Purposely Planting the Seeds of War

Gerald Welch - ‘Snap Out of It’: CNN Host Likens Drawing the Prophet Muhammad to Saying the N-Word

Basically, CNN is saying that rape is bad, but why do woman have to dress provocatively.

Idiots.

Muhammad Rasheed - “The N-word gets treated the same way that depictions of Muhammad does,” Cuomo said. “We don’t say it because it’s offensive, not because legally I can’t.”

This is 100% correct.

Muhammad Rasheed - “You’re saying no cartoons — that to me is so much more destructive to a free society than alcohol,” she said.

He's not saying "no cartoons;" he's saying what's the point of making these cartoons if all they do is antagonize and offend people? What's the point of a movement designed solely to offend people? You HAVE the right to free speech. But what's the point using it in THIS way? 

Why not use it for something constructive, that will actually help improve the nation or something?

Bar Barian - She has the right to be a braying jackass, you have the right to call her on it.

Gerald Welch - But no one has the right to attack her, much less try to kill her.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're right. No one has the right to murder you for deliberately antagonizing them to a murderous fury. That's exactly right. You 100% have the right to stomp all over someone's sacred belief system, and patriotic symbols like flag burning, etc. The authorities have even determined you are allowed to strut around with loaded assault rifles into other peoples' neighborhoods. You can do it all you want to.

But why would you choose to? What's the point? So you have an excuse to go to war when they get fed up with the over-the-top levels of disrespect?

Gerald Welch - There is that argument again. The woman was raped, it was wrong, but WHY WAS SHE DRESSED SO PROVOCATIVELY?

Sorry, but there is no excuse for attempted murder no matter how you dress it up.

I thought you weren't following any non-Legacy Book Series posts?

Muhammad Rasheed - Gerald wrote: "There is that argument again. The woman was raped, it was wrong, but WHY WAS SHE DRESSED SO PROVOCATIVELY?"

That's not the argument. I'm actually probing into why you want to antagonize people. You're not answering. If you know drawing this image offends people, why make a big publicized political show of doing it? And why do you sign off on it? Why DON'T you use the 'n-word?'

Gerald wrote: "Sorry, but there is no excuse for attempted murder no matter how you dress it up."

I didn't dress up anything. I 100% agree that no one has the right to murder you just because you deliberately and willfully disrespected them. Nobody does.

Gerald wrote: "I thought you weren't following any non-Legacy Book Series posts?"

???

Based on what?

Gerald Welch - Based on you telling me that you got too upset last time and therefore would only be reading my posts if they were related to Legacy.

Your question is flawed. If you believe that people have to figure out if anyone can possibly be offended before you say or, gasp...DRAW something (partial nudity in comics, for instance) then you're missing the point of freedom of speech.

I have a question for you; it's not only Mohammed that isn't supposed to be depicted, it's any prophet, right? So why isn't Islam upset about statues and paintings of Jesus?

Bar Barian - I would also have no issue with a group of muslims or atheists getting together to rag on the xtian extremists and feature a showing of the Piss Christ, although I wouldn't go to it, I find it offensive. I'm not even a xtian. Part of the price of living in America is tolerating views you find offensive, even hateful and in poor taste. It's not for everyone, some people cannot live in that kind of society and should not venture here.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gerald Welch wrote: "Based on you telling me that you got too upset last time and therefore would only be reading my posts if they were related to Legacy."

I don't remember saying that. Was that an inference?

Gerald wrote: "Your question is flawed. If you believe that people have to figure out if anyone can possibly be offended..."

This is intellectually dishonest. What rational American adult isn't aware that nonbelievers drawing filthy cartoons of the Islamic founder prophet are offensive to Muslims? 

Gerald wrote: "...before you say or, gasp...DRAW something (partial nudity in comics, for instance) then you're missing the point of freedom of speech."

If I draw or say something that I didn't know/intend to be offensive, I will apologize and stop it unless I'm deliberately trying to antagonize the person for inherently hostile reasons. 

Gerald wrote: "I have a question for you; it's not only Mohammed that isn't supposed to be depicted, it's any prophet, right? So why isn't Islam upset about statues and paintings of Jesus?"

Because those are the sacred relics of your own belief systems. When you draw Muhammad, are you creating a religious relic as part of your religion? No. You're literally attacking me. You obviously didn't think that question through.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bar wrote: "Part of the price of living in America is tolerating views you find offensive..."

This is a logical and common sense viewpoint. It SHOULD go without saying that the kind of person who will get upset enough to actually try to kill you for drawing a cartoon isn't logical nor operating out of common sense.

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you feel when I get so upset over those white cop killings that I treat all of you like you will lynch-me-by-cop at any moment? It's not fair, right? "Not All White People," right? 

I'm a Muslim. Even though I absolutely get offended at those cartoons, I would never try to kill you over it. That's psychotic. And I'm not 'different' or a special Muslim of some kind either. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and them.

Man, His Mind, & The Universe

Reg Clinton Brown - New Scientific Study Confirms Universe Is A Hologram

I DISAGREE...

But in my opinion, our perspective compared to the massive nature of the Universe and multiple dimensions in space and limited linear time then yes that "hologram" would be our "insect perspective" compared to the true huge reality of the Universe and what's in it instead of what we just see in front of us with our basic senses.
Only the Spirit (energy) being freed from its Vessel (body) can possibly see beyond the 3 dimensional reality (hologram).

Loukas Papas - These losers are so full of SSHhhhhhhhhh I can't wait til a meteor lands on their 3 d @$e$

Reg Clinton Brown - I didn't even read the article just the headline and I'm tired of people using the word "hologram" or "matrix" because we are NOT plugged in into a machine to dream our reality.

But I'd rather say that our interaction with the 3 dimensional world is just a "smaller perspective" to the bigger picture.

DK Knighton - Please let me know when they find this universal Hologram projector.
Because until they do it seems these guys are smoking some strong stuff.

Muhammad Rasheed - Reg wrote: "...because we are NOT plugged in into a machine to dream our reality."

It's a machine made out of bio-tech tissue, not metallic machinery like in the movies. The spirit is the real world, while this terrestrial realm is only a finite machine programmed to test the sentient beings of the universe.

Reg Clinton Brown - LOL @ DK Knighton exactly... I hate when people wanna talk about something deep and just throw around inappropriate words like "hologram" or "matrix" cuz they popped too many "RED PILLS" Bye Morpheus   :)

Reg Clinton Brown - Yes, Muhammad I know we are "Bio-Mechanical" organisms that contain a "Life Force/ Soul" that is presently experiencing their 3 dimensional reality within a multidimensional existence.... still not a "hologram" lol

Muhammad Rasheed - You're letting the semantic choices get you into a tizzy and letting it distract you from the significance of the correlations. It's fascinating to me, but philosophical stuff isn't for everyone. If you allow the package to prevent you from enjoying the food within it, that's something you just missed out on and for the next person to pick up.

Reg Clinton Brown - Ok, do I need an interpreter to break down your comment Muhammad?

The word "hologram" means "to project light and it's colors into an image giving the illusion of a 3 dimensional object(s) or person(s)." ...etc

We are not plugged into a "machine" but rather our Souls are energies that are interconnected to all the energies in the Universe. When the body dies, the soul moves on elsewhere since matter changes form but never destroyed whereas energies are kinetic and travels extremely fast. So our current lifetime "experience" may be a "projection of the 3 dimensional experience into our brains that interprets that outside stimuli within our inner soul." and if energies are as old if not older than the Universe itself then that means our Souls are OLDER than our actual body age. Interpret that in any form you wish.

Muhammad Rasheed - It doesn't have to be a technically accurate hologram, as it was used as an analogy. Again you are getting upset over the semantics and side-stepping the real point, even if the direction of the article's author is off skew. The analogy still points to the ancients being right about this world being the illusion and the spirit being real. That's clearly the important part. Whether they worded it in modern sci-fi type talk isn't the point at all, and to harp on that only serves as a distraction. To me.

Reg Clinton Brown - It's not a distraction, people need to learn with specifics and not getting confused with science fiction (the Matrix films, for example) that were inspired by real life ancient knowledge, mysticism and spiritualism that was here at our disposal since the beginning of time.

Even though movies and television programs do subconsciously attempt to "enlighten" to masses of this knowledge in the form of creative fiction it also causes "confusion" of people not knowing if that knowledge was imaginary or real since in the beginning of creation.

People sometimes don't see that religion and science actually compliment each other.

Muhammad Rasheed - If the analogy helps people get interested in learning about it, drawing them in to the subject, then there is no harm. How many people enter fields of endeavor because they were inspired by a technically inaccurate film, like King Kong or something equally unbelievable? I think your stance is too strict.

Reg Clinton Brown - And science fiction can help the masses in thinking "outside of the box" beforehand so when that fiction is proven possible or true in the real world then it won't be too much of a shock to the blindfold being removed. That blindfold causes limited thinking and that's the true "hologram".

Muhammad Rasheed - If I don't know anything about the subject, and out the gate you want to bombard me with technical jargon and high-level concepts, it will function as inaccessible, and turn people away. The pop cultural references function as icing to lure 'em in. People often have life-long loves for science because they found some silly novel or show that they loved as a child to inspire.

Reg Clinton Brown - Muhammad, I'll be real with you... I have experienced Lucid Dreams and sometimes keep a log of it written. It seems that once I realize that I'm dreaming within the dream I can do ANYTHING I want, including jumping off tall buildings or cliffs and landing softly on my feet... fighting off an entire army of demons by myself holding a tree stick that turned into a Bo Staff...flying... and even punching and breaking bricks in a wall one by one with my bare hands. I was in control. Now that in itself was incredible but I can't figure out if that dream was just my subconscious imagination at work or was my soul at a different place while my body was asleep. So yeah, maybe I am being too "strict" with the analogy.

DK Knighton - Reg bottom line is, like so many of us we are tired of so called scientis trying explain what they'er unable to explain.

I mean it's OK for scientis to just say "Hey, we just don't know".
Scientis can't accept that there is a Most High and that he has revealed some of what he did and hid a lot of what he did.

Reg Clinton Brown - I agree for the most part, some things scientists are on point with it when it's applied and proven BUT when it comes to things like the "Big Bang" theory or things dealing with types of energies involved with the consciousness of the Soul and Spirituality or the Origin Of Creation in a scientist's viewpoint is ALL THEORETICAL and I give those theories some consideration while giving the "side eye".

Walt Huffman - Read The "Galactic Milieu Trilogy" and its prequels. Then read The philosophy of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Reg Clinton Brown. I believe it will inspire you.

Reg Clinton Brown - Thanks Walt, I'll look those up. I was wondering when you'd jump into this type of conversation. Does those books (both fiction and philosophical) deal directly with aspects of Life Forces and/ or Lucid Dreams vs Reality?

Muhammad Rasheed - Reg wrote: "...BUT when it comes to things like the 'Big Bang' theory..."

Big Bang theory absolutely supports the biblical origin of the universe. That's why when the 20th century scientists "just went with it" they made great strides in physics. By contrast the modern scientists, who hate Big Bang's implications and waste all of their time trying to disprove it, are stagnant.

Walt Huffman - They deal with the fact that mind direcly influences matter and how every object in the universe, wether considered sentient or not has an amount of energy with which the mind may interact. The key concept is de Chardin's idea that all mind and every object in the universe contributes to the univesal "noosphere" or the field of vital energy that gives rise to ever more complex intellect. Chardin believes that everthing has some measure of life force and lucid dreaming is just another aspect of consciouness and is not mutually exclusive with life force but the same "kettle of fish".

Reg Clinton Brown - Well yes Muhammad, the "Big Bang" theory is an example of how science and religion does compliment each other but only if you read the Bible and most Holy Books in a "contextual" mindset instead of "literal".

