sponsorship in the first place...when his entire image is rooted in violence, sex, drugs, etc.? 

You're ranting and raving about issues im not even addressing right now. Miss me with that "no risk" **** because I just gave you an example of the same company about to drop the hammer on their #1 athlete for making a violent rap song over a decade ago. 

It makes perfect sense for all of the reasons I outlined in my last post. If you can't or refuse to comprehend that is your issue...