Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis
Moderators: TheBigSleep, stype_ones, Philaflava
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.
-
- Y.O.T.M.B.
- Posts: 39450
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:47 am
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
'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
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
You're in Heaven right now, God.
Create the universe you dream of.
http://www.mindbenderlovesyou.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Create the universe you dream of.
http://www.mindbenderlovesyou.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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).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
Last edited by ardamus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"tim dog! i hope he's scamming bitches in heaven.." - EichTurner
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?but doesn't the situation of the person involved in the act sometimes
change the morality of the act?
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......
dude is point right here.......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.
-
- The Mayor
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
ric wrote:im gonna step in here and shove that bitch chump change out of the way as the mediating philosophical one haha
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.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?
some people would and some people wouldnt and depending on your reasoning you could be very convincinghowever, 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?
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
-
- Posts: 4732
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:35 pm
Just out of curiosity, are you applying that just to this situation or do you truly believe it?ardamus wrote: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.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
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.battlecatmeowstab212 wrote:Just out of curiosity, are you applying that just to this situation or do you truly believe it?ardamus wrote: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.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
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?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corporate
cor
"tim dog! i hope he's scamming bitches in heaven.." - EichTurner
you're tripping if you think that puma has never had shoes produced in a factory that has violated human rights.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 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.
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:40 pm
- Contact:
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).
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).
-
- The Mayor
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
where is that when lurkers attack picture....?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).
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:40 pm
- Contact:
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
"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
-
- The Mayor
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
-
- Posts: 4238
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:37 pm
- Location: honolulu
-
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:14 pm
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.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.
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
so the internet has its own language right? it started on aim with 'brb' and 'lol'Robust wrote:i know....ive failed to get the hamburger for a while now..please explain.
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"
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
and to prove suge was wrong.
to this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQVTPuE_qRU
too many quatables
peace
-
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:40 pm
- Contact:
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.ric wrote:so the internet has its own language right? it started on aim with 'brb' and 'lol'Robust wrote:i know....ive failed to get the hamburger for a while now..please explain.
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"
On another note, at Sage saying "my internet life"
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
Re: Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis
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?
Re: Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis
I think they're benefiting everyone, but specifically you. And, yes, I want to remain relevant at any and all cost.