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

[SplitSecond]

AA's stay the most racist, aye TS?

[travestyny]

AA's stay the most racist, aye TS?

That's not what I learned here.

What we learned is that some people get a pass based on who they are.

Broner says this and perhaps there will be no uproar.


If Shane Mosley says it....I think there would be.


What's your opinion?

(Unless people give Shane a pass for what he went through with Jin )



Plus, and let's be clear about this.....the words of one man can in no way be used to come to the conclusion that one race is more racist than another. Get out of here with that garbage.

[satiev1]

imagine if manny said after I **** this black N-I-G-G-G-E-R up, There would be 100 videos on youtube saying manny is a racist.

[Citizen Koba]

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.

I nearly started on a similar argument about judging words an actions on intent or a reasonable expected range of outcomes, but I found myself veering off on a wild tangent and becoming bogged down in explanations of terminology... just gave up in the end (this happens fairly often when I post on non-boxing related topics).

Anyways. Kudos, man. Clearly and succinctly explained. Can see that philosophy background coming through.

[travestyny]

imagine if manny said after I **** this black N-I-G-G-G-E-R up, There would be 100 videos on youtube saying manny is a racist.

That is NOT the same thing or even close to what AB said. He did not call him an asian slur. There was no reason to add the N word there.

[Froch_uppercut]

Pacquiao would never say something like that because he's respectable and has class.

Broner has zero class, we should all already know this, that's why i'm wondering why anyone is surprised lol

People are not saying they're surprised by Broner being a racist, they're just reminding folks that it's a 2 way street,

[Michael1437]

The $hi++y thing about this, is that the media is going to eat this up and it'll be viewed negatively on Broner, He's probably not a racist, but just trying to hype the fight up, but don't involve race imo.

[Twako]

No..actually it’s NOT the same. Black isn’t an ethnicity EITHER. It would be the same if Pac said “I’m gonna fvc k this AFRICAN up.”

Actually, if PAC would say anything similar, it would be "I'm gonna **** this negro up." In the Philippines, and in most latin countries i presume, that's what we call blacks.

[alexguiness]

No such thing as racism IMO.

Its just a tactic used by progressives to advance the identity politics agenda.

A good man is a good man.

Crime statistics / incarceration % and educational performance are useful indicators of moral decency and character.

[Vlad_]

Broner is fighting an Asian fighter, and he thinks he's going to fuck him up, and said as much.

Ain't nothing racist about that.

I think Pacquiao beats him up pretty well though, and he also looks like a bum with that ugly beard and hat.