ICE CUBE - MAN DOWN (Offical Discussion)

[astra4322]

I'd actually like to know who the man is laying on the ground

KAM

[The Predator]

[astra4322]

Dope cover

[doggfather]

Dope cover

[abusive]

KAM

[WCThang]

Dope cover!

[Safe+Sound]

like others stated, this is a music forum …. no one wants to read your novels homie

if u wana answer my questions, i’ll be glad to answer yours …. but you’re terrified of revealing your political affiliation and i understand why; it will expose your agenda

so back to ice cube we go……….

That is because the original discussion has gotten lost. I began this conversation with a focus on Ice Cube, his actions in aligning with figures whose ideologies are diametrically opposed to what he stood for in his earlier career, and how that may tie into this new album. That’s what I’ve been engaging with, and that’s what I’ve provided evidence and reasoning to discuss.

Rather than respond directly to that, you’ve pivoted the conversation into personal attacks and deflections about my political views, which, frankly, were never the focus here. The attempt to bait me into an argument based on personal attacks or simple “yes or no” questions about my political affiliations misses the point entirely.

Your refusal to engage with the actual points raised, unless I answer your unrelated question, comes across as an attempt to avoid addressing the core of the argument. It’s quite ironic that you accuse me of being “terrified” when, in reality, it seems you’re the one retreating from the conversation. Rather than engaging with the evidence and points I’ve laid out, you’ve shifted the conversation to my political choices and attempted to establish a blockade at that juncture, which again is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue at hand was never about my voting preferences, but rather about evaluating the actions of public figures like Ice Cube in the context of their earlier principles.

The fact that you’re trying to reduce this to my political affiliation, and calling my responses “novels,” doesn’t change the points I’ve raised about systemic racism and Ice Cube’s actions. If we’re going back to the original topic, great - let’s focus on that instead of sidestepping into deflections.

Conversations like this aren’t about “winning” or “losing” but about engaging with ideas and facts. If you want to continue discussing Ice Cube and his choices, I’m happy to do so. But if the strategy is to avoid meaningful engagement and then declare some sort of victory without addressing the points made, it says more about the strength of your argument than anything else.

[Sccit]

That is because the original discussion has gotten lost. I began this conversation with a focus on Ice Cube, his actions in aligning with figures whose ideologies are diametrically opposed to what he stood for in his earlier career, and how that may tie into this new album. That’s what I’ve been engaging with, and that’s what I’ve provided evidence and reasoning to discuss.

Rather than respond directly to that, you’ve pivoted the conversation into personal attacks and deflections about my political views, which, frankly, were never the focus here. The attempt to bait me into an argument based on personal attacks or simple “yes or no” questions about my political affiliations misses the point entirely.

Your refusal to engage with the actual points raised, unless I answer your unrelated question, comes across as an attempt to avoid addressing the core of the argument. It’s quite ironic that you accuse me of being “terrified” when, in reality, it seems you’re the one retreating from the conversation. Rather than engaging with the evidence and points I’ve laid out, you’ve shifted the conversation to my political choices and attempted to establish a blockade at that juncture, which again is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue at hand was never about my voting preferences, but rather about evaluating the actions of public figures like Ice Cube in the context of their earlier principles.

The fact that you’re trying to reduce this to my political affiliation, and calling my responses “novels,” doesn’t change the points I’ve raised about systemic racism and Ice Cube’s actions. If we’re going back to the original topic, great - let’s focus on that instead of sidestepping into deflections.

Conversations like this aren’t about “winning” or “losing” but about engaging with ideas and facts. If you want to continue discussing Ice Cube and his choices, I’m happy to do so. But if the strategy is to avoid meaningful engagement and then declare some sort of victory without addressing the points made, it says more about the strength of your argument than anything else.

this guy can’t help himself lol

didn’t even read all that… i already know you didn’t answer my question without reading it

sociopathic behavior .. only morons will fall for it

are you in here to discuss ice cube or to practice for your bar exam?

[Safe+Sound]

this guy can’t help himself lol

didn’t even read all that… i already know you didn’t answer my question without reading it

sociopathic behavior .. only morons will fall for it

are you in here to discuss ice cube or to practice for your bar exam?

It’s fascinating that you openly admit to not reading my responses yet continue to engage in a debate. How exactly do you get your information or form your perspective if you aren’t willing to read and process viewpoints that challenge your own?

By refusing to read what I’ve presented, you’re essentially choosing to close yourself off to anything that might challenge your beliefs or bring nuance to your understanding of the topic.

If your approach is to avoid any information that doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative, it’s no surprise that you’ve been struggling to engage with the points I’ve made. It’s self-defeating to only focus on things that confirm your biases while dismissing anything that might make you think more critically.

