Broner: "After I f*** this asian up."

[kidbazooka]

I’ll just say this...

If Pac and Broner ever fill out a Census Application, you better believe Broner would check the “African American” Box and Pac would check the “Asian” box.

Anyway. Good discussion about this stuff. People rarely have conversations on here anymore without going into insult mode.

Given the context of what he was saying broner meant it in a derogatory manner.

But black Folks be like “oh that’s not racist” but someone says “ima beat the shiaatt out that African” you better believe there gonna call it racism and go into in all out black lives matter movement.

[hectari]

Broner disappointed me, should have went all in and said after I whoop this ching chong chy dog eating mufhukka, imma send him back to the chinatown.

[SN!PER]

Then Imma have him make me some sushi rolls.

[Death_Adder]

There's nothting wrong with what Broner said, Paqcuiao is Asian, here's Broner's description:

Broner
Race: Negroid
Nationality: American Hood Rat
Ethnicity: jungles of Africa

[billeau2]

But why should there be a double standard.


It's pretty dumb to let him slide because he is a know piece of shlt, and being outraged if Pacquiao were to say something similar. Just something to think about.

Here is what people miss T: When we look at a gun for example, we do not expect it to have agency independent of some other... No gun ever pulled its own trigger. A word is like a gun. Language takes on agency, meaning like a gun in that the gun has no control over who and how it is used, anymore than a word has control over how it is used and by whom.

A gun in a drawer could be picked up by a criminal, or Mother Theresa... there is no concept of fairness regarding who opens the drawer with the gun next. So, a word insulting blacks in America will have a very different affect, than a word trying to insult an Asian individual...even if both words are designed to do the same thing. In both cases (the gun and word) there is no fairness or morality involved with the object...only with who uses the object.

heres what I am getting at: Insulting Pac the way Broner does is an act of intention not an act of denotation or connotation to be verbally deconstructed such as Robbie does when he says "North America is a continent like Asia is hence the word's effigecy should be challenged. It just does not work that way. That would be like saying "Mother Theresa's shot will do less damage than the criminals."

What people want to happen is for words to be clear and distinct and to indicate different levels of insult, based on logical events and structure... In fact though, language just rolls along depending on how people choose to use it. Words becomes a pebble on a snowbank that rolls down and keeps acquiring more snow. There was a time when the N word was no more than the same as one would insult any other individual. But as people used the word and it acquired more and more power to insult, it became a bigger stronger "gun" in the drawer to be picked up, a 45 instead of a 38 so to speak.

This fact may be obvious when we compare the N word to other insults, but what about when people start comparing the use of continents, ethnic groups, racial divisions and try to navigate a sense of difference? Like what does it mean to jack an Asian up? If we start making semantic distinctions based on fairness and word use, then if I say this to a Korean guy I can claim intention that is different than using a racial slur for Koreans when I "jack an Asian up" but the problem is, words don't work this way. My intention is the same either way and the words that are used will have different affects based on how these words have been used in the past.

The intention of Broner is to cast aspersion on Manny's self identity. While this may not be "fair" in the sense that using a word for doing this can change the affect, despite the word meaning the same thing, Broner intends to insult the same way with the word. So saying that Asia is the name of a continent, is a superflious argument. The real question should be why Broner should insult Manny on that level to begin with.

[Dosumpthin]

There's nothting wrong with what Broner said, Paqcuiao is Asian, here's Broner's description:

Broner
Race: Negroid
Nationality: American Hood Rat
Ethnicity: jungles of Africa

Just read your "carpet head" comment in another thread.


Well....at least you're consistent with it.

[travestyny]

Figures no backlash at all about it being racist. Gee I wonder whyyyy??

Well it seems that we've already established why....

Because it's AB and everyone expects it from him.


If it were Shane Mosley, there would definitely be an uproar. Isn't that sad?

[Citizen Koba]

Incorrect:

Broner
Race: Negroid
Nationality: American
Ethnicity: African

Pacquiao
Race: Mongoloid
Nationality: Filipino
Ethnicity: Asian

Seriously, I know you guys paid attention in school.

'Race' ain't a real thing, man. It's virtually random and arbitrary and based on no real scientific metric. Humankind is a genetic hotchpotch at every level. People have the right to self identify, of course, and they also have the right to make up arbitrary classification systems but acting like 'race' is some pre-defined absolute is just as, or possibly even more ignorant than those you're trying to correct.

[travestyny]

Here is what people miss T: When we look at a gun for example, we do not expect it to have agency independent of some other... No gun ever pulled its own trigger. A word is like a gun. Language takes on agency, meaning like a gun in that the gun has no control over who and how it is used, anymore than a word has control over how it is used and by whom.

A gun in a drawer could be picked up by a criminal, or Mother Theresa... there is no concept of fairness regarding who opens the drawer with the gun next. So, a word insulting blacks in America will have a very different affect, than a word trying to insult an Asian individual...even if both words are designed to do the same thing. In both cases (the gun and word) there is no fairness or morality involved with the object...only with who uses the object.

heres what I am getting at: Insulting Pac the way Broner does is an act of intention not an act of denotation or connotation to be verbally deconstructed such as Robbie does when he says "North America is a continent like Asia is hence the word's effigecy should be challenged. It just does not work that way. That would be like saying "Mother Theresa's shot will do less damage than the criminals."

What people want to happen is for words to be clear and distinct and to indicate different levels of insult, based on logical events and structure... In fact though, language just rolls along depending on how people choose to use it. Words becomes a pebble on a snowbank that rolls down and keeps acquiring more snow. There was a time when the N word was no more than the same as one would insult any other individual. But as people used the word and it acquired more and more power to insult, it became a bigger stronger "gun" in the drawer to be picked up, a 45 instead of a 38 so to speak.

This fact may be obvious when we compare the N word to other insults, but what about when people start comparing the use of continents, ethnic groups, racial divisions and try to navigate a sense of difference? Like what does it mean to jack an Asian up? If we start making semantic distinctions based on fairness and word use, then if I say this to a Korean guy I can claim intention that is different than using a racial slur for Koreans when I "jack an Asian up" but the problem is, words don't work this way. My intention is the same either way and the words that are used will have different affects based on how these words have been used in the past.

The intention of Broner is to cast aspersion on Manny's self identity. While this may not be "fair" in the sense that using a word for doing this can change the affect, despite the word meaning the same thing, Broner intends to insult the same way with the word. So saying that Asia is the name of a continent, is a superflious argument. The real question should be why Broner should insult Manny on that level to begin with.

Exactly! I had begun to write something similar to another poster, but I wanted to read through all the comments to see if someone else did. And here it is. Thanks, bro! Good shlt.

[Marchegiano]

'Race' ain't a real thing, man. It's virtually random and arbitrary and based on no real scientific metric. Humankind is a genetic hotchpotch at every level. People have the right to self identify, of course, and they also have the right to make up arbitrary classification systems but acting like 'race' is some pre-defined absolute is just as, or possibly even more ignorant than those you're trying to correct.

Yep, it gets even more difficult given our national and geographical separations are equally murky.