Meaning, if you look at Chapter 1 Genesis, it states "literally" that "first there was darkness and then there was light and the light is good" OR "the Earth was created in 6 days"... in a "contextual" point of view a "Day" in God's perspective could be "6 Million Years" or "6 Billion Years" or "6 Trillion Years".

Also scientists also based the Big Bang theory from monitoring the positions of the galaxies from telescopes (Hubble) showing that the galaxies are spreading apart and then eventually gravity will pull all the galaxies together and implode into the "BIG CRUNCH" which would/ could restart another "Big Bang" in the super distant future. Pattern repeats...

Reg Clinton Brown - So Walt, pretty much that can imply that if we were able to open up our Chakras beyond the basic 3 Chakras most use to higher points of the Kundalini all the way up to the 7th level then we could open our "Third Eye" through spiritual awareness through prayer and meditation.

Kundalini

Sometimes it feels like my states of dreaming in my sleep acts like a form of mediation or prayer connecting your energy to the Universe outside of your body so in essence "closer to God" or the "God Energy" that connects everything in matter and consciousness.

Muhammad Rasheed - Reg wrote: "Well yes Muhammad, the 'Big Bang' theory is an example of how science and religion does compliment each other but only if you read the Bible and most Holy Books in a 'contextual' mindset instead of 'literal.'"

Sacred scripture is multi-layered, and designed to be understood on a basic surface level, and at higher levels of thought based on the individual reader's maturity. All texts are to be understood "in context."

Reg wrote: "Meaning, if you look at Chapter 1 Genesis, it states 'literally' that 'first there was darkness and then there was light and the light is good'"

One would think that there would be a great deal of light emanating from a "big bang" after an impossible level of mysterious darkness.

Reg wrote: "OR 'the Earth was created in 6 days'... in a 'contextual' point of view a 'Day' in God's perspective could be '6 Million Years' or '6 Billion Years' or '6 Trillion Years.'"

The original word in Hebrew -- the sister equivalent to the Arabic word used for the same concept in the Qur'an -- is "youm." This word is a term used for an indeterminate, but steady and regular, amount of time expressed in the abstract. When God originally told Moses He created the earth in six "youm," no one was under the delusion that He meant six twenty-four hour periods. It was only the English translators, who only THOUGHT they understood what the texts they were guarding meant, who were responsible for the flaw.

Walt Huffman - The concept of the "noosphere" makes such distinctions immaterial. Life forces and lucid dreams are all aspects of de Chardin's "noosphere". There is no vs. reality because they are all aspects of reality. Everything in the multiverse posseses some amount of life force wether sentient or not. The noosphere is the collective life force of everything in the universe. As our population becomes more extensive the noosphere becomes more complex. Our brains, our "souls" if you will become complex. We are electical creatures and the field of the noosphere becomes more sublimely intertwined and we evolve mentally and spiritually. Our brains and nerves are chemically and electrically active. Add enough electrical nodes and intelligence and spiritually manifest in greater and greater "Fields of Spatial Interaction". (Also the Maori believe "Dream Time" is more signifigant than "Real" time). Electrical and other esoteric energies are measurable and can affect the "Real" universe. And "Dreams" are definitely electrical energy. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is definitely worth investigating.

Reg Clinton Brown - YES, exactly Muhammad so you OVERSTAND what I'm saying then! My Brotha!   :)

Reg Clinton Brown - Interesting.... Muhammad and Walt feel free to discuss more amongst yourselves. I'm going to log off for awhile and do some research.

I'll be back later. Thanks

Muhammad Rasheed - "The Galactic Milieu Series of science fiction novels by Julian May is the sequel (and prequel) to her Saga of Pliocene Exile. It comprises four novels: Intervention, Jack the Bodiless, Diamond Mask and Magnificat. The series involves several religious and philosophical themes, including references to the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin."

Muhammad Rasheed - "'God writes straight with crooked lines.' This proverb summarises the plot of the whole series, in which tragedies and disasters (particularly the Metapsychic Rebellion) result in ultimate good."

Muhammad Rasheed - "The series includes multiple references to the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, including the concepts of the Omega Point and the Noosphere, which are applied to May's description of galactic mental Unity. The series title echoes Teilhard's 1957 book Le Milieu Divin."

Walt Huffman - Muhammad Rasheed I would like to discuss theses ideas further with you and Reg Clinton Brown. Intellects of any orientation are the meat and drink of my existence.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man. He conceived the idea of the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving) and developed Vladimir Vernadsky's concept of noosphere."

A European philosopher born in the late 1800s who believed the universe was evolving [becoming] in a linear fashion towards a greater, ultimate state, is my ideological enemy.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's the frame work skeleton of the pseudo-scientist racist view that humans evolved from primitive brown spiritual people UP to sophisticated white scientific people. I am not surprised to find others of that ilk fascinated and expanding upon the topic in their own works. I am distrustful of the concepts that even remotely sound like it.

Walt Huffman - Muhammad, why would he be your enemy? Perfection of consciousness and the Omega Point would be the ultimate achievenent.

Muhammad Rasheed - Paradise, granted by the One God who was pleased that you met the requirements for such, would be the ultimate achievement. A human civilization designed to optimally allow humans to achieve that state, would rank second.

What de Chardin was dreaming about represented a white man's fantasy that makes me instinctually distrustful based on the normal route of intellectual thought in those old circles. That's why I recognize the flavor of that particular taint.

But I'm open to hearing a logical counter-argument as to why I shouldn't feel that way. Please provide it. Thus far I am impressed with your passion.

Walt Huffman - Muhammad you are distrustful of mental evolution? This has nothing to do with skin color. How about Malama Johnson in May's books.

Walt Huffman - Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The Omega point is essentially oneness with the ultimate mind (God) of the universe.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Mental evolution" is an individual's walk, grounded in a deliberate, open and honest quest for an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual higher IQ. How does it function in the series? With standard telekinesis, telepathy, and clairvoyance?

Muhammad Rasheed - Walt wrote: "Religion and science are not mutually exclusive."

I never said they weren't. But de Chardin's concepts certainly aren't 'science.' They're a belief system built upon an arrogant, wishful thinking model of a newly growing racist view of world origin. If the white man represents the highest evolved human to date, then these kinds of concepts are the logical extension of that fully-fleshed out model.

Walt wrote: "The Omega point is essentially oneness with the ultimate mind (God) of the universe."

God is One, and truly unique by definition. How could such a thing as a joining with oneness possibly be? Tell me.

Muhammad Rasheed - (i recognize that i might be coming across as harsh in this discussion, Walt. please understand that it is only the 'sound' of my writing voice, and is not an attack against you. I'm just challenging it to test the strength of your argument. Peace)

Muhammad Rasheed - Reg wrote: “Muhammad, I'll be real with you... I have experienced Lucid Dreams…It seems that once I realize that I'm dreaming within the dream I can do ANYTHING I want […] So yeah, maybe I am being too 'strict' with the analogy.”

From the examples shown in the life of the biblical Joseph (may the peace of God be upon the prophet), I believe the human dream is more than just sleepy movie images. Dreams can tap into spirit. It is not insignificant that Joseph conspicuously didn’t go around interpreting any and everybody’s dreams, nor did everybody ask. Only certain people who had certain types of dreams. This is the clue for how they actually function. Most dreams ARE just sleepy movie images, but sometimes… for reasons known only to God… they tap into the Otherside to give us a message for something we need to prepare for in our lives (the dreams Joseph interpreted were always precognitive in nature).

Now is it possible that the people who have lucid dreams have actually experienced an altered state of consciousness, and are exploring another realm, the fabric of which being fascinatingly pliable to the explorer’s mind? Sure. 2% of the population actually does have the ability to have an altered state of consciousness without the aid of hallucinogens. It’s also possible that the people who have lucid dreams have only partially awakened, enabling them to perform mental tricks they wouldn’t if they were fully asleep.

But is there a way to tell either way? I don’t think so. Consequently, until our science/tech evolves to the point where we can test such things accurately and obtain definitive results, dreaming stories fail to move me outside of what the prophet was able to do with the permission of his Lord Most High.

Reg Clinton Brown - *reads comments*

Interesting, while I was researching ya'll were providing material. Thanks

Good reading right here  :)

Reg Clinton Brown - Good breakdown on "Lucid Dreaming" Muhammad, I've heard this before. Over the years I've been connecting a few dots based on what I've experienced, to what was being taught, to my own private research over the years with various books. There were a few times that the dream felt like an "out of body experience" in real time... like my body was asleep but my spirit was elsewhere similar to the concept of "Remote Viewing" which I read up on a few years back when I was reading books of an ethereal nature. I use to say it's like my soul was attached to my body like a stretched out "astral umbilical cord" then later I read books that described it that way and was called "Astral Projection".

Some dreams are just simple dreams but what I just described didn't feel like that.

Reg Clinton Brown - ALSO, when I watched that movie Inception a few years back I said to myself did Nolan experience Lucid Dreams too?

Because even though I didn't care for the movie's convoluted story of dream layers upon layers, I understood what they were trying to put across.

Reg Clinton Brown - Muhammad, I should pick up the Bible and re-read the Book Of Joseph.

See Also:  Awakening the Atrophied Eye: A Personal Quest to Find the Followers of Second Sight

Harvey's Think Like a Man Book - Why All the Hate?

Muhammad Rasheed - I’m surprised to see the vitriol spewed against Steve Harvey’s book "Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man." I don’t understand the point of the negativity since the book is just composed of a bunch of common sense items related to women on the dating scene based on how they come across to men in their dress, attitude, how soon and under what circumstances they allow him to be intimate with them, etc. It dismantles a lot of ole wives’ tales that women in general, and black women specifically, have been following traditionally when it comes to building a long-lasting relationship with men, from Steve Harvey’s personal experiences and insights.

Would there be individual experiences or opinions that don’t match Harvey’s insights? Sure. All self-help books are like that, being as they are observances from that individual author. Does that mean that they are all worthless? Of course not, and neither is Harvey’s book. A lot of people need to read the benefit of another’s insight on these matters because it’s not like you learn that stuff in school, or have the blessing of being taught those things by parents. Most people learn this stuff in the school of hard knocks, on the fly, and can use any little bit of insight so they lessen the chances of relationship failure. Badmouthing this book doesn’t make a lot of sense unless your goal is to reveal yourself to be a certain type of person... the one that she actually needs to look out for. If the guy is not a social predator, and is looking for a fulfilling and successful relationship with his girl, then he doesn't have any reason to bad mouth this book.

Psy Kyomynde Yobutishyne - Nah...what's ANNOYING is when women who obviously have yet to have an original thought attempt to categorize me based on this book written by a stand-up comedian as if it is THE defining text on male behavior. I mean, they effectively eliminate themselves as a potential mate by that very act. But, all the blahblah that follows as I depart is something I can do without.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's because, after having bumped their heads often against that relationship wall only to end up in yet another bad relationship, reading something like that that finally gives some kind of insight that will actually help in some way will make them feel the same sudden sense of empowerment that people feel when they convert to a new faith for the first time. You have to wait for that enthusiasm to level off. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Harvey must be a very clever and concise writer.

Psy Kyomynde Yobutishyne - I'm willing to bet the book has the same fanbase as Real Scandal of Love & the Game.

Courtney Perry - Muhammad Rasheed you're so smart!

Jeremy Travis - The issue I've most heard women say about his book is that it advises that women give into the mannish behavior of men rather than men being less lootish. It seems that despite there being any good points in these books, they all seem to suggest how women should adapt men as opposed to men adapting to women, or the two finding a happy medium.

Also, Steve comes off as misogynistic at times.

Muhammad Rasheed - I can see that. He's a self-confessed Christian who takes a generally traditionalist POV on the issue, which also happens to line up in many areas to the instinctual way the two sexes respond to each other naturally. It wouldn't surprise me that the modern progressive that supports a moving away from those traditional roles, and even acknowledges the legitimacy of alternate genders, would have a problem with the book and would consider it a relic of old fashioned and primitive values we need to get away from.

Jeremy Travis - Sure, there's that angle. But consider how rape has typically been handled. Usually a girl/woman is told how to avoid being raped, she's told to take self-defense classes or to carry pepper spray or a weapon or to not walk alone in dimly lit places or to put her keys between her knuckles, etc. That's been the standard practice for decades now. And it's not incorrect, those things can prevent women from being raped. But there has been little to no focus on teach boys/men to NOT RAPE. The same thing applies to Steve's advice, he's quick to tell women how to avoid the things men do or say just to have sex but I never hear him address men and say 'stop saying and doing things just to get a woman to have sex with you'. Why NOT teach from a perspective of 'Act Like a Man, Think Like (Feel?) a Lady'? THAT could solve a lot of problems as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - I wouldn't consider a critique that basically boils down to "Why did you write about this instead of writing about something else?" to be one that should be taken seriously. "This book addressed this XYZ that you chose, but I think it fails because you should've done research and written it about ABC instead."

That's coming across as nonsense to me. People write nonfiction based on their own insights and areas of expertise. Also the self-help market appeals to women more anyway. Would investing time into a book that scolds men for their dog behavior be a good business choice?

Jeremy Travis - It would if it's necessary. He CAN write about what he wants to write about, but if the problem is more about doggish men, and less about the women who fall for them, then maybe he should address doggish men. If not, then I don't think he is confronting the root of the problem.

Muhammad Rasheed - He's writing about his perception of the issue based on his own insights from personal experience. To ask him why isn't he seeing it from a different perspective, and writing it from someone else's insights instead, is still a nonsense critique. The complaint should be directed to a wider platform... by enough voices to let interested writers know that the effort maybe worthwhile... instead of complaining that a particular author didn't write something different from what he did write.

Jeremy Travis - I don't think that holds completely. While I do agree that any individual can write whatever, to always put the onus on women is still problematic. Sure, that's HIS perspective, but that doesn't mean that what he's saying will solve the problem. So it's not a matter of can he say it or not and moreso about whether what he's saying is as effective as he or his fans would like to believe. My personal opinion of him is that of a serial womanizer who MAY have learned from his mistakes, but I find his credibility lacking when he's on his third marriage, his previous marriages ended because of his infidelity, and he still seems to think that it is women who aren't doing what they need to do to to avoid men like him.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “I don't think that holds completely. While I do agree that any individual can write whatever, to always put the onus on women is still problematic.”

The book is specifically talking to the woman. That’s the audience. “Want to do XYZ? HERE’S HOW!” That’s the format of the book. To suddenly veer off and talk to someone else mid-stride would be sloppy writing. That would be problematic.

Jeremy Travis wrote: “Sure, that's HIS perspective, but that doesn't mean that what he's saying will solve the problem.”

Strawman? Not all women like the book either. For those who share Harvey’s values and follow his advice, they very well may find the positive changes they were looking for. Are any other how-tos judged by whether they “solved the problem?” How is that a remotely serious/realistic critique towards a book? “Meh. It was okay. It didn’t implement World Peace though. Fail. Libertarianism is a failure too because no world leader has used its principles in their government.”

Jeremy Travis wrote: “So it's not a matter of can he say it or not and moreso about whether what he's saying is as effective as he or his fans would like to believe.”

All how-tos represent the advice of the author from specific techniques that work for them, or are from their own personal insights. Results may vary because each person is different. Who doesn’t know that? I like how all criticisms to successful black products ALWAYS operate from the “New Nigga Rule” theory. “Oh, we’ll invent a whole new rule to judge your uppity shit by, nigga!”

Jeremy Travis wrote: “My personal opinion of him is that of a serial womanizer who MAY have learned from his mistakes, but I find his credibility lacking when he's on his third marriage, his previous marriages ended because of his infidelity, and he still seems to think that it is women who aren't doing what they need to do to to avoid men like him.”

This is a genetic fallacy, bypassing his book’s actual content to attack him because of his past relationship choices. Interesting considering all of his insights come directly from his personal experiences.

Jeremy Travis - OK, in general, what would be good, valid reasons to be dismissive of someone's self-help books and the advice within them?

Muhammad Rasheed - A caucasian, virgin comic book fanboy from a small town in Alabama, who's never left his mom's basement, writes a how-to on how to be a ladies' man in the African-American Chicago club scene.

You may safely dismiss that one. Feel free to analyze it as to why.

Jeremy Travis - OK, I get your point.

Pulling Ahead of the Pack

Chavis BigC-Carpenter - Byron Allen Slams President Obama: ‘A White President in Blackface’

Byron Allen??? Byron Allen bruh!?!?Of all people, you calling somebody an Uncle Tom!?!?

Jay Mac - Who is he?

Cordie Dillard Jr - He is a black television producer/show creator.

Cordie Dillard Jr - He does pretty well to be as low key as he is.

Jay Mac - Ok

LaVerne Mack - Currently he hosts a late night comedy show, Comics Unleashed.

Paul Daniel - Lmao! This guy has a lot of nerve to be using words like that. When he "competed" with Arsenio, they said the same thing (sell out) about him! Isn't he suing Al Sharpton and ComCast for something?

Chavis BigC-Carpenter - Byron Allen Net Worth

Muhammad Rasheed - Arsenio Hall Net Worth

Muhammad Rasheed - Puts the "competed" and "he does pretty well" comments in better perspective, I think...

Muhammad Rasheed - Basically Byron is the GOP, and wants his precious, precious tax breaks, so of course he would consider the President's policies to be hateful.

Chavis BigC-Carpenter - Byron Allen's attempt at competing with the Arsenic Hall show was an epic fail. Byron Allen is corny and has always been. Now, Byron got connected in the industry behind the scenes, and had more success in the long run. But, I have never seen Byron Allen as a reflection of or as a spokesperson for Black America. Ya dig!

Muhammad Rasheed - As an entertainer the competition was a joke, but as businessmen Byron proved to be the Alpha Dog. And entertainment is definitely a business after all. Byron Allen won that rivalry, hands down.

Muhammad Rasheed - He even well-exceeded the success of Eddie, who was a far more talented entertainer than both Byron and Arsenio.

Eddie Murphy Net Worth

Muhammad Rasheed - Rivalry results:

Arsenio Hall - net worth $5 million
Eddie Murphy - net worth $85 million

Byron Allen - net worth $300 million

Whatever we all thought about Byron Allen back in the day, he certainly turned out to be the winner of that three-man rivalry. lol

His political stance is the typical one of the top wealthy, high financial IQ type dude. He definitely hangs out with those GOP asshats since he talks like them. [***EDIT*** I take this back]

Jerry Lee Brice - The general public is not knowing! LOL...

Jauna Crear-Esq - Who is Byron Allen?

Muhammad Rasheed - He used to be a comedian in Murphy and Hall's peer group, who eventually became a successful producer businessman in the industry.

Muhammad Rasheed - People used to compare him and Hall all the time, and when the latter got his original show, it looked like (from the outside) that Allen was the loser of the 3-way-rivalry all around. Especially after his own show attempts failed quickly.

Milton Davis - Byron Allen invested behind the scene. He became an owner instead of an actor. He turned out to be the smartest of the three.

Muhammad Rasheed - He currently has a racial discrimination suit out against Comcast, suing them for $20 billion or something like that (apparently they tried to block him from making some more power moves on that typical Good Ole Boy bullsh*t). I hope he wins it. That will be an amazing precedent on the legal books. They wouldn't eff with us too much more after that!

Rodney Wyatt - I've read somewhere that he has a good chance at winning that suit.

Muhammad Rasheed - He clearly knows what he's doing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chavis BigC-Carpenter wrote: "But, I have never seen Byron Allen as a reflection of or as a spokesperson for Black America. Ya dig!"

Well, just because he doesn't talk like the Hollywood Shuffle stereotype of what black people are "supposed" to be like, doesn't mean he's not black. He's clearly a black man. He's "Black Wall Street" in the flesh. He learned what he needed to learn in order to live a different way than what the liberal-democratic, pro-marxist black leaders told us we're supposed to be like. Being poor, and "hood" and "ghetto" and "jive turkey, ya dig!" doesn't encompass the whole of what being a black person is. Your race doesn't limit you to what you can achieve or what you may think or what you may feel about your existence, the way our ideological enemy wants to think.

I think (pulling back from my earlier comments about how he talks like the GOP folk) that he's signed up on Cornel West and Tavis Smiley's anti-Obama campaign, maybe because he does believe in extreme leftist views. Or maybe he's using it as a screen to hide his "precious, precious tax breaks" real reason he's being anti-Obama. Who knows?

Muhammad Rasheed - In any event, I'm not a proponent of proclaiming a black person isn't a "real" black person because they appear to subscribe to some artificial ideology I don't approve of. Who am I??? That's very insulting and crazy to me. Slavery is over. I'm slave to no man nor yet to no man's narrow-minded little box they want to fit me in. You don't do that to people.

Respect peoples' freedom.

Raymond Gardner - Not to mention he got the rap of being the sellout of the three. No hood cred. With that worth, who needs hood cred?! lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Did you see the vid of Eddie at the 60th Oscars? He gave up his vision for black empowerment in the industry because white critics attacked him, and then he started doing all of those shit movies, dancing like a puppet on the strings of his white billionaire "friends." That's what "selling out" looks like by definition.

Meanwhile, Byron is suing a white super-corporation for $20 billion for racial discrimination.

"Hood cred" my ass.

Raymond Gardner - Yeah I saw it... I remember we had a nice discussion about Harlem Nights on a separate thread awhile back, and how he got vilified for it despite it being beloved by black audiences. But when you boil the whole story down like you did right above, good lort!

Muhammad Rasheed - Interestingly, Byron Allen is performing major power moves... the same type of true player business moves that Tyler Perry performs... and once again my people are blind to what that actually MEANS, while they alienate the man and question his "blackness" and call him a sellout, etc. lol It's crazy. No doubt it's a part of the enemy's brainwashing, that the thing we need the most for achieving socio-political freedom, we scorn it like it is poisonous. Like a damn badge of honor and pride. You can't tell me that isn't a curse upon my people; a mental bondage. 

Who gives a shit about this man's politics, or Tyler Perry's choice of worship, etc.? Why is that relevant in any way, shape or form? To anything? It pisses me off so much to see you act so shallow-minded and petty over that stuff. Everything you claim you want, you push it away. lol It's ridiculously comical and tragic by turns, really. 

Tell me this: When Spike Lee went to the Who's Who of black stars to get funding for his Malcolm X film, do you think it should've mattered whether any of the potential investors actually agreed with Malcolm's message/vision/worldview? Do you think that should have been relevant at all as to whether they wanted to help the director with his project? Why or why not?

Jerry Lee Brice - Look into who Cleveland O'neal is as well...

Raymond Gardner - It is definitely crazy -- I can't stand Tyler Perry movies most of the time (but remain willing to at least try some occasionally out of loyalty), but I have the UTMOST respect for his business and empire, because he's filling a content AND employment/empowerment void that is always lacking in that industry.

Raymond Gardner - To your point, Muhammad, White America was perfectly willing to accept Mormon Mitt Romney as president, despite the fact that most Evangelicals consider it a cult and look on it with disdain. 

When push comes to shove though, they circle the wagons. And Romney's character/faith/background be damned -- they wanted one of their own and that's all they needed. A lesson to be learned there for us.

Muhammad Rasheed - Honestly, that's one of those times when we seriously need to adhere to the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" moments. If we don't like the content of his art, leave it alone and look at something we DO like. What possible good will come from filling up the Internet with negativity about this black man, especially for the creators among us who hope to see our properties in a bigger, more lucrative medium? Have we NO foresight into the bigger picture? None? We don't see the possibility that the tech-savvy Tyler Perry just might come across some evil rant in a blog somewhere and 100% justifiably be like, "Fuck your li'l superhero comic." lol

Muhammad Rasheed - 'Cause I know I sure as fuck would. hahahaha You'd better bank on his "turn the other cheek" Christian bag. hahaha

Muhammad Rasheed - "Super Successful Black Venture Capitalist Tells Black Community to Kiss His Black Ass with Tears in His Eye While He Says It."

lol Y'all are stupid as fuck. hahahahaha

Muhammad Rasheed - Good luck with that self-sabotage bullshit! *waves*

Muhammad Rasheed - Will Smith HEARD you, and wanted the same thing YOU want. He’s a huge fan of genre fiction, and loves that superhero stuff. He is a black superhero. So he and his family invested in their own company and tried to make After Earth a springboard into big money power moves, too. The Hollywood studio cartel SAW it coming, and sabotaged it out the gate.

Do you know how you sounded when you joined those assholes in helping talk shit about that project he put together to help YOU?

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, I know what it sounded like to me.

And then you started making fun of his children, and questioning him and his wife's parenting and shit. Really? To the guy who was actively trying to set up a company to bring your black speculative fiction properties to the silver screen?

Muhammad Rasheed - Wake up, please.

William Satterwhite - "I think Byron owns a network or something.“

Technically it's more of a production company that produces a bunch of shows in bulk for first run syndication- I think there might be an online streaming component but there isn't an actual TV channel in the classic sense. That said, that is still a major move

Muhammad Rasheed - And Lord knows what he actually plans to do with this suit money it looks like he very well may win.

John Sanford - Whoa, really? The Real People guy? Wow!

Ashanti Ghania - Which goes to show you that it's the producers, not the talent, that makes the real money.

Muhammad Rasheed - Right. It's textbook business. The talent represents the product in his company, and his job is to buy product as cheap as he can get it, and make his profits by selling it marked up. His initial goal to be profitable is to pay the talent as little as he can get away with (if he owns a slave ship or an abortion clinic, he'll get his product for free). So the wealthier the talent is, you get a good look into how much the suits behind the scenes get. Mike Tyson, for example, grossed $300 million for 1996 alone. 

See Also:  A Real Black President

Risk Managing the Stars

Muhammad Rasheed - I’m an advocate for celebrities being able to keep their personal lives to themselves if they are concerned about that, and don’t believe in the intrusive sleaze of the paparazzi. I understand the enormous pressure they face in the public eye; not only feeling the need to perform at a high-level for their family and friends, but by agreeing to enter the limelight, they also agreed to give a piece of themselves to their True Fans. These are the dedicated members of the public who hold up the celebrity with their fortune and fame. The True Fan reasonably expects them to maintain the standard that they won them over by.

I know it can be hard psychologically. Normal blokes often buckle under the mundane pressures of life, so it’s not surprising at all that famous people fall out of the sky to crash and burn without making it to the stardom they were reaching for. Normal folk usually self-medicate, abusing their bodies with mind-numbing substances to get through the daily grind, so of course the celebrity usually will, too.

For people that aspire to that high-level game, I think it will be worth taking the time to work on a realistic risk management plan for dealing with the super-pressures of stardom. It’s better to prepare and plan upfront with tedious detailed “What if--?” scenarios, than it is to go through the trauma of repair in the aftermath of a devastating crash & burn.

Did You Really Try to Fight It?

Muhammad Rasheed - Listen, I KNOW you didn’t start the fire. You want me to place all the blame and all my anger towards the long dead generations that first kindled it. You also want me to look the other way while you get snug-as-a-bug in their legacy cottage they left you while continuing to fan the flames (albeit not as vigorously as they used to fan them), pretending I’m not getting scorched and that it isn’t really hot.

I don’t want you to give up your damn cabin. I really don’t. What I want is for you to get out of my way, and stop trying to keep me from toppling over the old rusty barriers to me building my own. Move over. There’s plenty of room.

Do you think that it will somehow be less snug & comfy in there with the knowledge that I have my own cabin that’s just as good or better? Is the exclusive selfishness of the whole thing one of the materials used to build your ancestral home? Is that the heart of it? That you not only don’t want me in there with you – making the property values artificially plummet – but you don’t want me to have one at all?

If this is how you feel, then you need to change.

A Gift From the Masters

Larry Hama – [shared photo]

Larry Hama – First time I've seen this version. I guess I'm not in the loop. Swiped from Erik Larsen.

Larry Hama - I think my lettering has improved somewhat in 35 years.

Peter Pachoumis - @Larry… you put together the original?

Larry Hama - Yes. Hand lettered the title and wrote the blurb. I was pissed off at writers that day.

Peter Pachoumis - Then I owe you and Wally a thanks, this has alway been a perfect example in talks.

Jorge Gulías Merelles - Thank you both.

Mike EL - Every Brian Michael Bendis script would benefit from this process.

Henry Mayo - I like the animated one on Youtube as well

Bob Bailey - Ric Estrada had a version of this two that was very much like the one you posted. He showed it to us Kubies and said it came from Woody.

Larry Hama - This was the original:

Muhammad Rasheed - I wrapped my whole life around this thing when I started my Monsters 101 comic. To find out you were the one that made it is a special thrill.

Thank you so much, Larry. You changed my life.

Muhammad Rasheed - A very, very valuable tool.

Bob Bailey - Yep that's it.

Henry Mayo - Do you still own it?

Larry Hama - I had the panels shot down so they would all fit on on sheet of paper, and hand lettered the title. I wanted something to hand out to new pencilers when I was an editor @ Marvel, and it proliferated like crazy.

Fershid Bharucha - But now it belongs to the "Estate"! tongue emoticon

Larry Hama - Sold the original years ago.

Mike Harris - It helped me out of many a jam. Thanks, Larry.

Phil Gosier - I remember getting a xerox of the original version from you...as a penciller its kind of like being given a bottle of Scope.

Henry Mayo - Phil--that's a perfect way to describe how I feel when someone tells me my mistake.

But I welcome it.

Phil Gosier - @Henry...Indeed! But somehow you still leave the exchange feeling las though you have bad breath.   ;)

Henry Mayo - I would trade my Grandmother for endless bottles of Scope.

Larry Hama - I handed them out to everybody. Wasn't being judgmental. Apparently, I offend a lot of people.

Mike Harris - You? Never.

Henry Mayo - Some folks don't like gifts

The Double Standard

Tony Steed -  White-On-White Crime -- Will White Culture Ever Grow Up?   

So much true in this. 2013 over 3100 whites murdered. 2600+ killied by other whites. Where are the fathers? Was it the country music? Katina, Chad, Muhammad, Sincerus, Andrew… yall need to see this. 

Andrew Bell - Why did you tag me in this? I've never once said anything about white on white crime, i know people are stupid. Should i find some stories about black on black crime or some statistics that state predominantly black neighborhoods have the highest crime rates and tag you back? 

Tony Steed - Stop being angry dude. I tagged you because I hoped you would see the hypocrisy in mefia reporting and see how lopsided. But if you wanna get all angry snd shit, and post about black on black crime or remove the post. Have at it. Was thinking you'd be less emotional more objective than you're being right now, but screw it. 

Andrew Bell - I'm not emotional at all. I was just confused by u tagging me. I know the media is lopsided as fuck. I never once debated that. They will only report on stuff that will cause conflict. White on white doesn't bother anyone because most people with common sense knows it happens. Only racists try to act like it doesn't. Same goes the other way. Thought maybe we were playing some kind of weird tagging game. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Andrew Bell wrote: "White on white doesn't bother anyone because most people with common sense knows it happens." 

The populace has been indoctrinated with the idea that "predominantly black neighborhoods have the highest crime rates," that's why they don't notice, or care, that poor white neighborhoods have comparable crime rates. The American populace has been brainwashed with the idea that blacks are inherently criminals as a matter of race, meanwhile, criminality is about desperation and opportunity, actually has nothing to do with race. 

Andrew Bell - You're right, it isn't about race but every media outlet makes it about that. I don't have the views that you have projected onto me Muhammad, but i do understand that mindset. The problem is that most people view events in black or white terms rather than in human terms. Saw 2 headlines just the other day that shows the differences, but i dont remeber exactly how they went but they read something like this. 

"Teen killed by police fire" (white teen carrying and discharging a weapon was killed...good) 

Then..."black man gunned down by police" (almost the same situation as above...so good) 

But because the media adds "black", it immediately draws attention and negative reaction. 

Muhammad Rasheed - More than likely it said, "Frowning Black man with 2 parking tickets gunned down by police finally," versus "Teen who scored 'A' in Social Studies, beloved by his grieving family, killed ruthlessly by police." 

Muhammad Rasheed - We're always the bad guys, you see. 

Tony Steed - Cool. Think we're all good now.   :P 

Lenny Love - Hah ya crazy

The Subjectivity of Art

Muhammad Rasheed - Louis C.K., Hater Level: 3rd Degree Wizard  lol

Eric C. Martin - I must have missed a meeting, Muhammad. I listened to Louis' two comedy albums on SPOTIFY, and... I didn't laugh once. WHY is he so popular?

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, Eric... just like I explained in that Harlem Nights thread a few months ago, art is subjective on a fundamental nature. What appeals to one viewer will not appeal to the next viewer. There is no such a thing as "universal appeal." One man's treasure is the next man's rubbish, etc.

It’s funny how, as a fellow artist, you've never learned this.

Eric C. Martin - Who said I never learned this? I was merely asking what am I missing (or as I put it, did I miss a meeting?). 

Why are you bringing up Harlem Nights?

Muhammad Rasheed - Eric C. Martin wrote: "Who said I never learned this? Why are you bringing up Harlem Nights?"

Because in both instances, you are expressing confusion over the idea that someone else can enjoy a property that you don't like. In the Harlem Nights example you even definitively proclaimed that the property had no merit whatsoever just because your demographic didn't care for it, while my own demographic considers it a beloved classic. This is a clear demonstration of the concept of art's subjectivity having missed you for some reason.

For Real Americans Only

Mark Needham - US military eases uniform rules to allow turbans and beards

As long as it doesn't get in the way of things, I got no problem with this in any way.

Graylan Zuckerberg Davis - That's pretty bad ass, actually.

Adam Stines - How so?

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought the Army was always that loose with how they did stuff. Let the USMC try this and then I'll be impressed.

Graylan Zuckerberg Davis - @Adam Stines… What do you mean "how so?"

Adam Stines -  It's exactly what it means how is this bad ass?.Who will this benefit and why?Army uniform regulations are in place for more reasons then just how to properly wear the uniform.To alter them for this?.Now?.

Adam Stines - So he's granted a religious exception for this what will the next exception be?Its the military folks,The U.S. Military if you don't agree with all that comes with being enlisted don't enlist you don't have to,What if he decides due to his religious beliefs that now as a U.S. Soldier he cannot fight those of the same belief and puts a risk the lives of other men and women?.Its not good.Admirable maybe but not good.You enlist to serve,To serve the people of still the greatest nation in the world not to further your religious agenda or your fashion sense.

Muhammad Rasheed - The uniform has changed numerous times over the centuries, Adam. Sometimes it changed just because leadership said it was a little cheaper. It's actually not a big deal. If it was, then we'd still be wearing high leather collars and powdered wig accessories. You're getting upset just because of how the visual symbol of the above image is falling on you, which is actually intolerant and unreasonable. 

The American citizen is composed of several differing religions, ethnic groups, races, etc. If that guy wasn't an American he wouldn't be in the uniform in the first place, right? You need to relax, and maybe rethink your worldview.

Adam Stines - Before we go there I understand that this is part of the makeup of America and being open for "Everyone" of every belief is at the very core of what this nation is about.But we're talking exception made in the military that you should know have a habit of becoming far reaching and pervasive.Exception over the years have been made for tattoos and yes religious considerations but it's the military there is a degree of personal luggage you have to leave at the door when you enlist.

Muhammad Rasheed - Why isn't it equally okay for anything with a European origin or traditional significance to be left at the door then as well? Such as any and all references to Christian doctrine, anything that may have been inspired from the ancient Roman armies, etc.?

Muhammad Rasheed - But those items stay, right? Because they give you comfort, and make the world seem "right?"

Muhammad Rasheed - None of the items you are getting upset over have anything to do with the "nationalism" aspect of being an American citizen, Adam.

Muhammad Rasheed - I can still hold onto the "comfort items" as you say of my ethnic/racial/cultural identity... just like the Euro-soldier does... and be proud of my country. I find your "THIS IS MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!" attitude over this item to be enlightening. 

But not surprising. It's true to type.

Adam Stines - True to type huh? What exactly do you mean?

Muhammad Rasheed - Your attitude expressed in this thread seems to sit firmly within the "America is for REAL Americas!" sub-ideology of a certain demographic. One I frequently engage in debate with and is quite familiar to me. 

What did you think I meant?  :)

Adam Stines - Not at all what I said.As the son of an Irish immigrant that would be a pretty ridiculous stand to take would it not?You have an axe to bury go bury it.

Adam Stines - u•ni•form

ˈyo͞onəˌfôrm/

adjective

1.

not changing in form or character; remaining the same in all cases and at all times.

"blocks of stone of uniform size"

synonyms: constant, consistent, steady, invariable, unvarying, unfluctuating, unchanging, stable, static, regular, fixed, even, equal More

2.

denoting a garment forming part of a person's uniform.

"black uniform jackets"

noun

1.

the distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools.

"airline pilots in dark blue uniforms"

synonyms: costume, livery, regalia, suit, ensemble, outfit; More

2.

a code word representing the letter U, used in radio communication.

verb

1.

make uniform.

Adam Stines - Oh yeah,In case I forgot.Muhammad,This is ours and your welcome to share it.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're using "uniform" in a way that isn't accurate considering the actual usage in history. As I mentioned it has changed numerous times, even inside the dozen or so years since I've been in.

Muhammad Rasheed - Adam Stines wrote: “Not at all what I said.”

Then tell me why the above image is upsetting you, please?

Adam Stines wrote: “As the son of an Irish immigrant that would be a pretty ridiculous stand to take would it not?”

Intolerance, discrimination, and racism are illogical by their nature, Adam.

Adam Stines wrote: “You have an axe to bury go bury it.”

Is that an order, or an official granting of permission from the authority of your white privilege? lol

Adam Stines - Yes it has but there has always been the uniform standard with every change having served like you say you surely can't argue that.One could wear a let's say Dodgers ball cap in uniform simply because they can prove it brings them comfort while in full dress right?Or maybe I have that wrong to because I'm so to "type".

Adam Stines - I have white privilege?..

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you white?

Adam Stines - Gotta few issues don't ya.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, between the two of us, which one has a problem with the idea of a non-white American in a military uniform with a turban on it? Does that somehow compromise his American-ness? lol

Adam Stines - Never questioned his American ness.Did I

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure you did. You think him bringing his "comforts" with him into the military... the same as your folk bring your own "comforts"... somehow means he is compromising the US military and lessening it, and it means more to him than being an American. That's why you're freaking out. Isn't it?

If not, then tell me what your freak out is about exactly, please.

Adam Stines - No freak out here.

Adam Stines - Too sharp for me Muhammad..

Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. I think you just don't want to talk about it on FB.

Adam Stines - I've talked about have I not?Think I explained my reasons why,Just haven't fit into the box that you want me to.And that's okay Muhammad.You accused me of racism among other things and I present to you sir that it is you who are making racial comments and laying down stereo types.So go have a day Muhammad an reflect on the lives laid down be them Muslim or Christian or "Belief system here" so that we can have this disagreement/debate.

Adam Stines - I'm man enough to say I could be wrong in my view point,But that's just it right it's my opinion,Can you Muhammad?

Muhammad Rasheed - Adam Stines wrote: “I've talked about have I not?”

You started talking about it with me, and then conspicuously started ducking questions at the end there. Tsk.

Adam Stines wrote: “Think I explained my reasons why,Just haven't fit into the box that you want me to.”

You asked how does allowing other ethnic groups to also allow their own culturally important symbols, and sacred belief system items, to be reflected in the military uniform, like the Euro-ethnic has, benefiting anyone. You then equated those sacred religions items with “wearing a baseball cap.” 

Trust me; you fit snugly within that intolerant, uninsightful box as if it was custom-made around your frame.

Adam Stines wrote: “And that's okay Muhammad.”

Is it? How does you thinking that way make anything okay? Your demographic thinking that way is the root cause to a lot of western society’s ills.

Adam Stines wrote: “You accused me of racism among other things and I present to you sir that it is you who are making racial comments and laying down stereo types.”

You’ll have to do better than simply proclaiming it so. Show me. 

Adam Stines wrote: “So go have a day Muhammad an reflect on the lives laid down be them Muslim or Christian or ‘Belief system here’ so that we can have this disagreement/debate.”

Is this an artificial attempt of exiting the stage with some kind of fanfare gotcha strut? lol 

Adam Stines wrote: “I'm man enough to say I could be wrong in my view point,”

Which part?

Adam Stines wrote: “But that's just it right it's my opinion,Can you Muhammad?”

Of course. It’s all opinion. Some opinions can be supported by logic, reason, and facts, while some blow away like dry leaves in a strong wind. Which ones do you prefer to hold onto?

Adam Stines - So Muhammad? Are you a racist?

Adam Stines - Intolerant?

Muhammad Rasheed - In my experience, white people tend to mean something very different when they say "racist" compared to the normally accepted usage of the term. I'm going to need you to define it for me first so that I am clear as to what you mean.

Muhammad Rasheed - Am I intolerant about what? Changes to the US military uniform design? 

That would be a "No."

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought it was obvious really...

Adam Stines - So it's means something different?

Muhammad Rasheed - Your people tend to USE it differently.

Tell me what you mean so that we will be on the same page. That word is too pregnant with baggage as of late.

Adam Stines - Do you consider the term "your people" offensive?.Do you consider based on color,and or ethnic background alone to be more entitled or better than someone else?

Muhammad Rasheed - Adam Stines wrote: "Do you consider the term 'your people' offensive?"

No. But I suppose it would depend on context. 

Adam Stines wrote: "Do you consider based on color,and or ethnic background alone to be more entitled or better than someone else?"

No. I consider based on the fruit of righteousness that people walk in their lives. The things they do that I'm aware of that line up with the Word of God and what He wants for us as believers. The other stuff only matters when it comes to the welfare of my people and the traits of being deliberately held down, or sabotaged, by outside forces.

Adam Stines - Well worded..Yet complex in its message.Not quite one answer or another..

Adam Stines - I wonder how would that answer have sounded coming from me?.

Muhammad Rasheed - I said "No" regarding whether I consider "your people" offensive. "No" is still an answer, right?

Muhammad Rasheed - I also said "No" regarding whether I judge people based on color/ethnicity. The other stuff only matters when it becomes politically relevant for basic survival, not as a means of judging another's inherent worth as a human.

Adam Stines - Again how would that have sounded coming from me?

Muhammad Rasheed - I dunno, let it fly. Let's see what you have.

You answer it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you consider the term "your people" offensive? Do you judge other humans based on race or ethnic background alone to be more entitled or better than someone else?

Adam Stines - Yes to 1 No to 2

Adam Stines - The term "Your People" is seldom used In a positive sense.

Muhammad Rasheed - I would actually have to hear it used in the context of a deliberate insult to see what you mean. To me it seems neutral. More of a short cut term. Like when McCain referred to Senator Obama as "That one!" that time with a jerk of his thumb. The over-sensitive WANTED to make it into a big deal, but I didn't see it.

"Your people" is the same.

Adam Stines - But you have no idea who "My People" are?.

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought you said you were of Irish stock?

That's your people right there. Irish American ethnic group.

Adam Stines - Well I guess you do have an idea..wink emoticon

Muhammad Rasheed - smh

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Stop trying to con me, Adam.

Adam Stines - I said you were sharp!  :)

Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha

Gary Leach - During my mid-70s stint in the US Army our fatigues were undifferentiated olive green. Today they're in camo patterns. Things do change, even in the military…

Adam Stines - At the end of the day he has served so i guess time to embrace change.Hopefully for

All the right reasons.

Muhammad Rasheed - Why wouldn't it be for the right reasons, Adam? lol

Longshanks & The Guardians of Thought

Muhammad Rasheed -  Droit du seigneur

Interesting article (thanks Zodicus Zu'ul), though perhaps not for the reason you may think.

Zodicus Zu'ul - Why then?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why else? The hypocrisy dripping from it.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll give you a prize if you can spot those items before I showcase them in a rant.

Zodicus Zu'ul - I missed it.

Karla Holland - The closest modern day example to this phenomenon I can recall was hearing a story about one of Sadam Hussein's crazy sons crashing a wedding and raping the bride, in turn driving the poor groom to shoot himself that night. 

From the same culture (removed by thousands of years) is the story of Gilgamesh, where the title character is a king who triggered his people's breaking point by demanding all the virgins of the city to deflower before they got married.

Muhammad Rasheed - Zodicus Zu'ul wrote: “I missed it.”

No prize for you.   :P

It comes from the classic hypocrisy bag of the European Ethnic, in his self-appointed role of gate keeper/thought police of society’s knowledge base, who writes himself as the ‘Good Guy’ in the story of humanity. There are a few items that stand out under that lens in this article, true to type.

Muhammad Rasheed - ITEM #1 "There is no evidence of the alleged right in medieval Europe."

For the one in the role of thought policeman, and determiner of all intellectual truths, he has given himself certain powers. One of which is the ability to indoctrinate the populace with subtle items such as the above. He uses this tool a lot, and it functions this way:

Say there is insufficient factual knowledge to definitively, scientifically prove two hypotheses. Hypothesis-A says that something reprehensible happened in Old Europe, while Hypothesis-B says it happened in Ancient Africa. Even though the conditions of proving them have NOT been met for either hypothesis, the thought policeman will use ITEM #1 as a prominent label over the European one, but will leave it off of the African ones. This will have the effect of a subtle brainwashing of any students who study history through the careful, Eurocentric slant of the thought policeman’s guiding hand, with the predicted effect: the student will FEEL as if Europe could not possibly have done such things, will have zero such feelings in regards to the savages in other lands, but will be unable to articulate why. If you try to corner the student on this, he will grow red-faced, frustrated, and will refuse to engage you in debate, preferring instead to *sniff*, turn his nose up at you, and call you names. You must not be an intellectual because you don’t feel the way he feels about it; he knows and you simply don’t know. All of his institutionally inbred fellows in the doctrine feel the same way as he does, therefore the flaw must be within YOU.

Muhammad Rasheed - (i know that meme doesn't perfectly represent what I am describing, but the underlying principle is the same)

Muhammad Rasheed - ITEM #2 "Herodotus mentions a similar custom among the Adyrmachidae in ancient Libya..."

Herodotus was the so-called “father of history,” and was contemporary with the celebrated Ancient Greek personages who are taught to western society students as members of the “Greek miracle” concept. Herodotus has a place of honor within my own studies, as he is the guy that correctly labeled the “Greek miracle” as plagiarism. The famous Greek scholars would make their way to Egypt, learn some mathematic elements from the over-generous priests, go back to Greece and claim the math principle as their own inventions. 

What does our thought policeman feel about this revelation from Herodotus? Well, they said he was a liar. lol Really. In other words, in blatant disrespect to the Occam’s Razor principle, they think it is much more reasonable that the “Greek miracle” is true, that this group of fellows invented high math miraculously from the Power of White People, than to believe the eye witness account of a contemporary who actually has the nickname “father of history.” 

So Herodotus gave a report about a people in ancient Libya that reportedly engaged in this ‘Prima Nocta’ thing, and the thought police are okay with accepting his word on it because it’s not a charge being labeled at Europe. If he did then of course he would be a liar on that item, too.

Ricky Mujica - Kind of sad.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's a human construct so it can be fixed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Being aware of the problem (and aware that it is actually a problem) is "step one."

Muhammad Rasheed - ITEM #3 "In modern times Zaire's president Mobutu Sese Seko appropriated the droit de cuissage (right to deflower) when traveling around the country where local chiefs offered him virgins; this was considered a great honor for the virgin's family."

Obviously this one is related to ITEM #1 above. The stereotype of the “big scary black guy” archetype is somehow more evil than all the evils of the world wars, atomic bomb drops, and communist massacres combined is often found in Mobutu as a symbol held up by the Euro-Ethnic intellectual. The Euro-ethnic thought policeman that wrote the book sourced here SAID it was true, therefore it must be true. That’s how the “big scary black guy” is in their nightmares so it HAS to be true, right?

Karla Holland - You know who makes me laugh? People who say you can't question history. Uh, yeah you can! It's not science and has more than its own weight of history of being tweaked and manipulated to fit certain biases and narratives. This is why I have very few history majors as friends.

Muhammad Rasheed - People who tell you that you aren't allowed to question something are your enemy.

Muhammad Rasheed - ITEM #4 “Braveheart (1995); ius primae noctis is invoked by Edward Longshanks in an attempt to breed the Scots out. This was one of the many inaccuracies cited by critics of the film.”

Again another ITEM #1 point. You know how much of an asshole Longshanks was, but because he was a European ruler “he wasn’t THAT bad!” says the thought police. Europe is the good guys! Anything that came from Europe is the good guys! But Africa…? Yeah, THAT guy was a monster!

Karla Holland - It's amazing how many European make rulers are respected despite being ruthless while female or non European rulers are criticized for similar actions. Genghis Khan is always vilified but how does he differ from the British empire?

Muhammad Rasheed - It's probably just because he broke some stuff they wanted for themselves.

See Also:  McCarthy's War

The Misogynist Trap

Ronald Wimberly – [shared link]

Ronald Wimberly – (Gonna put this out here like a sticky trap for facebook misogynists...)

Muhammad Rasheed - His domestic violence ended in 2010 when the judge ordered him to get professional impulse control and counseling for the problem. He hasn't had an issue with it since. He doesn't need Rousey's help. And the UFC Women's Bantamweight Champion certainly doesn't need his help to stay relevant, unless this is just an attempt to tap into some of those hundreds and hundreds of millions the Money Team has the ability to generate (ironic considering how "boring" he's supposed to be).

Rae Pleasant - And Jerry Sandusky hasn't had a problem with minors since the judge sent him to jail.

Muhammad Rasheed - "On the evening before his sentencing hearing, Sandusky released an audio statement maintaining his innocence. The next day, Cleland sentenced Sandusky to 60 years in prison. He will not be eligible for parole until he serves at least 30 years. His earliest possible release date will be October 9, 2042; when he will be 98 years old—all but assuring he will die in prison."

Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, I guess that's exactly the same and relevant.

Rae Pleasant - Violating another person whom lacks the attackers physical strength when both persons were otherwise in a trusting relationship which was clearly a facade...

Muhammad Rasheed - How are you so sure that was the nature of the incidents Floyd was involved in? What source featuring the detailed accounts are you using for this opinion?

Rae Pleasant - Lolz

Muhammad Rasheed - To be honest, the news articles that came out about it back then were full of hints of opportunistic nonsense, where people were just trying to get paid. Didn't he just get sued by one of them over some frivolous bs? 

He does live in Las Vegas.

Jacobo Ospina - Why are you playing devil's advocate for that piece of shit?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why are you calling someone you don't know a "piece of shit?"

Jacobo Ospina - lmao

Muhammad Rasheed - That's what I thought.

Ekari Ekari - lol @sticky trap

Ronald Wimberly - it work tho

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not a misogynist. lol

But I do make a habit of challenging bs contentions.

Nina La Voix - BAHAHAHAAHA

Douglas Adam Ferguson - Anything not to fight cris cyborg.

Ronald Wimberly - hmmm... what makes someone defend Mayweather? ...If you're not on payroll, why defend him? 

I often wonder if it has anything to do with how our identities get caught up in public figures. Do our identities and values feel attacked when their proxy isattacked? What identity and values does Mayweather represent? What is it about an attack on Mayweather that provokes this defense? 

This was a post for lulz mostly anyway. Something to look at between drawing comics. It worked. 

for the record, I don't condone sticky traps. They're pretty brutal.

Muhammad Rasheed - I summarized why I choose to defend him in a recent blog entry.

Muhammad Rasheed – The Cure for Integration

Ronald Wimberly - You call that a summary?!  ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - a summary+?

Muhammad Rasheed - Ronald Wimberly wrote: "for the record, I don't condone sticky traps. They're pretty brutal."

I don't mind, Ronald. Arguing differing points of view on the 'Net has become my favorite hobby as of late. Trap away.

Robert W. Carmona - It just seems like Ronald is exactly right. You've taken Mayweather as proxy and in him you see the ideal of a successful black man, a success story in his field so to speak. But you're way too willing to forgive him when he's essentially a terrible person. I'd never be able to forgive those actions from someone regardless of his background or what he represents. It's too convenient to sweep his flaws under the rug. Plus I think he's a pretty boring fighter and I really wanted Pacquiao to win.

Muhammad Rasheed - Define what makes him a terrible person, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - You don't consider him a classic American success story? Why or why not?

Robert W. Carmona - "Classic American Success Story" is a myth, a lie. It's people claiming to love the underdog who rises to the top when they really don't. It's a story that's peddled by those at the top, like Rockefeller selling dime novels about how hard he worked to make billions, selling it to the eager and making a buck from their fantasies. It's a story peddled by conservatives and politicians to blame people for their mistakes, 'they didn't try hard enough'. People love stories. So if you're telling me I should like someone because they fill a false ideal, I can't consider someone on that basis because the American Dream isn't real, not for everyone. That's a bit of an aside from my opinion on Mayweather but when you're telling me that's a reason to defend him I have to scoff a bit.

And you're continually ignoring his history of abuse. He did serve some jail time. A farcical sentence as he negotiated fights from his jail cell. But is that the end of the story? Smacked someone around, did a few months, end of story, he's absolved? Only to do it again? He's a serial batterer. Nearly two decades and five women. He's a boxer, a trained fighter. Any time he beats on someone untrained, someone who is not a boxer, he is a danger, he is a weapon. It's not just abuse because he could have killed them easily. Nor has he been quiet about his viewpoint: "If a female shows half of her body, she’s asking to be disrespected."

Let's talk about his career. Part of his public persona is fiction. His nickname "Money" and so forth, they peddle the story and sell it because it makes money. The bad boy persona. But in the ring that translates to poor showmanship, to fights being scheduled in his favor. To cheap shots and unsatisfying victories. But he makes a lot of money. And the sport shows him favoritism because of it. There are numerous examples of this in the media and beyond. 

Plus he's friends with Justin Bieber.

Muhammad Rasheed - Robert W. Carmona wrote: “’Classic American Success Story’ is a myth, a lie. It's people claiming to love the underdog who rises to the top when they really don't. It's a story that's peddled by those at the top, like Rockefeller selling dime novels about how hard he worked to make billions, selling it to the eager and making a buck from their fantasies. It's a story peddled by conservatives and politicians to blame people for their mistakes, 'they didn't try hard enough'. People love stories.”

The classic American success story is when a person is able to rise from impoverished origins to financial freedom success. It happens all the time and is clearly not a myth or lie. Floyd is absolutely an example of it in action, having gone from humble origins to wealth & fame based on working hard to master specific skills, combined with phenomenal business acumen. I’ll admit to an inability to see what you are talking about calling the American Dream a lie. 

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “So if you're telling me I should like someone because they fill a false ideal…”

This is a strawman argument since it had nothing to do with why it was brought up. You added “so to speak” when you mentioned him being a successful Black American, and I asked if you didn’t think he qualified as a classic American success story. My asking that had nothing to do with whether you liked him or not.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “…I can't consider someone on that basis because the American Dream isn't real, not for everyone.”

It’s clearly real, but if you consider it a myth/lie because every American hasn’t done it, then I would reasonably consider that a flaw in your own understanding of what the concept is supposed to actually be. A lot of stuff isn’t for everyone, Robert.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “That's a bit of an aside from my opinion on Mayweather but when you're telling me that's a reason to defend him I have to scoff a bit.” 

His success is a reason to support him as a fellow Black American. We should celebrate the successes of our own. 

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “And you're continually ignoring his history of abuse.”

That’s not true either. I acknowledged that he shouldn’t have hit those women. 

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “He did serve some jail time. A farcical sentence as he negotiated fights from his jail cell. But is that the end of the story? Smacked someone around, did a few months, end of story, he's absolved? Only to do it again? He's a serial batterer. Nearly two decades and five women. He's a boxer, a trained fighter. Any time he beats on someone untrained, someone who is not a boxer, he is a danger, he is a weapon. It's not just abuse because he could have killed them easily. Nor has he been quiet about his viewpoint: ‘If a female shows half of her body, she’s asking to be disrespected.’"

He was ordered to get help for his impulse control, and counseling for the problem during the 2010 incident, he did so, and hasn’t had a problem since. That’s very different from the slanderous narrative about it you just weaved, which falsely sounds like the latest incident happened this morning.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “Let's talk about his career. Part of his public persona is fiction.”

That comment would literally apply to every celebrity in human history, all the way back to Adam.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “His nickname ‘Money’ and so forth, they peddle the story and sell it because it makes money.”

When he left Bob Arum’s promotion company, Arum wouldn’t allow him to take the “Pretty Boy” brand with him, and he subsequently replaced it with the “Money” moniker, which reflected a lack of creativity if anything. But considering his level of financial success thus far, the new nickname certainly fits.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “The bad boy persona.”

He hasn’t used the bad boy image in quite a while now. He hasn’t had to, since the public (mostly the casual boxing outsider “fans”) decided they didn’t like him anyway.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “But in the ring that translates to poor showmanship…”

What does that mean? Boxing isn’t pro-wrestling. 

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “…to fights being scheduled in his favor.”

They’re his events. Why wouldn’t they be? And why does that even matter? Were his opponents ever used to having fights scheduled in THEIR favor? Their job is to show up and fight with a reasonable enough notice to train properly. 

Robert W. Carmona wrote: “To cheap shots and unsatisfying victories.”

As a fan myself, I can honestly say his victories were quite satisfying. ESPECIALLY this last one (my office staff is 80% Filipino).

Muhammad Rasheed - Robert W. Carmona wrote: "But you're way too willing to forgive him when he's essentially a terrible person."

He never killed anybody for being a different race than he is. Your idea of "terrible" is over-the-top in my opinion, and certainly doesn't apply to Floyd. 

Robert W. Carmona wrote: "I'd never be able to forgive those actions from someone regardless of his background or what he represents."

So? God says we should be willing to cover over other peoples' faults, just as we would hope He would should us mercy and cover over our faults. Your attitude shows a position a "terrible person" would take, since it's literally the opposite of what God said He wants from us. Floyd believes in God btw.

Robert W. Carmona wrote: "It's too convenient to sweep his flaws under the rug." 

Convenient to what? I'm not getting a check for it. But when someone has gotten help for a natural weakness (his father went to jail for domestic violence just before Floyd went for his first world title) is really trying to live right, hasn't had another incident in over 4 years, being willing to forgive seems quite reasonable from an objective viewpoint.

Robert W. Carmona - "Your attitude shows a position a "terrible person" would take."

Yup that's me. Bad people slandering poor boxers.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't know what kind of life you live under normal circumstances, Robert, but I do know that you just advised people to take a stance that's the opposite of what God said He wants. 

Wouldn't that by definition describe a "bad person?" Floyd got help for his human weakness and hasn't had an episode since. What are you doing about yours?

Robert W. Carmona - Well apparently I'm on facebook spreading my evil.

Muhammad Rasheed - I already peeped that part.   ;)

Nicole Recchia - I won't be arguing for the inherent morality of either fighter. Nor will I argue that someone who is once found guilty of a crime is irredeemable.

I will argue that watching mayweather fight blows. Even watching him fight someone I would like him to beat is sad. And his shameless love of money makes it hard to love the sport through him.

All that said, I dislike immensely how gleefully our society tears down black men for crimes committed with impunity by white men, bc those crimes should be universally punishable, starting first & foremost with social consequences & lack of respectability. And abuse of power is damn near unforgivable.

Muhammad Rasheed - Nicole Recchia wrote: "I will argue that watching mayweather fight blows."

That's inherently subjective, Nicole. I personally love the high-level game of the sweet science, as both a long-time student and fan of the discipline. Boxing in its pure form as a very efficient close combat system is why I love it. Floyd personifies it in this era.

Also the "shameless love of money" from someone who grew up poor is a concept I would never be upset over. That's an easy place of empathy for me. In fact, it seems genuinely cruel and uninsightful for someone not to understand that mindset to me.

Nicole Recchia - I am also both a student and a fan, and the thoughtful strategy of evasion combined with effective striking is a thing of beauty. Backing out 10-12ft at a clip when you aren't even being touched & then landing light points tags when you're inside is a total letdown. I know it's his style but he's capable of much more than going 12 rounds without touching.

I also grew up very poor & I understand the impulse that leads to believing money brings safety & protection. And I can especially empathize with how this must be even more powerful a motivator growing up as a black man. But still. He's a depressing character to watch, in the ring and outside of it. I always want him to want something more than the paycheck, and there's never any glimpse of it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Nicole Recchia wrote: “I am also both a student and a fan, and the thoughtful strategy of evasion combined with effective striking is a thing of beauty.”

That’s exactly what his style looks like to me. In my opinion, it’s hard not to consider his well-known accuracy as a striker, and penchant for leading with power shots, as anything other than “effective.”

Nicole Recchia wrote: “Backing out 10-12ft at a clip when you aren't even being touched…”

He fights on the outside, and is quick enough (speed was his most celebrated natural talent that he built his style around) to dart in, score, and dart back out. Boxing as a combat sport in the very definition of the sweet science.

Nicole Recchia wrote: “…& then landing light points tags when you're inside is a total letdown. I know it's his style but he's capable of much more than going 12 rounds without touching.”

If that were true, then his opponents would take more risks, because you are describing the punching power of boxers like Chris Byrd, or Maurice Harris, who couldn’t flatten a pimple if they both double-teamed you. If Pacquiao was experiencing only “light tags” he definitively would’ve taken more risks.

Nicole Recchia wrote: “I also grew up very poor & I understand the impulse that leads to believing money brings safety & protection. And I can especially empathize with how this must be even more powerful a motivator growing up as a black man. But still. He's a depressing character to watch…”

Well, that’s one of us. I happen to be proud of him. Depressing is what I experience whenever I have to go back home to Michigan for anything as see the same ole same ole crap that Floyd pulled himself up from.

Nicole Recchia wrote: “…in the ring and outside of it. I always want him to want something more than the paycheck, and there's never any glimpse of it.”

You’re now projecting into his life from the outside looking in and it seems quite out of line. Something more than what? Are you in his inner circle to know what he dreams, Nicole. That’s kind of offensive.

Robert W. Carmona - I'm sure he dreams of more money.

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course you would think that. He's just a savage animal or something that doesn't have the same dreams as a real human or whatever, amIright?

Robert W. Carmona - Hey the man is nicknamed Money. If he didn't want more money, I don't think he'd want that name.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure.

I wonder if you ever said something like that about Donald Trump, or one of those dudes.

Robert W. Carmona - Well yeah.

Muhammad Rasheed - Probably not, huh? It's different for Floyd, right?

Robert W. Carmona - Why wouldn't I?

Robert W. Carmona - No, they're all assholes.

Muhammad Rasheed - Because it's normal for those dudes to have money. It's made for them or whatever. Floyd is just putting on airs and should go back to Africa and know his proper place or whatever.

Robert W. Carmona - Why?

Muhammad Rasheed - Just a general feel I get. Nothing concrete.

Robert W. Carmona - So I'm super racist now because I pointed out that a man called 'Money' wants more money? A point that you have claimed earlier is justified and any idea to the contrary is 'genuinely cruel and uninsightful'.

Muhammad Rasheed - Now you are being intellectually dishonest.

Robert W. Carmona - I'm pointing out facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're being "super-racist" for flippantly suggesting that he probably doesn't have any dreams in life other than getting more money.

Tell me if you think that way about Donald Trump, too.

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you see "The Donald" as a shallow shell of a human, too? Or do you see his life with his family and his other ambitions? Tell me.

Robert W. Carmona - Of course I see him as a shallow shell of a human. I don't like Donald Trump. I'm not sure why you're bringing him up as a defense. I've already made the point that I don't believe in the "American Dream" so your argument doesn't really make sense.

Muhammad Rasheed - What does Donald have to do with the American Dream? He's a legacy wealth baby.

Misdirection, eh?

Robert W. Carmona - Says the guy talking about Donald Trump.

Muhammad Rasheed - There are far more financially successful caucasian businessmen. I disagree with this treating Floyd like he's a monster for his successes. Like he did something wrong and is the poster child for the evils of capitalism. Like the news using that one black face to represent that biker gang incident.

Y'all are a trip...

Muhammad Rasheed - Robert W. Carmona wrote: "Says the guy talking about Donald Trump."

I don't believe you that you treat all wealthy people the same. I think it's something about Floyd and his successes that piss you off specifically. I don't believe it's the reasons you stated earlier, because none of them made any sense.

Muhammad Rasheed - Pacquiao is wealthy. Do you hate him, too? Did you hope they would knock each other out?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Julian Lytle - I don't think any UFC fighter can hang with any of the top boxers. That's all I have to say.

Muhammad Rasheed – A Solid Stand Up Game

Nicole Recchia - Definitely not true. All that ducking & weaving plus their wide stance, a kick boxer would eat them for breakfast.

Muhammad Rasheed - I wonder what the statistics look like for kickboxers who do well when making the transition into boxing? I would expect them to have weak punches, and to get tagged a lot.

Nicole Recchia - American & Dutch kick boxers use a very American boxing style, with power punches rather than traditional Thai style where punches are primarily setups to kicks. I don't know of any one from K1 or Muay Thai who decided to transition to boxing instead. The hardest part would be getting used to not needing to pick up your legs or worry about getting kneed or kicked in the head.

Muhammad Rasheed - To be honest, I never really paid much attention to kickboxing, until I saw Anderson Silva slaughter Rich Franklin like that.

Robert W. Carmona - Well I think that depends on the rules. If it's only boxing then yeah. Otherwise you've got another fight like Muhammad Ali vs Antonio Inoki.

Chris Kimball - I have 200 pounds on the guy give me 6 months of professional training I'll take him on!

Muhammad Rasheed - I would think that someone who considered him or herself to be an intellectual, would be willing to support his ideological viewpoint with reason, logic and wit, versus simply making a *sniff* noise and proclaiming that something was the way it was because he said so.

Is that the New Intellectual? No debates? 

I'll just leave this right here...

Ronald Wimberly - You just threw that gauntlet in front of a peasant with a torch and a sickle in his hands.  ;)

long story short. I don't identify with Mayweather. I don't identify with capitalist grandstanding. I don't identify with the pursuit of money over all other values. I don't identify with the "american dream". I don't identify with black capitalism.
I do identify with anyone who is fighting systematic oppression, regardless of how they perform their identity; be they man, woman, non-binary what have you.
I identify with Rousy because she's bad. Wether or not it's a wolf ticket, I fucks with her because of how she framed it. (also, I'd rather watch her fight.)
Finally, If Muhammed Ali followed your line of thinking about holding the line based on racial identity, he would've never sacrificed his career for his values and he would never used the ring as a political platform or used his opponent as a political foil.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ronald Wimberly wrote: “I don't identify with Mayweather. I don't identify with capitalist grandstanding. I don't identify with the pursuit of money over all other values. I do identify with anyone who is fighting systematic oppression, regardless of how they perform their identity; be they man, woman, non-binary what have you.”

Black Americans don’t have a hive mind. They don’t all think a like or even share the same dreams. They don’t share the same ideological worldview. I don’t expect to be able to identify on every level with every Black American I run into. What I do is celebrate the accomplishments and victories of those Black Americans because of the general, high-level ties I have with them. This is very important, and is a component to the survival and prosperity for our people that we all claim to want. We all need to come together on a greater, national level. We don’t need to focus on the small stuff that separates us into tribes and cliques.

Ronald Wimberly wrote: “I identify with Rousy because she's bad. Wether or not it's a wolf ticket, I fucks with her because of how she framed it.”

I like Rousey because she’s a winner with a proven skill set of success, and a great work ethic. I would never root for her over my own though. That’s insane to me.

Ronald Wimberly wrote: “Finally, If Muhammed Ali followed your line of thinking about holding the line based on racial identity, he would've never sacrificed his career for his values and he would never used the ring as a political platform or used his opponent as a political foil.”

I’m pretty sure one of the iconic phrases he used to summarize (for real this time) his position in that sacrifice was “No Viet Cong ever called me n1gger.” That certainly sounds like racial identity was a HUGE factor in why he didn’t want to go to the other side of the planet to shoot brown people for the same asshole that was attacking his own people while he said it. But of course he was actually a member of Elijah’s Nation of Islam black nationalist group at the time, too.

As I watch your 'Likes' build on your post, I'll assume your friends also disapprove of "Black Capitalism," and instead love the idea of you taking ownership of peasantry. smh

Ronald Wimberly - You watching my likes tho ;-P

Muhammad Rasheed - (i know, i'm jealous. stupid 'Likes')

Richie Pope - Hm.

Not much else to be said other than the idea that you're not less of an abuser because your'e black like me. I'm not coming together in the name of black unity over that ish.

Muhammad Rasheed - Maybe if he always did it, constantly, and was always in the news for it, you would have a point.

But this way it looks like you all are just committed to vilifying him no matter what. I think that's unfair and evil.

Richie Pope - Hm. Welp. Don't see how you vilify a man who beats women over the years.

Muhammad Rasheed - He hasn't done it since the 2010 incident and he actually got help for it and has been a better, calmer, more mature person since. So tell me what's the point of continuously throwing his old weaknesses in his face, like The Accuser of legend?

How would you feel if someone did that shit to you? Continuously, no matter how you've changed?

Richie Pope - He hasn't beat a woman in 5 whole years!

*round of applause*

I'm done.

Muhammad Rasheed - More importantly, he got the help he needed, and hasn't had an incident in 5 years. He recognized he had a problem, and he got help. I don't agree that it deserves a round of applause, but it certainly doesn't deserve the guillotine.

Richie Pope - People, especially here, are just like "Yea, I don't eff with him because of that (among other trash things he's done)" That aint the guillotine.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol That's not what it reads like.

What "other trash things?"

Muhammad Rasheed - In fact, it reads like that same bs that mindset used to talk on Michael Jackson.

Richie Pope - Saying pretty prejudice ish to Manny I believe because he's Asian but I'll leave you to it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Really? During same time that Manny and his camp talked trash on him trying to get him to do this fight? Do you hear yourself?

Richie Pope - Bye, bruh.

Muhammad Rasheed - smh

Muhammad Rasheed - ("my people, my people")

Richie Pope - Same ^

Muhammad Rasheed - It's okay. I actually don't expect you all to be any different. I'm just probing to attempt to understand the mentality better for myself.

Muhammad Rasheed - Peace.

Richie Pope - Anyone reading this, it's totally okay to just dip out when you don't feel like talking to someone anymore. You didn't lose no faux-intellectual fight.

Muhammad Rasheed - "We agree with you, Richie! We prefer to vilify a guy because the mainstream said to, and to continuously throw his weaknesses in his face just because! We should stick together for our cause!"

Chris Kindred - #notallabusers

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris, we're actually talking about just one person in specific. The whole point of the thread is a case study on one particular individual. The details of his life actually matter.

Muhammad Rasheed - Forgive me, but I have a problem with anything that looks like sheeple group-think with a disdain for analysis.

Richie Pope - Being the odd-man-out opinion-wise =/= everyone else is group-think, though.

Muhammad Rasheed - Suurrrre. That's how that works. lol

Kevin Michael Roberts - Here's a list of all the people benefitting from you playing devil's advocate:

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm actually not playing devil's advocate. I am 100% serious.

In every way.

Muhammad Rasheed - Probing into this issue, and searching to test the strength of what you are using to support your anti-Floyd viewpoint, is benefiting me.

Chris Kindred - Sounds like you bullshittin cause you're wrong af but whatever floats yours

Muhammad Rasheed - PROVE that I'm wrong. What do you have? Throw down your rod.

Proclaiming magically that I'm wrong doesn't mean much outside of your sheeple coven, where FB 'Likes' rain down like Lucky Charms® marshmallows.

Chris Kindred - Please chill. What (and this is a rhetorical question, not to solicit an actual response) can I possibly say to make you change your viewpoint? Me telling you anything wouldn't get you to change you by extension condoning Mayweather's misogyny.

Muhammad Rasheed - TRANSLATION: "I don't have an argument to support the intense anti-Floyd viewpoint, so I have no idea what to say that can prove that you are wrong in your stance. All I know is that he does have a history of striking women, and nothing else matters, not even the fact that he got help to keep him from doing it again."

Chris Kindred - He beats/hits/abuses women and is prejudiced to nonblack poc. That alone is enough reason to never defend him ever

Muhammad Rasheed - I suppose it's possible that I merely stumbled upon a bad batch of pathetically impotent intellectuals, who somehow believe that turning their noses up in the air, and calling me names is a valid substitute for a reasoned, logical argument to back their viewpoint.

Perhaps I should "chill."

Chris Kindred - "Perhaps I should 'chill.'"

Now you're catching on.

But really though, I'm out. Have fun debating to literally no one.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Kindred wrote: "He beats/hits/abuses women..."

That would actually be "beat/hit/abused" past tense. He doesn't do that anymore. He's not a pariah.

Chris Kindred wrote: "...and is prejudiced to nonblack poc."

*groan* Do I even WANT to know what you think you're talking about here? Don't answer; it's rhetorical.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Kindred wrote: "Have fun debating to literally no one."

It was fun for a minute, before your heavy hitters blew their wad and were left with nothing. I'm experienced enough to recognize that if folk had an argument they wouldn't hesitate in providing it.

"Literally no one" was a slight against yourselves.   ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - In fact, the strength of your argument... or the lack thereof as the case maybe... probably helps feed the high-horse I was accused of riding earlier. May have to look into that some more. [takes notes]

Henry Rembert - "Prove he's a terrible person"
"He is physically abusive to women."
"Not since 2010!!"

Ronald Wimberly - For once and probably the last time, I'm gonna take a lesson from Mayweather and not bother to enter into a dispute below my pay grade and technical ability.

Reggie Johnston - I recognize his hand game and him being the greatest defensive boxer of all time but he's carrying too much baggage for me to be singing his praises anymore.

N Steven Harris - I don't follow boxing or Mayweather, but I think something should be said about someone who has addressed his abusive actions and hasn't been abusive since. At least the jury is out until further notice. Otherwise what incentive is there to try and be a better person?

Ronald Wimberly - uh... the incentive for being abetter person is to BE A BETTER PERSON

N Steven Harris - That is one of them. But I did walk into that one.

Muhammad Rasheed - Since he got help, he IS being a better person. So what's the problem?  How about a "Good job; keep it up" instead of the "F*ck you, n*gger! We hope you burn forever in the hell we don't believe in because we will NEVER, EVER forgive you EVER!"

Chris Miller - So how come she never wanted to fight War Machine after what he did to Christy Mack ? Am I to believe she is only concerned about this one black man and not the abusive fighters in her own sport.

Muhammad Rasheed - O_O

Emily Marinaro - Why is it that male athletes who beat women are defended by ANYONE? Not to mention it's such a double standard and doesn't apply (read: as often) outside of these athletes who make bananas money (and we keep paying into it, such as this recent fight) It's not like anyone was ever like, 'yeah, it's such a shame to fire Bob, he was so good at marketing'.

Muhammad Rasheed - This is a strawman.

I'm defending him on this item because:

1.) He's clearly trying to be better and deserves the chance to prove he's gotten better as do we all. His women folk forgave him (one was celebrating him at ringside during the last fight with their children).


2.) I have a strong aversion against disliking a black person just because all of White America decides to hate him. It makes me want to dig deeper into their story beyond the popular sheeple narrative to the human underneath the bullshit.

Emily Marinaro - 1) I don't defend anyone who discriminates or Physically harms another person, period.

2) see 1...this isn't about following a rhetoric, it's about defending someone who hurt other people, physically, past or present. I hope he has gotten help and people have forgiven him, but that doesn't mean I have to be OK w someone who beat up a woman. Its something that I'm not OK with, probably bc I'm a female and can identify; go figure.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not okay with striking women either. I'm also not okay with sending people to pariah hell forever after they have made the effort to be better and genuinely recognize they have a problem that needs to be overcome.

And I certainly have a problem with people who want to treat a black man like that, but will tell black people as a whole to "get over it" when it comes to their own peoples' historical evils (which certainly involved horrifying abuse to my people's women).

Muhammad Rasheed - Whoa... I just spotted a hypocrisy moment...

So aren't you all the same lot that reject the concept of God because you find the idea of a hell that lasts forever to be unacceptable, yet you want to condemn Mayweather for a sin he's repented of and struggling to overcome and never, ever forgive him?

Thank God you're not God, eh? For His Path is easier and His burdens are light, and He doesn't condemn us to hell when we repent and be better. No one goes to hell who repent and make a sincere effort to be better people, covering over their past wrong with good deeds to help people. As Floyd continues to do btw.

Meg Gandy - don't bring religion into this. and don't pretend a couple years good behavior is remotely the same as true reformation. if he's truly repented, and god truly forgives him, that's a private matter no one will ever fucking see. certainly not you. real repentance is a daily fucking choice. it is not easy and it is not light and it requires breaking patterns of thought and behavior so very internal to a person that the likelihood of this man having pulled it off? is intensely low. he has left scars on many people, women and children both, that will take lifetimes to heal. and the fact you have more sympathy for this serial abuser than for his victims? makes your self righteousness absolutely abominable. go the fuck back to your bible and pray some more.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meg Gandy wrote: “don't bring religion into this. and don't pretend a couple years good behavior is remotely the same as true reformation.”

Is that an order from the authority granted to you by the force of your white privilege, your highness? “Oh snap! I was just told not to do something by whoever this is! I’d better hop to!” [salute] 

Meg Gandy wrote: “if he's truly repented, and god truly forgives him, that's a private matter no one will ever fucking see.”

Exactly. So stop throwing his weaknesses in his face all the time.

Meg Gandy wrote: “certainly not you.”

Certainly not his judgmental, unforgiving critics.

Meg Gandy wrote: “real repentance is a daily fucking choice. it is not easy and it is not light and it requires breaking patterns of thought and behavior so very internal to a person that the likelihood of this man having pulled it off? is intensely low.”

Since 2010 is a pretty good run for someone really trying. So if the likelihood of pulling it off is low, then he’s a champion.

Meg Gandy wrote: “he has left scars on many people, women and children both, that will take lifetimes to heal.”

Most of these folk were celebrating him at ringside. Looks like they are all healing fine together.

Meg Gandy wrote: “and the fact you have more sympathy for this serial abuser than for his victims?”

Based on what? Strawman argument magic?

Meg Gandy wrote: “makes your self righteousness absolutely abominable.”

*snort* Stuff you make up out of thin air can be abominable if that’s the force you wish to subscribe to it. Doesn’t mean much to me though.

Meg Gandy wrote: “go the fuck back to your bible and pray some more.”

Another direct order from the princess of white privilege? I’m honored to have gotten an audience! *genuflect*

Meg Gandy - if you're trying to set off my white guilt, best of luck to you. you seem to be pretty well practiced at fucking with people. i'm sure jesus approves. no, sweetheart. i'm not telling you to knock that shit off because you're black. i'm telling you to knock that shit off because your bullshit is why i left the church: so many assholes all so quick to claim god's grace for themselves while denying it to those who actually fucking need it. and this very very rich athlete does not need god's grace. he has it in spades. but you know what they say about rich men and the kingdom of heaven.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meg Gandy wrote: “if you're trying to set off my white guilt, best of luck to you.”

I’m actually trying to curb your penchant for ordering me around. It’s annoying as shit. Do I have to show you my Freed Man Papers? jesus…

Meg Gandy wrote: “you seem to be pretty well practiced at fucking with people.”

Do you feel fucked with? awww…

Meg Gandy wrote: “i'm sure jesus approves.”

I’m pretty sure Jesus doesn’t care what’s going on on earth right now. If I was a Christian I’d perhaps think differently though. They tend to give him a higher rank, y’know?

Meg Gandy wrote: “no, sweetheart.”

*blush* stop.

Meg Gandy wrote: “i'm not telling you to knock that shit off because you're black. i'm telling you to knock that shit off because your bullshit is why i left the church”

*needle on the Irony Meter® jumps*

Meg Gandy wrote: “so many assholes all so quick to claim god's grace for themselves while denying it to those who actually fucking need it.”

You must walk around with a bagful of strawman arguments. Is it heavy?

Meg Gandy wrote: “and this very very rich athlete does not need god's grace.”

Right. Because materialistic wealth is ALLLLLLLL about God’s grace & mercy. lol That’s the real reason you left the church, your highness. You didn’t learn a single fucking thing. But please. Keep trying to school me on religion. You’re AWESOME at it. *snicker*

Meg Gandy wrote: “he has it in spades.”

Please stop pretending you know what God’s Grace is, and who has it or not. ugh.

Meg Gandy wrote: “but you know what they say about rich men and the kingdom of heaven.”

Yeah. I DO. Do you? [calling bluff]

See Also: The Champ Says No More Rewards for the Fake Hero Challenger