Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:56 am

WISE MEN SAY, ONLY FOOLS RUSH IN....BUT I CAN'T HELP FALLING IN LOVE WITH THIS THREAD!

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Employer wrote: - again for whatever it's worth, espn has a lot less blood on their hands than nike. it's wack for sure, but nike is a whole other level. espn = corporate sleez, nike = corporate tyrant

riiiiiiight....this was kind of the point i was trying to make when i stated that ESPN is owned by disney.

1) don't act like disney has never been accused of human rights violations

2) don't act like ESPN "hands" are not not completely smeared in NIKE advertising "blood" money.

i think that rape analogy someone made was pretty valid. if you're gonna be anti sellout it needs to be regardless of the situation imo.

Mindbender Futurama · Post by **Mindbender Futurama** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:53 pm

's happened in various places

and for real, let's just throw it out there: who in here would turn down a million dollar cheque?

what's your price? and where's your line?

your mother has cancer, and you'd have to sell the next 5 years of career to making songs promoting the CIA and U.S. Army to cure her.

would you say yes or no?

kinda ludicrous scenario, but my point is: we ALL have a price, as much as we all would ideally like to pretend we don't...

i trip galloping high horses for fun :cookiecookie: but i wish i had a phat whip with leather so soft innit

i'd sell a song to McDonald's for a Snoop DeVille Cadillac, LOL

i like that Justin Timberlake song 'I'm Lovin' It', i really do

ardamus · Post by **ardamus** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:02 pm

Employer wrote:- again for whatever it's worth, espn has a lot less blood on their hands than nike. it's wack for sure, but nike is a whole other level. espn = corporate sleez, nike = corporate tyrant

sorry man, corporate is corporate. they're about money. period. whether the companies do good or bad deeds along with a history....at the end of the day, everyone wants that currency in their bank account. i appreciate your views, i just don't see the difference in between the two other than the service that they offer (there's the obvious labor issue with Nike but still.....ESPN just like every other big company have things they've had to hide that are bad).

Robust · Post by **Robust** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:06 pm

but doesn't the situation of the person involved in the act sometimes
change the morality of the act?

this goes with the logic....if a poor ass dude from the hood gets money to to rap about shit thats destroying his community and keeps perpetuating it......is that ok becuase hes poor and from the hood?

personally....i think its just as cool as Suge francis getting money from espn because hes broke...GET YOUR MONEY....but dont judge others for doing it when you know youd do something very similiar......

riiiiiiight....this was kind of the point i was trying to make when i stated that ESPN is owned by disney.

1) don't act like disney has never been accused of human rights violations

2) don't act like ESPN "hands" are not not completely smeared in NIKE advertising "blood" money.

i think that rape analogy someone made was pretty valid. if you're gonna be anti sellout it needs to be regardless of the situation imo.

dude is point right here.......

Reggie · Post by **Reggie** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:08 pm

Mindbender Futurama wrote:your mother has cancer,

don't talk about my moms

chump change · Post by **chump change** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:52 pm

ric wrote:im gonna step in here and shove that bitch chump change out of the way as the mediating philosophical one haha

Employer wrote:i'm sure i'll get shit on for my obvious bias here,

but doesn't the situation of the person involved in the act sometimes
change the morality of the act?
depends on how you mean it and what your conception of morality is. there are 3 main conceptions that are fighting it out right now. one says that the best thing is something that improves the greater good and the worst thing hurts the greater good. one says that there is a complicated system of agreements and doing right and wrong depends on the breaking with or adhering to these agreements. the last one says that you cannot do certain things (like stealing) at any time no matter what but that you try to be the best person you can be at all times.

however, if someone who's starving steals a loaf of bread, we'd look
at that as morally different than someone with plenty of money stealing, right?
some people would and some people wouldnt and depending on your reasoning you could be very convincing
i mean equating stealing with "selling out" although i understand what youre saying is automatically getting into deep water. some people would actually be on very reasonable grounds in claiming that the starving person should never steal - ever. im just glad that people dont judge so harshly in the real world no matter what your line of reasoning

haha @ your name by the way
haha @ chump change

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:32 pm

These are Sage's thoughts, yo.

battlecatmeowstab212 · Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:44 pm

ardamus wrote:
Employer wrote:- again for whatever it's worth, espn has a lot less blood on their hands than nike. it's wack for sure, but nike is a whole other level. espn = corporate sleez, nike = corporate tyrant
sorry man, corporate is corporate. they're about money. period. whether the companies do good or bad deeds along with a history....at the end of the day, everyone wants that currency in their bank account.

Just out of curiosity, are you applying that just to this situation or do you truly believe it?