Calling my behavior “sociopathic” is an extreme and baseless accusation that doesn’t align with how I’ve conducted myself throughout this discussion. I’ve consistently responded to your points with facts and evidence while staying on topic, avoiding personal attacks, and attempting to have a meaningful conversation.

If we’re talking about behavior in this exchange, it’s important to distinguish between someone presenting thoughtful arguments and someone throwing around insults to avoid engaging with the actual content of the debate.

I’m here to have a reasoned discussion, and I encourage you to focus on the substance of what’s being said, not on inflammatory language. Asking about my vote doesn’t address the points I’ve made about Ice Cube, and it definitely doesn’t contribute to the debate you claim to want to have. What’s even more ironic is that now you’re saying we need to “get back to Ice Cube,” but that’s exactly what I was trying to do all along—while you were the one leading it away from that topic.

[Sccit]

It’s fascinating that you openly admit to not reading my responses yet continue to engage in a debate. How exactly do you get your information or form your perspective if you aren’t willing to read and process viewpoints that challenge your own?

By refusing to read what I’ve presented, you’re essentially choosing to close yourself off to anything that might challenge your beliefs or bring nuance to your understanding of the topic.

If your approach is to avoid any information that doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative, it’s no surprise that you’ve been struggling to engage with the points I’ve made. It’s self-defeating to only focus on things that confirm your biases while dismissing anything that might make you think more critically.

Calling my behavior “sociopathic” is an extreme and baseless accusation that doesn’t align with how I’ve conducted myself throughout this discussion. I’ve consistently responded to your points with facts and evidence while staying on topic, avoiding personal attacks, and attempting to have a meaningful conversation.

If we’re talking about behavior in this exchange, it’s important to distinguish between someone presenting thoughtful arguments and someone throwing around insults to avoid engaging with the actual content of the debate.

I’m here to have a reasoned discussion, and I encourage you to focus on the substance of what’s being said, not on inflammatory language. Asking about my vote doesn’t address the points I’ve made about Ice Cube, and it definitely doesn’t contribute to the debate you claim to want to have. What’s even more ironic is that now you’re saying we need to “get back to Ice Cube,” but that’s exactly what I was trying to do all along—while you were the one leading it away from that topic.

you have issues brother .. control yourself

 

[Safe+Sound]

you have issues brother .. control yourself

 

I’m actually very calm and focused. What’s clear here is that we keep moving away from the original discussion about Ice Cube and the broader issues surrounding it. If we’re really going to address that topic, then it’s important to engage with the facts and evidence rather than sidestepping with personal remarks.

[Sccit]

I’m actually very calm and focused. What’s clear here is that we keep moving away from the original discussion about Ice Cube and the broader issues surrounding it. If we’re really going to address that topic, then it’s important to engage with the facts and evidence rather than sidestepping with personal remarks.

you tryin too hard

[Safe+Sound]

you tryin too hard

It’s not about trying hard—it’s about having a meaningful conversation. If we want to discuss something like Ice Cube’s choices or broader social issues, it takes more than dismissive comments, side-stepping and reductive sound-bites.

If you’re ready to get back to that, I’m happy to continue. Otherwise, it seems like we’re stuck in a loop where the topic isn’t actually being addressed.

[Sccit]

It’s not about trying hard—it’s about having a meaningful conversation. If we want to discuss something like Ice Cube’s choices or broader social issues, it takes more than dismissive comments, side-stepping and reductive sound-bites.

If you’re ready to get back to that, I’m happy to continue. Otherwise, it seems like we’re stuck in a loop where the topic isn’t actually being addressed.

like i said, if you can’t even be man enough to answer a simple question then it shows me you’re a disingenuous person with a side agenda

that (mixed in with the fact that your long winded paragraphs are a chore to read) made me stop taking you serious a couple pages back

any more novels?

[Safe+Sound]

like i said, if you can’t even be man enough to answer a simple question then it shows me you’re a disingenuous person with a side agenda

that (mixed in with the fact that your long winded paragraphs are a chore to read) made me stop taking you serious a couple pages back

any more novels?

It’s interesting that you’ve framed this discussion as dependent on me answering an unrelated question about political affiliation, which doesn’t affect the points I’ve made about Ice Cube or systemic issues at all. I’ve been focused on the actual topic from the start, while you’ve continuously shifted the conversation away from it.

I’m not here to play a game of personal gotchas, but to discuss ideas and facts. If you’re genuinely interested in having a real conversation about Ice Cube or the original argument, I’m still open to that. If not, we’ll both have to agree that this isn’t going anywhere productive.