What about a company like Puma that has really no skeletons in their closet? Do you think doing a spot for them is different than doing a spot for Nike or Coke?

ardamus · Post by **ardamus** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:57 pm

battlecatmeowstab212 wrote:
ardamus wrote:
Employer wrote:- again for whatever it's worth, espn has a lot less blood on their hands than nike. it's wack for sure, but nike is a whole other level. espn = corporate sleez, nike = corporate tyrant
sorry man, corporate is corporate. they're about money. period. whether the companies do good or bad deeds along with a history....at the end of the day, everyone wants that currency in their bank account.
Just out of curiosity, are you applying that just to this situation or do you truly believe it?

What about a company like Puma that has really no skeletons in their closet? Do you think doing a spot for them is different than doing a spot for Nike or Coke?

I do believe it and doing a spot for Puma is no different I feel in terms of actual business; now, the fact they have no skeletons in their closet is an issue of morals and thats a decision an artist would have to make in terms of whether or not they would want that association with their art. It still breaks down to business when they seek out an artist to promote their products because its obvious for targeting an audience. The thing about corporate is that its not an evil word technically by definition either.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corporate

cor

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:00 pm

battlecatmeowstab212 wrote:What about a company like Puma that has really no skeletons in their closet? Do you think doing a spot for them is different than doing a spot for Nike or Coke?

you're tripping if you think that puma has never had shoes produced in a factory that has violated human rights.

you're tripping if you think nearly ANY brand hasn't innadvertently violated human rights at some point.

only difference is coke and nike are big enough companies to make a change if they want to. what they say goes for a lot of economies.

poopie boy · Post by **poopie boy** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:41 pm

I get what dude up there (no jesus) is saying about corporate being corporate. He is removing the evil connotation from corporations and using purely a textual and literal approach to the term. In looking at it this way, doing a rap song for McDonalds' contribution to the special olympics is just as bad as doing an ad for Firestone tires.

Basically the point is that selling out is selling out, and is not inherent to doing a spot for a corporation because all corporations aren't necessarily evil. For example, doing a rap song for Bic pencils about how cool writing can be is nowhere near as bad as doing a rap song for Puff Daddy about bayonetting babies.

This, and the situational justification of moral values are the two reasons why I think Sage is a moron in this thread. Like I said, so what if he was dead broke and starving. If someone offered him $100k to go stab blind people I'm sure he wouldn't do it. In other words, if he REALLY was against something, he wouldn't do it under any circumstances. If Sage was truly against "selling out" he would've just got a job like a regular functioning citizen of this country and feed himself that way. I just can't buy the "i was hungry" excuse.

That being said, his spot for ESPN was not a bad thing, and neither is Saul's ad for Nike. So I REALLY don't understand what Sage was bitching about in the first place.

Robust, seriously dude, I've never heard your shit (even though I've seen you live.. figure that one out?) so I really really don't mean any disrespect towards your artistic contributions but speaking soley on your online persona or whatever you pretty much need to shut the fuck up because everything you are saying is irrelevant to the thread and you are pulling a mindbender trying to name drop the things you've done and the limited success you've had and turning the thread into a discussion about your rap career (a-la mindbender).

chump change · Post by **chump change** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:47 pm

poopie boy wrote:I get what dude up there (no jesus) is saying about corporate being corporate. He is removing the evil connotation from corporations and using purely a textual and literal approach to the term. In looking at it this way, doing a rap song for McDonalds' contribution to the special olympics is just as bad as doing an ad for Firestone tires.

Basically the point is that selling out is selling out, and is not inherent to doing a spot for a corporation because all corporations aren't necessarily evil. For example, doing a rap song for Bic pencils about how cool writing can be is nowhere near as bad as doing a rap song for Puff Daddy about bayonetting babies.

This, and the situational justification of moral values are the two reasons why I think Sage is a moron in this thread. Like I said, so what if he was dead broke and starving. If someone offered him $100k to go stab blind people I'm sure he wouldn't do it. In other words, if he REALLY was against something, he wouldn't do it under any circumstances. If Sage was truly against "selling out" he would've just got a job like a regular functioning citizen of this country and feed himself that way. I just can't buy the "i was hungry" excuse.

That being said, his spot for ESPN was not a bad thing, and neither is Saul's ad for Nike. So I REALLY don't understand what Sage was bitching about in the first place.

Robust, seriously dude, I've never heard your shit (even though I've seen you live.. figure that one out?) so I really really don't mean any disrespect towards your artistic contributions but speaking soley on your online persona or whatever you pretty much need to shut the fuck up because everything you are saying is irrelevant to the thread and you are pulling a mindbender trying to name drop the things you've done and the limited success you've had and turning the thread into a discussion about your rap career (a-la mindbender).

where is that when lurkers attack picture....? :copy:

poopie boy · Post by **poopie boy** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:49 pm

at this chump (pun intended) calling me a lurker.

Robust · Post by **Robust** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:52 pm

thats pretty much wimpiest way to tell someone to shut the fuck up....EVER

"you pretty much need to shut the fuck".......

you pretty much need to mind your manners..

im sorry for distracting people with irrelevant information rather than staying focused on the fact that suge is wrong.....my bad.

peace

chump change · Post by **chump change** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:00 pm

poopie boy wrote: at this chump (pun intended) calling me a lurker.

ObeseJesus · Post by **ObeseJesus** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:02 pm

thread is shitty like some toilet paper

FYBS · Post by **FYBS** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:05 pm

you're tripping if you think that puma has never had shoes produced in a factory that has violated human rights.

Co-sign. Check the Puma / Adidas origin story.

Robust · Post by **Robust** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:10 pm

what does a hamburger have to do with this picture? i still dont get it.

Quotashun · Post by **Quotashun** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:11 pm

Robust wrote:

what does a hamburger have to do with this picture? i still dont get it.

Robust · Post by **Robust** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:14 pm

i know....ive failed to get the hamburger for a while now..please explain.

Xaula Zany · Post by **Xaula Zany** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:15 pm

poopie boy wrote: If Sage was truly against "selling out" he would've just got a job like a regular functioning citizen of this country and feed himself that way.

That's exactly what I did. I grabbed something as a job. I did many things to make money back then. I consider that spot for ESPN to be a job. They didn't use me for my celebrity status. They used me as part of their X-Games thing and they gave me a check for it.

I didn't stab blind people. I didn't pawn off my hard-earned reputation. I worked a gig.

I'm sorry you think i was "bitching" and I'm sorry you don't know what it was all about.

However, if I keep explaining myself that will just open up the door to me explaining myself in every single thread for the rest of my internet life. And that's not a promising future.

Saul is the homie. Slug is the homie. B Dolan is the homie. I love them all.

As far as my contribution to this thread on this forum, this is THE END.

Best wishes,
Fran

www.strangefamous.com

ric · Post by **ric** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:35 pm

Robust wrote:i know....ive failed to get the hamburger for a while now..please explain.

so the internet has its own language right? it started on aim with 'brb' and 'lol'
ok so a while later the language developed into meaning more specific things
when you say 'lol' that just means something is funny and when you say 'rofl' that means that you thought it was really super funny

so this progressed into different variations like 'rofl copter' or 'ROFL BURGER' to mean something was super duper funny but to also add some sense of cleverness and so now a significant portion of the language can be understood through pictorial means (like weve regressed back to cave/internet painting) and so

is a representation of "ROFL BURGER DUDE"

Robust · Post by **Robust** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:42 pm

thanks ric....thats all i wanted.....

and to prove suge was wrong.

to this video

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

too many quatables

peace

poopie boy · Post by **poopie boy** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:05 pm

ric wrote:
Robust wrote:i know....ive failed to get the hamburger for a while now..please explain.
so the internet has its own language right? it started on aim with 'brb' and 'lol'
ok so a while later the language developed into meaning more specific things
when you say 'lol' that just means something is funny and when you say 'rofl' that means that you thought it was really super funny

so this progressed into different variations like 'rofl copter' or 'ROFL BURGER' to mean something was super duper funny but to also add some sense of cleverness and so now a significant portion of the language can be understood through pictorial means (like weve regressed back to cave/internet painting) and so is a representation of "ROFL BURGER DUDE"

You're actually wrong, ROFL BURGER derived from the Steelers' quarterback Ben Rothlesberger. We would always mention him and soon his name just turned into ROFLBURGER and then we made an icon for it.

On another note,

at Sage saying "my internet life"

ric · Post by **ric** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:17 pm

thats even nerdier than i thought it was

Employee · Post by **Employee** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:18 pm

Xaula Zany wrote:
That's exactly what I did. I grabbed something as a job. I did many things to make money back then. I consider that spot for ESPN to be a job. They didn't use me for my celebrity status. They used me as part of their X-Games thing and they gave me a check for it.

I didn't stab blind people. I didn't pawn off my hard-earned reputation. I worked a gig.

Best wishes,
Fran

Employee · Post by **Employee** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:41 pm

Hayzoos · Post by **Hayzoos** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:09 pm

Do you think post like these are benefiting anyone or is this just a compulsion of yours to want to stay relevant at any cost?

Employee · Post by **Employee** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:14 pm

I think they're benefiting everyone, but specifically you. And, yes, I want to remain relevant at any and all cost.

Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis

Re: Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis

Re: Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis

Re: Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis