West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => West Coast Connection => Topic started by: abusive on January 30, 2025, 04:45:23 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fttjhEeECiE
Es$o and Hynaken discuss Snoop Dogg’s performance at Trump’s Crypto Ball getting him potentially cancelled and what it means that he already lost half a million followers!
===========================
→JOIN THE BAGFUEL BRIGADE←
/ @bagfuel
===========================
JOIN THE MOVEMENT GO TO BAGFUEL.COM
➤FUEL UP ON APPLE: https://apple.co/3izHp0h
➤FUEL UP ON SPOTIFY: https://spoti.fi/3f1e2li
➤FUEL UP ON SOUNDCLOUD: / bagfuel
➤FUEL UP ON IG: / bagfuel
➤FOLLOW ES$O: / essowrld
➤FOLLOW HYNAKEN: / hynaken
#BagFuel #Es$o #Hynaken
-
No cause for panic. It was 500K out of >88.7 Million. That's roughly 0.56%.
I think "cancelled" would be losing a lot more than half of a percent - like upwards of 70% of of his following. Anything that far from a more realistic number is sensationalism.
But in either scenario, he only has himself to thank.
-
I know I unfollowed him. He wants to profit off of and cozy up to Trump? Good for him. I hope that bag is worth it. Because everything Trump is doing is going to tank the economy, undo environmental protections, gut and paralyze the federal government, and silence all independent watchdogs, news sources, and criticism. I, as one person, can't do much, but I can unfollow people that support him and try to limit the amount of business I do with friends/sycophants of Trump.
-
:mjlol:
-
I know I unfollowed him. He wants to profit off of and cozy up to Trump? Good for him. I hope that bag is worth it. Because everything Trump is doing is going to tank the economy, undo environmental protections, gut and paralyze the federal government, and silence all independent watchdogs, news sources, and criticism. I, as one person, can't do much, but I can unfollow people that support him and try to limit the amount of business I do with friends/sycophants of Trump.
Indeed. Alienating your base by cozying up with an open bigot who just attempted to freeze all federal funding including Medicaid for 70 million people and SNAP, pardoning the leader of a white supremacist organization (Proud Boys) who was serving a 22-year sentence, commuting the sentence of another white supremacist leader (Oath Keepers) who was serving an 18-year sentence, pardoning ~1500 domestic terrorists who rioted at Capitol Hill, accompanied by the last 50 years of documented racism without even mentioning his Nazi affiliated father who attended Klan rallies - all of which tends to be conveniently overlooked and understudied by his ardent apologists - seems to be unsettling to people. Shocker.
-
Snoop sold his soul a long time ago.did you remeber the track where he talks to the devil?
You can already see on the Missionary album, Jimmy says we still need it, just ridiculous. And what most people don't understand when you're at that level, sounds ridiculous, but most people suck cocks
Let's take Hallelujah (Feat. X-Zibit) as an example by Bishop Lamont
-
I wonder how many of his 87 million actually listened to Missionary?
if they did he probably would have lost a lot more followers
-
If any of you think unfollowing Snoop is making any kind of impact on him, you are delusional. He doesn't have a clue how many followers he has or even cares. No one here is teaching Snoop any kind of lesson by deleting him from your Twitter account. Such a stupid Gen Z thing to do. I can see you pushing the button on your phone and thinking "There, that'll show him! That will teach him to perform with Trump!" and thinking Snoop is up late at night crying about all the followers he lost.
-
Can guarantee the amount of people who have lost respect for him is more than the 500k followers. They're just not on socials and people need to remember that to this day in terms of artists like Snoop, a massive proportion of his fanbase won't be on stuff like that. It doesn't matter anyway because Snoop odesn't care. He''ll take money from wherever and fuck his morals.
-
I wonder how many of his 87 million actually listened to Missionary?
if they did he probably would have lost a lot more followers
:dead:
-
If any of you think unfollowing Snoop is making any kind of impact on him, you are delusional. He doesn't have a clue how many followers he has or even cares. No one here is teaching Snoop any kind of lesson by deleting him from your Twitter account. Such a stupid Gen Z thing to do. I can see you pushing the button on your phone and thinking "There, that'll show him! That will teach him to perform with Trump!" and thinking Snoop is up late at night crying about all the followers he lost.
Depends on how you look at it. If I'm a fan and I unfollow him on Instagram, that probably signals that I'm done with him across the board. Music and whatever else he has going on. Unfollowing them is the least I can do. It's not the most. The most is not spending money on you, smearing your name and so forth. I doubt those who unfollow him are still going to support him as an artist and business man. I don't see it as a way to teach him a lesson per say. Just a personal decision to boycott.
The problem is no one knows how many of his followers are actually real and out of the real, how many financially support him. IG followers and followers online in general does mean something though. One of the first thing people do nowadays is check out your social media presence. Especially in the entertainment industry. Doing paid ad placements on IG is a big business. The larger the followers, the more you can charge. The more followers you have, the more important or prestigious you appear to the public. That's why so many people fake their numbers. I say that to say, he probably is concerned and I'm positive he'll be more careful next time.
-
If any of you think unfollowing Snoop is making any kind of impact on him, you are delusional. He doesn't have a clue how many followers he has or even cares. No one here is teaching Snoop any kind of lesson by deleting him from your Twitter account. Such a stupid Gen Z thing to do. I can see you pushing the button on your phone and thinking "There, that'll show him! That will teach him to perform with Trump!" and thinking Snoop is up late at night crying about all the followers he lost.
Are you implying all I'm doing is unfollowing him? Because it's not stopping there. I'm not buying any products he endorses or any more of his music. And I'm making a conscious effort to do the same for anyone else that performed or attend his inauguration. The CEO of Google attended. Welp, no more Google searches. I'll find other search engines. No more Google maps. There's other map options. When it's time to get a new phone, I'm not buying another Pixel. The Amazon CEO was there. I'm going to avoid shopping at Amazon except when necessary.
All these fucks care about is money. So that's where I can hurt them, even if it's just a little bit.
-
I know I unfollowed him. He wants to profit off of and cozy up to Trump? Good for him. I hope that bag is worth it. Because everything Trump is doing is going to tank the economy, undo environmental protections, gut and paralyze the federal government, and silence all independent watchdogs, news sources, and criticism. I, as one person, can't do much, but I can unfollow people that support him and try to limit the amount of business I do with friends/sycophants of Trump.
Just like last time he was president? ::)
-
Just like last time he was president? ::)
This is quite a different scenario we find ourselves in from Trump 1.0, which was an often unruly, directionless, and very public mess. Newly appointed Trump 2.0. presidential aides are determined to make it more efficient and consequential. Crypticity is the defining word, demonstrated by the freeze on external communications from agencies like the CDC and HHS, and pulling out of the World Health Organization. The sheer scope and lack of transparency around the current transition is unprecedented.
More than 1,000 EPA employees are facing termination: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-employees-warned-of-immediate-termination/?utm_source=liminalcreations&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=week-2
More than a dozen Inspectors General were fired, removing a major check on power of the President: https://www.vox.com/donald-trump/397001/the-logoff-trump-inspectors-general-watchdogs-fired?utm_source=liminalcreations&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=week-2
All the federal datasets and program pages are going dark. I know of substantial changes at CDC and NIH, at USDA, and at NASA. Datasets, GitHub repos, and entire program websites are gone, largely around topics relating to gender and sexual health, climate and open science:
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/31/health-cdc-websites-data-removed-trump?utm_source=liminalcreations&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=week-2
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/31/usda-climate-change-websites-00201826?utm_source=liminalcreations&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=week-2
Each of these happened without public explanation, adding to the sense of opacity and secrecy around the administration’s operations. This is all only a small appetizer. It's a flood the zone strategy.
This is also Day 1 of the trade war with Canada, China, and Mexico. Even Murdoch's own Wall St. Journal Editorial Board just called Trump's new trade war "The Dumbest Trade War in History":
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-tariffs-25-percent-mexico-canada-trade-economy-84476fb2
... All of which people like Snoop Dogg and Nelly know less than nothing about but that seriously affect (but not limited to) the communities that support them the most. The slight irony (and tragedy) is that the majority of their fans don't read either and get their news from TikTok.
-
It only makes sense to remove all the gender bullshit and climate propaganda. What explanation would you need?
-
I really feel for the Americans on here who understand the hell that is about to be inflicted on them rather than the mindless cunts who belive what the internet tells them.
-
It only makes sense to remove all the gender bullshit and climate propaganda. What explanation would you need?
Which specific studies or datasets do you find problematic? It would help if you shared specific critiques or data that led you to this conclusion. Just calling it ‘bullshit’ or ‘propaganda’ doesn’t explain which studies you feel are invalid or why.
Publicly accessible data—on health, climate, education, or otherwise—allows researchers, journalists, and citizens to fact-check policies and hold agencies accountable. Removing it without explanation hinders evidence-based decision-making. Climate data, for instance, informs everything from insurance rates and infrastructure planning to agricultural policy. Gender statistics might shape public health interventions, help businesses address pay disparities, or inform social services. Deleting these datasets undercuts informed policy.
Climate policy may be up for debate—how we address carbon emissions, for instance—but the underlying science has wide acceptance among experts to put it mildly. Removing or hiding data from NASA, NOAA, or USDA doesn’t change the science; it only limits public and policymakers’ ability to access it.
Gender research can examine health outcomes, economic trends, social structures, etc. Calling it ‘bullshit’ disregards findings used to improve patient care, shape workplace policies, or reduce inequality.
Overall, a functioning democracy involves multiple perspectives—citizens, scientists, policymakers—contributing data and analysis so we can discuss trade-offs. Sweeping away entire topics undermines that pluralism. Taxpayer dollars fund agencies like the CDC, NIH, and NASA, so it’s fair to expect transparency about any major changes, especially if they affect public health or environmental data we rely on.
-
It only makes sense to remove all the gender bullshit and climate propaganda. What explanation would you need?
Yes, all that climate propaganda. You know, all that science shit that roughly 99% of experts agree on. But yeah, it must be a gigantic bullshit conspiracy because an old ass, rich ass, racist, white dude who wears more face paint than a circus clown said so. Just think of this. Qui bono? Who benefits? Who benefits from reduced environmental regulations? Who benefits from reduced worker or consumer rights? The fucking billionaires who own the largest mulitnational corporations who, without regulations, can provide the bare minimum and cut costs as low as possible to increase their profit margins and line their own pockets.
Regarding the gender stuff, how does less than 1% of 1% of the human population being transgender have any meaningful effects on your life? How about you live and let live? Focus on your own well being instead of tearing down people you'll probably never have to meet or interact with in your life.
-
It will be interesting to see what great minds like Snoop, Nelly, Waka Flaka and other apologists of color have to say about the Defense Intelligence Agency banning "all activities and events related to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, Juneteenth, LGBTQ Pride Month, Holocaust Remembrance Day and other 'special observances' to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order" since diversity has become a dirty word - but more accurately, a euphemism for racist slurs. Now that we have a woman-hating, white Christian nationalist and former Fox News host with a long documented history of alcohol abuse in charge who thinks that sex with unconscious women isn't rape, I'm sure the country has a lot to look forward to as we all await for Snoop's invaluable guidance on it all.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/defense-agency-bans-black-history-month-rcna190189
https://apnews.com/article/trump-holiday-mlk-day-pride-black-hispanic-dei-047bbdbfc12ea6e9a9731f5861d84e70
-
Depends on how you look at it. If I'm a fan and I unfollow him on Instagram, that probably signals that I'm done with him across the board. Music and whatever else he has going on. Unfollowing them is the least I can do. It's not the most. The most is not spending money on you, smearing your name and so forth. I doubt those who unfollow him are still going to support him as an artist and business man. I don't see it as a way to teach him a lesson per say. Just a personal decision to boycott.
The problem is no one knows how many of his followers are actually real and out of the real, how many financially support him. IG followers and followers online in general does mean something though. One of the first thing people do nowadays is check out your social media presence. Especially in the entertainment industry. Doing paid ad placements on IG is a big business. The larger the followers, the more you can charge. The more followers you have, the more important or prestigious you appear to the public. That's why so many people fake their numbers. I say that to say, he probably is concerned and I'm positive he'll be more careful next time.
Sure, until he and Dre make another album together. Or he releases the Missionary leftovers, or unreleased Death Row stuff. Then you’ll all be back singing his praises again.
-
Sure, until he and Dre make another album together. Or he releases the Missionary leftovers, or unreleased Death Row stuff. Then you’ll all be back singing his praises again.
That's quite the judgement of character. You are essentially saying that anything can be justified as long as the perpetrator has the ability to make popular music. Does this apply to you as well?
Anyone with an ounce of integrity would strongly disagree with your statement. Granted, this forum isn't exactly teeming with human decency so it makes statements like that much easier to get away with.
R Kelly is a great example to point to in more recent times (I'm assuming hardly anyone here is familiar with Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky). I was a fan of his music until it was confirmed he was a pedophile. It's pretty difficult to separate the art from the artist when the artist is singing about explicit sex coupled with the knowledge that he's privately engaging in these acts with underage girls (or perhaps not so private since he married a 15-year-old).
The expectation that people are going to betray their own values and/or who they as people simply because an entertainer has betrayed his own all for the sake of entertainment itself is not a very fair one. Although it is not false many do, it is certainly not completely true and cannot be applied so generally. There is some morality left among people. Not everyone is willing to look the other way. For everyone's sake - including your own - let's hope it stays that way.
-
Granted, this forum isn't exactly teeming with human decency so it makes statements like that much easier to get away with.
your holier than thou schtick is getting old … u ain’t no better than anyone here mufucka.
-
Indeed. Alienating your base by cozying up with an open bigot who just attempted to freeze all federal funding including Medicaid for 70 million people and SNAP, pardoning the leader of a white supremacist organization (Proud Boys) who was serving a 22-year sentence, commuting the sentence of another white supremacist leader (Oath Keepers) who was serving an 18-year sentence, pardoning ~1500 domestic terrorists who rioted at Capitol Hill, accompanied by the last 50 years of documented racism without even mentioning his Nazi affiliated father who attended Klan rallies - all of which tends to be conveniently overlooked and understudied by his ardent apologists - seems to be unsettling to people. Shocker.
Esooooo 8)
I seen that shit. Fuckin gringos always letting each other off the hook. You can tell these foos are all little bitches tryin to act hard and never been through nothing. Wouldn't last an L.A. second.
Me and everyone I know is on Medicaid and SNAP and these rich motherfuckers want us to pay for their mansions by trying to take it away. Like they ain't got enough cheese already.
Someone put me in a room with any one of these powder puffs for 5 mins.
-
That's quite the judgement of character. You are essentially saying that anything can be justified as long as the perpetrator has the ability to make popular music. Does this apply to you as well?
Anyone with an ounce of integrity would strongly disagree with your statement. Granted, this forum isn't exactly teeming with human decency so it makes statements like that much easier to get away with.
R Kelly is a great example to point to in more recent times (I'm assuming hardly anyone here is familiar with Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky). I was a fan of his music until it was confirmed he was a pedophile. It's pretty difficult to separate the art from the artist when the artist is singing about explicit sex coupled with the knowledge that he's privately engaging in these acts with underage girls (or perhaps not so private since he married a 15-year-old).
The expectation that people are going to betray their own values and/or who they as people simply because an entertainer has betrayed his own all for the sake of entertainment itself is not a very fair one. Although it is not false many do, it is certainly not completely true and cannot be applied so generally. There is some morality left among people. Not everyone is willing to look the other way. For everyone's sake - including your own - let's hope it stays that way.
Hahaha, that's right homes. I can relate. I used to bump R Kelly back in the day but I can't anymore - he killed it. Everything sounds weird now that he's aired out. Cho-Mos get handled in the joint. One of them C.O.'s gonna give him the unlock of a lifetime one of these days hahaha.
I ain't surprised - lots of weirdos in forums and online in general dogg. You ain't dropping no names but you got people coming out the woodwork all butt-hurt already haha, straight burning themselves. Shit, I just joined this one and seen a page where motherfuckers talking about drinkin their own piss, WTF. I'm better than that homes hahaha.
Not many solid motherfuckers around but hey, if a motherfucker can't draw the line somewhere, he ain't shit and don't stand for shit. I got more respect for the punk ass woods on that Nazi bullshit that keep it all the way real than for some fuckin punk who can't turn the page on some bullshit happening right in front of him. Snoop ain't shit. That fake ass crip takes money to go be his own DJ at a party with people who hate Mexicans and black people. And he's there kickin it with another lame who used to be a C.O.? Aw hell naw homie.
-
Esooooo 8)
I seen that shit. Fuckin gringos always letting each other off the hook. You can tell these foos are all little bitches tryin to act hard and never been through nothing. Wouldn't last an L.A. second.
Me and everyone I know is on Medicaid and SNAP and these rich motherfuckers want us to pay for their mansions by trying to take it away. Like they ain't got enough cheese already.
Someone put me in a room with any one of these powder puffs for 5 mins.
:fisherlol:
-
Ya’ll got it backwards—should be unfollowing Eminem, Cardi B, and Beyoncé for their appearance at the Kamala Harris rally. If you really care about the country and success of America.
Of course many here hate America and want it destroyed—yall should educate yourself on the alternative that the WEF, Klaus Shwab, China pushed 2020-22 Covid pods, boosters, and AI 🤖 Satanic future
-
your holier than thou schtick is getting old … u ain’t no better than anyone here mufucka.
Hahahahaha, he didn't even drop any names and you over here putting yourself on blast getting all butt-hurt. You sound like one of these lil keyboard warriors. I seen some of your posts on this shit - you got a big mouth homes. You ain't talkin like that to nobody on the street without picking up your teeth after hahaha.
You ain't read some of these other pages in here? Fuckin weirdos drinkin their own piss. Shiiiit, I dunno where the fuck u from but over this way, we all the way above that sick shit. Speak for yourself.
And why you talkin like you black - I seen your pic Osama haha. U ain't from the hood ese. Just some whiteboy with a beard on the internet tryin to act hard cause you kick it with a few black rappers haha.
I thought this forum was on some G shit cause it's all westside music... but it's kinda wack. All these posers and softies up in here ain't really from L.A. hiding in their mamma's basement talking shit haha. Weak.
Any problems, come to the block - we right here on Florence Ave 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONEUdQrwP4
-
Ya’ll got it backwards—should be unfollowing Eminem, Cardi B, and Beyoncé for their appearance at the Kamala Harris rally. If you really care about the country and success of America.
Of course many here hate America and want it destroyed—yall should educate yourself on the alternative that the WEF, Klaus Shwab, China pushed 2020-22 Covid pods, boosters, and AI 🤖 Satanic future
Hahahaha, crazy I was just talking about weirdos up in here drinking their own piss and one of em pops up hahaha. Cover your mouth when you speak homes hahaha. Straight J-Cat.
-
That's quite the judgement of character. You are essentially saying that anything can be justified as long as the perpetrator has the ability to make popular music. Does this apply to you as well?
Anyone with an ounce of integrity would strongly disagree with your statement. Granted, this forum isn't exactly teeming with human decency so it makes statements like that much easier to get away with.
R Kelly is a great example to point to in more recent times (I'm assuming hardly anyone here is familiar with Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky). I was a fan of his music until it was confirmed he was a pedophile. It's pretty difficult to separate the art from the artist when the artist is singing about explicit sex coupled with the knowledge that he's privately engaging in these acts with underage girls (or perhaps not so private since he married a 15-year-old).
The expectation that people are going to betray their own values and/or who they as people simply because an entertainer has betrayed his own all for the sake of entertainment itself is not a very fair one. Although it is not false many do, it is certainly not completely true and cannot be applied so generally. There is some morality left among people. Not everyone is willing to look the other way. For everyone's sake - including your own - let's hope it stays that way.
Yes that's exactly what i'm saying. It's been proven time and time again. Also in sports. Look at all the athletes who do horrendous things off the field, yet people still pay big money to watch them play. How many actors/actresses do things in their personal lives and people still love their movies.
-
Hahahahaha, he didn't even drop any names and you over here putting yourself on blast getting all butt-hurt. You sound like one of these lil keyboard warriors. I seen some of your posts on this shit - you got a big mouth homes. You ain't talkin like that to nobody on the street without picking up your teeth after hahaha.
You ain't read some of these other pages in here? Fuckin weirdos drinkin their own piss. Shiiiit, I dunno where the fuck u from but over this way, we all the way above that sick shit. Speak for yourself.
And why you talkin like you black - I seen your pic Osama haha. U ain't from the hood ese. Just some whiteboy with a beard on the internet tryin to act hard cause you kick it with a few black rappers haha.
I thought this forum was on some G shit cause it's all westside music... but it's kinda wack. All these posers and softies up in here ain't really from L.A. hiding in their mamma's basement talking shit haha. Weak.
Any problems, come to the block - we right here on Florence Ave 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONEUdQrwP4
if u real then i aint hard to find .. u more the bakersfield type, no?
:high:
-
if u real then i aint hard to find .. u more the bakersfield type, no?
:high:
Hahaha, look at the whiteboy trying to act brave. Naw puto, I'm the South Central type. Santa Fe & Gage ese. Big Bad SS FLORENCIA X3 homie, we right here all day.
Maybe u not hard to find in Beverly Hills hahaha. Ain't nobody tryiing to go look for some lame square whiteboy from the internet hahahaha. Nobody gets points for beating up punks around this way haha. You probably call the pigs and rat anyway haha. But if you feeling wild and crazy, bring yo ass to South Central and we'll see wussup 8)
(https://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk104/mexicanmoster/f13op.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/f4/b8/f4f4b8d86a0bc3cb2e05deff8036ec40.jpg)
-
Hahaha, look at the whiteboy trying to act brave. Naw puto, I'm the South Central type. Santa Fe & Gage ese. Big Bad SS FLORENCIA X3 homie, we right here all day.
Maybe u not hard to find in Beverly Hills hahaha. Ain't nobody tryiing to go look for some lame square whiteboy from the internet hahahaha. Nobody gets points for beating up punks around this way haha. You probably call the pigs and rat anyway haha. But if you feeling wild and crazy, bring yo ass to South Central and we'll see wussup 8)
(https://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk104/mexicanmoster/f13op.jpg)
if u scared go to temple.
let’s keep it a buck here, your trolling is weak homie .. gota step it up a notch.
your last alias on here was slightly more convincing.
you losin it champ.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/f4/b8/f4f4b8d86a0bc3cb2e05deff8036ec40.jpg)
:mjlol:
-
Yes that's exactly what i'm saying. It's been proven time and time again. Also in sports. Look at all the athletes who do horrendous things off the field, yet people still pay big money to watch them play. How many actors/actresses do things in their personal lives and people still love their movies.
I just gave a personal example where I deliberately stopped supporting R-Kelly's work once I discovered he was a pedophile. That contradicts the idea that everyone inevitably looks the other way.
Could you clarify how that fits into your claim that it’s “proven time and time again” people always separate the art from the artist? Because if even one person (like me) changes their support due to moral concerns, it suggests your blanket statement needs more nuance. As I mentioned before, it might be true that many fans do overlook an artist’s wrongdoing - maybe that also includes you - but it clearly isn’t all fans, as my example shows.
-
Hahahahaha, he didn't even drop any names and you over here putting yourself on blast getting all butt-hurt. You sound like one of these lil keyboard warriors. I seen some of your posts on this shit - you got a big mouth homes. You ain't talkin like that to nobody on the street without picking up your teeth after hahaha.
You ain't read some of these other pages in here? Fuckin weirdos drinkin their own piss. Shiiiit, I dunno where the fuck u from but over this way, we all the way above that sick shit. Speak for yourself.
And why you talkin like you black - I seen your pic Osama haha. U ain't from the hood ese. Just some whiteboy with a beard on the internet tryin to act hard cause you kick it with a few black rappers haha.
I thought this forum was on some G shit cause it's all westside music... but it's kinda wack. All these posers and softies up in here ain't really from L.A. hiding in their mamma's basement talking shit haha. Weak.
Any problems, come to the block - we right here on Florence Ave 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONEUdQrwP4
Great first read. All excellent points. With a little extra polish, you could open your own private practice.
Admittedly, it is quite the task trying to take someone seriously who drinks their own urine.
P.S. Love the video and how it was shot. Great representation of the area.
-
Hahaha, that's right homes. I can relate. I used to bump R Kelly back in the day but I can't anymore - he killed it. Everything sounds weird now that he's aired out. Cho-Mos get handled in the joint. One of them C.O.'s gonna give him the unlock of a lifetime one of these days hahaha.
I ain't surprised - lots of weirdos in forums and online in general dogg. You ain't dropping no names but you got people coming out the woodwork all butt-hurt already haha, straight burning themselves. Shit, I just joined this one and seen a page where motherfuckers talking about drinkin their own piss, WTF. I'm better than that homes hahaha.
Not many solid motherfuckers around but hey, if a motherfucker can't draw the line somewhere, he ain't shit and don't stand for shit. I got more respect for the punk ass woods on that Nazi bullshit that keep it all the way real than for some fuckin punk who can't turn the page on some bullshit happening right in front of him. Snoop ain't shit. That fake ass crip takes money to go be his own DJ at a party with people who hate Mexicans and black people. And he's there kickin it with another lame who used to be a C.O.? Aw hell naw homie.
It is indeed amusing when people publicly volunteer themselves in response to comments that made no mention of anyone in particular. It indirectly validates the claims levied against them.
The morality crisis is real. It's essentially what everything boils down to once money is no longer a driving force. How one treats others who can do nothing for them is telling on both ends of the spectrum, which I think is a significant (and valid) part of the outrage. The entire scenario is riddled with an obscene level of contradictions.
-
It is indeed amusing when people publicly volunteer themselves in response to comments that made no mention of anyone in particular. It indirectly validates the claims levied against them.
The morality crisis is real. It's essentially what everything boils down to once money is no longer a driving force. How one treats others who can do nothing for them is telling on both ends of the spectrum, which I think is a significant (and valid) part of the outrage. The entire scenario is riddled with an obscene level of contradictions.
he’s trolling you, you idiot
:lulz:
and me having the back of the forum members here by calling out your pretentious behavior has nothing to do with me
your dumbass is too stupid to see the difference between a real poster and a troll playing a character.. and then u have the nerve to question the collective intelligence of the entire forum. classic.
-
I just gave a personal example where I deliberately stopped supporting R-Kelly's work once I discovered he was a pedophile. That contradicts the idea that everyone inevitably looks the other way.
Could you clarify how that fits into your claim that it’s “proven time and time again” people always separate the art from the artist? Because if even one person (like me) changes their support due to moral concerns, it suggests your blanket statement needs more nuance. As I mentioned before, it might be true that many fans do overlook an artist’s wrongdoing - maybe that also includes you - but it clearly isn’t all fans, as my example shows.
I don't think anywhere i said "every single person". There will always be outliers to something, which is why I didn't say "every single person". Cool, you don't listen to R. Kelly anymore. You still listen to Snoop who had a murder case, still listen to Dre who beat a woman, still listen to Eazy E who had 8 kids by 7 different women, still listen to plenty of other rappers who done bad things in their personal lives, drug charges, etc. That's why it's gangster rap. These people aren't saints in their personal lives, and that's fine. Who Snoop Dogg performs a concert for is irrelevant to me.
-
I don't think anywhere i said "every single person". There will always be outliers to something, which is why I didn't say "every single person". Cool, you don't listen to R. Kelly anymore. You still listen to Snoop who had a murder case, still listen to Dre who beat a woman, still listen to Eazy E who had 8 kids by 7 different women, still listen to plenty of other rappers who done bad things in their personal lives, drug charges, etc. That's why it's gangster rap. These people aren't saints in their personal lives, and that's fine. Who Snoop Dogg performs a concert for is irrelevant to me.
snoop killed some immigrant, no biggie … but performing at a donald trump event, that’s where i draw the line!
-
I don't think anywhere i said "every single person". There will always be outliers to something, which is why I didn't say "every single person". Cool, you don't listen to R. Kelly anymore. You still listen to Snoop who had a murder case, still listen to Dre who beat a woman, still listen to Eazy E who had 8 kids by 7 different women, still listen to plenty of other rappers who done bad things in their personal lives, drug charges, etc. That's why it's gangster rap. These people aren't saints in their personal lives, and that's fine. Who Snoop Dogg performs a concert for is irrelevant to me.
Comparing child neglect or having many children to white supremacy or pedophilia is apples and oranges. Yes, all wrongdoing is serious, but different behaviors can strike at the core of someone’s moral or philosophical stance in different ways. For example, it’s one thing for Dr. Dre to admit past violence, show remorse, and personally work to change; it’s another for an entertainer to openly promote or align with racism (or exploit minors) in a way that completely contradicts their public image or stated beliefs.
The key issue I raised is about betraying core values and whether fans should keep supporting someone whose actions run counter to their own moral standards. Throwing out an array of different offenses without considering context can blur that crucial distinction.
In the end, it’s less about “gotcha” examples and more about why a particular behavior is intolerable to a fan. Some might draw the line at criminal activity against minors, some at racism or violence, some at total hypocrisy regarding an artist’s professed beliefs. Either way, it’s hard to lump them all together without understanding each case’s specifics—or the values of the fans involved.
-
Comparing child neglect or having many children to white supremacy or pedophilia is apples and oranges. Yes, all wrongdoing is serious, but different behaviors can strike at the core of someone’s moral or philosophical stance in different ways. For example, it’s one thing for Dr. Dre to admit past violence, show remorse, and personally work to change; it’s another for an entertainer to openly promote or align with racism (or exploit minors) in a way that completely contradicts their public image or stated beliefs.
The key issue I raised is about betraying core values and whether fans should keep supporting someone whose actions run counter to their own moral standards. Throwing out an array of different offenses without considering context can blur that crucial distinction.
In the end, it’s less about “gotcha” examples and more about why a particular behavior is intolerable to a fan. Some might draw the line at criminal activity against minors, some at racism or violence, some at total hypocrisy regarding an artist’s professed beliefs. Either way, it’s hard to lump them all together without understanding each case’s specifics—or the values of the fans involved.
Haha, if you think performing at an inauguration of a candidate you don’t endorse is worse than murder, woman abuse, animal abuse, and child neglect, i think you need to reexamine your moral values.
-
Look I don’t like Trump but what I really hate is the woke mob. Whatever happened to difference of opinion, freedom of speech and political choices. You can’t try to simply cancel everybody you disagree with.
-
Comparing child neglect or having many children to white supremacy or pedophilia is apples and oranges. Yes, all wrongdoing is serious, but different behaviors can strike at the core of someone’s moral or philosophical stance in different ways. For example, it’s one thing for Dr. Dre to admit past violence, show remorse, and personally work to change; it’s another for an entertainer to openly promote or align with racism (or exploit minors) in a way that completely contradicts their public image or stated beliefs.
The key issue I raised is about betraying core values and whether fans should keep supporting someone whose actions run counter to their own moral standards. Throwing out an array of different offenses without considering context can blur that crucial distinction.
In the end, it’s less about “gotcha” examples and more about why a particular behavior is intolerable to a fan. Some might draw the line at criminal activity against minors, some at racism or violence, some at total hypocrisy regarding an artist’s professed beliefs. Either way, it’s hard to lump them all together without understanding each case’s specifics—or the values of the fans involved.
as far as I know Trump and his party are the ones with moral values
the far left has seemingly normalized pretty much any type of vile behavior
-
Haha, if you think performing at an inauguration of a candidate you don’t endorse is worse than murder, woman abuse, animal abuse, and child neglect, i think you need to reexamine your moral values.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that performing at an pre-inaugural event is worse than murder, abuse, or neglect. Those are obviously far more severe. The issue is that performing for a politician—especially one with a well-documented history of racist actions—raises serious ethical questions about endorsing or lending credibility to that politician’s platform.
For instance, Donald Trump has faced racism allegations going back to the 1970s, including but in no way limited to:
1. 1973 Fair Housing lawsuit: Trump Management was sued by the DOJ for refusing to rent to Black tenants. Trump Management admitted to violating hr Fair Housing Act in court.
2. The 1989 Central Park Five ads: He took out full-page ads calling for the death penalty for five Black and Latino teenagers who were later exonerated. He continued to advocate.
3. Casino discrimination: Multiple testimonies and complaints about Black employees being removed from high-roller tables, plus an upheld discrimination penalty in 1992.
4. Offensive comments about Native Americans: Suggesting certain tribes weren’t “real Indians” due to their skin tone and lineage.
No one is saying these issues equal murder or child abuse, but they do indicate a pattern of racist remarks and policies over decades. If an entertainer prides themselves on supporting social justice or equality, performing for a figure with this track record can undercut those principles. That’s where the moral concern lies—not comparing it to violent crime, but asking whether the performer’s actions align with what they claim to stand for... which is the entire point of the thread's topic.
So yes, we can condemn murder, abuse, and also question the ethics of supporting or legitimizing someone who has a longstanding history of racist behavior. They’re different issues with different degrees of severity. Pointing out the contradiction is not the same as saying it’s a bigger deal than murder—it’s just asking for consistency between claimed values and public actions.
-
Look I don’t like Trump but what I really hate is the woke mob. Whatever happened to difference of opinion, freedom of speech and political choices. You can’t try to simply cancel everybody you disagree with.
You’re right that people should be allowed different opinions and to engage in open political debate without automatically being “canceled.” Free speech is vital. At the same time, there’s a big difference between political disagreement (like arguing over tax policy or foreign relations) and publicly supporting rhetoric or actions that undermine entire groups based on race, religion, gender, etc.
When folks critique entertainers or politicians who endorse harmful views—such as racism, xenophobia, or other forms of bigotry—it’s not necessarily about shutting down all free speech. Instead, it’s about holding people accountable for how their words or actions can negatively affect others. Criticizing or boycotting someone for hateful or harmful behavior is not the same as attacking them simply for having a different viewpoint on typical policy issues.
In other words, “woke mob” can and is now very often used as a label to dismiss any public outcry. But the real question is: Are we talking about legitimate differences in political philosophy, or are we talking about actively harmful rhetoric and conduct? Because calling out racism or bigotry is not just “canceling”—it’s pointing out a fundamental moral line.
People should be free to support whoever they like, but they also need to accept the consequences of that support—such as fans walking away, sponsors withdrawing, or critics speaking up. That’s part of what free expression is, too. Everyone gets to voice their stance, and the public responds accordingly. So, this isn’t necessarily about “canceling everyone we disagree with”; it’s about holding individuals accountable when they cross ethical lines that affect the well-being or dignity of others.
-
I don’t think anyone is claiming that performing at an pre-inaugural event is worse than murder, abuse, or neglect. Those are obviously far more severe. The issue is that performing for a politician—especially one with a well-documented history of racist actions—raises serious ethical questions about endorsing or lending credibility to that politician’s platform.
For instance, Donald Trump has faced racism allegations going back to the 1970s, including but in no way limited to:
1. 1973 Fair Housing lawsuit: Trump Management was sued by the DOJ for refusing to rent to Black tenants. Trump Management admitted to violating hr Fair Housing Act in court.
2. The 1989 Central Park Five ads: He took out full-page ads calling for the death penalty for five Black and Latino teenagers who were later exonerated. He continued to advocate.
3. Casino discrimination: Multiple testimonies and complaints about Black employees being removed from high-roller tables, plus an upheld discrimination penalty in 1992.
4. Offensive comments about Native Americans: Suggesting certain tribes weren’t “real Indians” due to their skin tone and lineage.
No one is saying these issues equal murder or child abuse, but they do indicate a pattern of racist remarks and policies over decades. If an entertainer prides themselves on supporting social justice or equality, performing for a figure with this track record can undercut those principles. That’s where the moral concern lies—not comparing it to violent crime, but asking whether the performer’s actions align with what they claim to stand for... which is the entire point of the thread's topic.
So yes, we can condemn murder, abuse, and also question the ethics of supporting or legitimizing someone who has a longstanding history of racist behavior. They’re different issues with different degrees of severity. Pointing out the contradiction is not the same as saying it’s a bigger deal than murder—it’s just asking for consistency between claimed values and public actions.
1. This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself
2. This was an isolated case of murder and had nothing to do with skin color or the discrimination against an entire race.
3. Again, this was in casinos Trump owned, but management of each individual casino made those decisions, not Trump himself
4. "offensive comments", come on. Again, not racism
I think it's pretty telling that you accuse him of being a racist, yet your only 'proof' are things that happened close to 50 years ago and were again, on properties he owned. If you owned a house and rented it to a tenant and the tenant burned a cross in the front yard, are you a racist because you owned the property???
Trump has done more for the black community in his prior administration than Biden or any of the Democrats ever did. There are more wealthy democrats out there than republicans. You have the wool pulled over your eyes. Our race needs to wake up, and they have started to. More blacks voted republican in this election than ever before.
But this really has nothing to do with Trump, but more about how you think you should be able to control which celebrities do work for which organizations and which representatives, pretty much the opposite of freedom, which is what you are all about.
-
1. This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself
2. This was an isolated case of murder and had nothing to do with skin color or the discrimination against an entire race.
3. Again, this was in casinos Trump owned, but management of each individual casino made those decisions, not Trump himself
4. "offensive comments", come on. Again, not racism
I think it's pretty telling that you accuse him of being a racist, yet your only 'proof' are things that happened close to 50 years ago and were again, on properties he owned. If you owned a house and rented it to a tenant and the tenant burned a cross in the front yard, are you a racist because you owned the property???
Trump has done more for the black community in his prior administration than Biden or any of the Democrats ever did. There are more wealthy democrats out there than republicans. You have the wool pulled over your eyes. Our race needs to wake up, and they have started to. More blacks voted republican in this election than ever before.
But this really has nothing to do with Trump, but more about how you think you should be able to control which celebrities do work for which organizations and which representatives, pretty much the opposite of freedom, which is what you are all about.
do you believe in God?
-
he’s trolling you, you idiot
:lulz:
and me having the back of the forum members here by calling out your pretentious behavior has nothing to do with me
your dumbass is too stupid to see the difference between a real poster and a troll playing a character.. and then u have the nerve to question the collective intelligence of the entire forum. classic.
You need a hood translator homes? I'm talking to YOU puto lol. Look at the dumb snow bunny right here lol thinking he's all smart and important.
You think you a big deal online huh lol. I can smell the bitch in you homes - you the type of whiteboy with the big mouth talking all kinds of shit online acting black but you ain't hood homie. You'd be someone's house mouse washing their dirty drawz hahaha. Stay your puppy ass on the keyboard and keep barking snow bunny lol. F-Gang homie, we outside. I got your character right here in HP. Get sum 8)
-
You need a hood translator homes? I'm talking to YOU puto lol. Look at the dumb snow bunny right here lol thinking he's all smart and important.
You think you a big deal online huh lol. I can smell the bitch in you homes - you the type of whiteboy with the big mouth talking all kinds of shit online acting black but you ain't hood homie. You'd be someone's house mouse washing their dirty drawz hahaha. Stay your puppy ass on the keyboard and keep barking snow bunny lol. F-Gang homie, we outside. I got your character right here in HP. Get sum 8)
damn you hella hood homes hahaha
:mjlol:
-
Here's a guy saying that he makes $50-$100K PER POST on Instagram. This is why having followers matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTNYGzT74Jw
-
1. This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself
2. This was an isolated case of murder and had nothing to do with skin color or the discrimination against an entire race.
3. Again, this was in casinos Trump owned, but management of each individual casino made those decisions, not Trump himself
4. "offensive comments", come on. Again, not racism
I think it's pretty telling that you accuse him of being a racist, yet your only 'proof' are things that happened close to 50 years ago and were again, on properties he owned. If you owned a house and rented it to a tenant and the tenant burned a cross in the front yard, are you a racist because you owned the property???
Trump has done more for the black community in his prior administration than Biden or any of the Democrats ever did. There are more wealthy democrats out there than republicans. You have the wool pulled over your eyes. Our race needs to wake up, and they have started to. More blacks voted republican in this election than ever before.
But this really has nothing to do with Trump, but more about how you think you should be able to control which celebrities do work for which organizations and which representatives, pretty much the opposite of freedom, which is what you are all about.
I. “This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself.”
In many of these lawsuits, including the 1973 Fair Housing case, Trump and his father Fred (a Nazi sympathizer who attended Klan rallies) were named personally—not just “Trump properties.” Testimony showed staff were directed to code Black applicants’ rental applications with a “C” for “colored.” If it were entirely rogue employees, we wouldn’t see the DOJ specifically naming Donald Trump in the suit, and we wouldn’t have had a settlement explicitly mentioning his compliance failure with the Fair Housing Act.
II. “An isolated case of murder… not about skin color.”
I believe you’re referring to Snoop Dogg’s case in the 1990s, which is a different conversation entirely. My examples of racism were about Trump—not about a murder case. The discrimination claims (e.g., Black employees being removed from casino floors, racially coded rental policies, the Central Park Five ads) point to racial bias, not a singular incident of violence.
III. “It was the casino’s management, not Trump himself.”
Similar to the rental discrimination case, ownership and executive leadership matter. Trump was known to actively oversee and publicize his casino ventures. At least one lawsuit leading to a $200,000 penalty concerned a high-roller who didn’t want a Black dealer. If top leadership (i.e., Trump or his immediate management) didn’t condone it, you’d expect them to step in. Plus, the fact that the penalty stuck suggests it wasn’t just a lower-level employee acting entirely on their own initiative.
IV. “Offensive comments aren’t racism.”
Repeated patterns of targeting certain ethnicities—e.g., calling for the death penalty for the Black and Latino Central Park Five (later exonerated), questioning Native Americans’ heritage because they don’t “look” the part, claiming a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t be impartial—form more than just casual “offensive” remarks. They reveal a consistent tendency to demean people based on race or ethnicity.
V. “It’s all from 50 years ago.”
Actually, these incidents span decades—from the 1970s Fair Housing lawsuit, to the 1989 Central Park Five ads, to 1990s casino discrimination, up to more recent statements about immigrants or entire nations. Some occurred 40–50 years ago—others are more recent. The pattern didn’t cease in the early ’70s. In fact, if you'd like a more recent example, Trump just issued a sweeping executive order revoking decades of diversity and affirmative action practices in federal government, abolishing decades of government standards on diversity and equal opportunity, and seeking to crack down on the same in the private sector. Trump's order revokes one that President Johnson signed on September 24, 1965 that was a direct result of nearly 80 years of civil rights work. LBJ's order gave the Secretary of Labor the authority to ensure equal opportunity for people of color and women in federal contractors' recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices. It required federal contractors to refrain from employment discrimination and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity "based on race, color, religion, and national origin." The order came more than a year after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and just months after he signed the Voting Rights Act following violent attacks on voting rights advocates in Selma, Ala. Close Trump allies want to dramatically change the government's interpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on "anti-white racism" - an oxymoron in itself - rather than discrimination against people of color.
VI. “If you owned a property and a tenant did X, would you be responsible?”
If a tenant commits a hate crime in your yard, that’s not on you unless you encouraged it or had policies enabling it. The difference here is that Trump’s companies were sued because there was substantial evidence managers were directly told or allowed to discriminate. That’s different from an uninvolved landlord scenario.
VII. “Trump did more for the Black community than Democrats.”
People can debate which administration’s policies helped or hurt certain communities. But it doesn’t negate the documented record of racially charged statements and discriminatory practices. Some individuals might argue that passing certain legislation or funding certain programs doesn’t erase a pattern of racist incidents, just as any positive contribution by someone doesn’t automatically absolve them of other problematic behavior.
VIII. “It’s about controlling which celebrities do work for which organizations.”
The conversation isn’t about disallowing free association; it’s about holding entertainers accountable when they publicly partner with someone who has a track record of racist remarks or actions—especially if those entertainers claim to stand against such discrimination. People can choose who they perform for, and the public can voice disapproval if that choice seems at odds with their stated moral stance. That’s not suppressing free speech; it’s part of open discourse.
Reasonable people can disagree on the weight of the evidence, but it’s not accurate to say these are all “someone else’s actions.” Many suits and controversies directly named or involved Trump, and the comments in question are on record from Trump’s own words. However, taken in totality, the pattern of evidence is overwhelming and its cumulative weight therein is significant.
As for celebrities or performers, we generally accept that they have the freedom to support whoever they want—but that also means fans and the public have the freedom to react, criticize, or even boycott if they find a performer’s alliances morally inconsistent. That’s the nature of a free society: everyone makes choices, and everyone else is free to respond.
-
^ i stopped reading at “trumps father was a nazi sympathizer who attended Klan rallies”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-fred-trump-detained-kkk-rally-circumstances-unclear/3209853001/
-
We Need To Talk About Snoop Dogg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9NIgQPka4o
-
I. “This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself.”
In many of these lawsuits, including the 1973 Fair Housing case, Trump and his father Fred (a Nazi sympathizer who attended Klan rallies) were named personally—not just “Trump properties.” Testimony showed staff were directed to code Black applicants’ rental applications with a “C” for “colored.” If it were entirely rogue employees, we wouldn’t see the DOJ specifically naming Donald Trump in the suit, and we wouldn’t have had a settlement explicitly mentioning his compliance failure with the Fair Housing Act.
II. “An isolated case of murder… not about skin color.”
I believe you’re referring to Snoop Dogg’s case in the 1990s, which is a different conversation entirely. My examples of racism were about Trump—not about a murder case. The discrimination claims (e.g., Black employees being removed from casino floors, racially coded rental policies, the Central Park Five ads) point to racial bias, not a singular incident of violence.
III. “It was the casino’s management, not Trump himself.”
Similar to the rental discrimination case, ownership and executive leadership matter. Trump was known to actively oversee and publicize his casino ventures. At least one lawsuit leading to a $200,000 penalty concerned a high-roller who didn’t want a Black dealer. If top leadership (i.e., Trump or his immediate management) didn’t condone it, you’d expect them to step in. Plus, the fact that the penalty stuck suggests it wasn’t just a lower-level employee acting entirely on their own initiative.
IV. “Offensive comments aren’t racism.”
Repeated patterns of targeting certain ethnicities—e.g., calling for the death penalty for the Black and Latino Central Park Five (later exonerated), questioning Native Americans’ heritage because they don’t “look” the part, claiming a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t be impartial—form more than just casual “offensive” remarks. They reveal a consistent tendency to demean people based on race or ethnicity.
V. “It’s all from 50 years ago.”
Actually, these incidents span decades—from the 1970s Fair Housing lawsuit, to the 1989 Central Park Five ads, to 1990s casino discrimination, up to more recent statements about immigrants or entire nations. Some occurred 40–50 years ago—others are more recent. The pattern didn’t cease in the early ’70s. In fact, if you'd like a more recent example, Trump just issued a sweeping executive order revoking decades of diversity and affirmative action practices in federal government, abolishing decades of government standards on diversity and equal opportunity, and seeking to crack down on the same in the private sector. Trump's order revokes one that President Johnson signed on September 24, 1965 that was a direct result of nearly 80 years of civil rights work. LBJ's order gave the Secretary of Labor the authority to ensure equal opportunity for people of color and women in federal contractors' recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices. It required federal contractors to refrain from employment discrimination and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity "based on race, color, religion, and national origin." The order came more than a year after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and just months after he signed the Voting Rights Act following violent attacks on voting rights advocates in Selma, Ala. Close Trump allies want to dramatically change the government's interpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on "anti-white racism" - an oxymoron in itself - rather than discrimination against people of color.
VI. “If you owned a property and a tenant did X, would you be responsible?”
If a tenant commits a hate crime in your yard, that’s not on you unless you encouraged it or had policies enabling it. The difference here is that Trump’s companies were sued because there was substantial evidence managers were directly told or allowed to discriminate. That’s different from an uninvolved landlord scenario.
VII. “Trump did more for the Black community than Democrats.”
People can debate which administration’s policies helped or hurt certain communities. But it doesn’t negate the documented record of racially charged statements and discriminatory practices. Some individuals might argue that passing certain legislation or funding certain programs doesn’t erase a pattern of racist incidents, just as any positive contribution by someone doesn’t automatically absolve them of other problematic behavior.
VIII. “It’s about controlling which celebrities do work for which organizations.”
The conversation isn’t about disallowing free association; it’s about holding entertainers accountable when they publicly partner with someone who has a track record of racist remarks or actions—especially if those entertainers claim to stand against such discrimination. People can choose who they perform for, and the public can voice disapproval if that choice seems at odds with their stated moral stance. That’s not suppressing free speech; it’s part of open discourse.
Reasonable people can disagree on the weight of the evidence, but it’s not accurate to say these are all “someone else’s actions.” Many suits and controversies directly named or involved Trump, and the comments in question are on record from Trump’s own words. However, taken in totality, the pattern of evidence is overwhelming and its cumulative weight therein is significant.
As for celebrities or performers, we generally accept that they have the freedom to support whoever they want—but that also means fans and the public have the freedom to react, criticize, or even boycott if they find a performer’s alliances morally inconsistent. That’s the nature of a free society: everyone makes choices, and everyone else is free to respond.
This is way too much to debate all at once, but i'm simply going to start with #1. Of course Trump would be included in the lawsuit, thats how it works. You sue where the money is. Suing an entity is usually fruitless. When Eminem says something on a record that gets him into legal trouble, they usually sue him, Interscope, Iovine, etc. You go where there is the most money. You think Trump himself in the 1970s was reviewing every application to see if there was a C marked or not and HE was making the decision across all of his properties with thousands of tenants? Come on now, you're smarter than that.
I do agree with Sccit though, i kinda stopped reading as well with the whole KKK thing. It's obvious you're just regurgitating what the media has fed you over these years and aren't doing your own independent research or using any sort of logic.
-
This is way too much to debate all at once, but i'm simply going to start with #1. Of course Trump would be included in the lawsuit, thats how it works. You sue where the money is. Suing an entity is usually fruitless. When Eminem says something on a record that gets him into legal trouble, they usually sue him, Interscope, Iovine, etc. You go where there is the most money. You think Trump himself in the 1970s was reviewing every application to see if there was a C marked or not and HE was making the decision across all of his properties with thousands of tenants? Come on now, you're smarter than that.
I do agree with Sccit though, i kinda stopped reading as well with the whole KKK thing. It's obvious you're just regurgitating what the media has fed you over these years and aren't doing your own independent research or using any sort of logic.
It seems contradictory that on one hand you say I'm just “regurgitating” media stories and don’t do “independent research,” but on the other hand you ask me for citations or documentation on a topic in a another thread. If you truly believe my info is unreliable, why would you look to me as a source of references in the first place?
This inconsistency raises a question: Do you really want my cited evidence, or are you trying to undermine it no matter what I provide? If you have reasons to doubt the quality of my research or the studies I’ve presented, that’s valid—just share the specific criticisms. Otherwise, asking for sources and then dismissing them out of hand as “media-fed” doesn’t contribute to genuine discussion or fact-finding.
Speaking of which, I don't think you read or processed the fact-check thoroughly—especially if you’re wielding it as a definitive refutation while ignoring its caveats and disclaimers. It’s also common in heated discussions for people to seize on a headline that appears to bolster their point without delving into the underlying nuances. That said, without direct confirmation, I can’t know for certain if you truly misread the article or simply interpret it differently. Still, your behavior (like not fully reading my post and citing a fact-check that doesn’t actually exonerate Fred Trump) indicates selective reading or surface-level engagement rather than a deep, fair-minded analysis.
1. On “Suing Where the Money Is”
It’s true that in many lawsuits, attorneys name the highest-level individuals (or those with the deepest pockets). But in the 1973 Fair Housing case, the Department of Justice explicitly named Donald and Fred Trump because of evidence the DOJ said tied them personally to discrimination. This wasn’t just a random lawsuit tactic; the court filings referenced them in relation to property management practices, not just the corporate entity.
Given how hands-on Donald Trump was known to be with his properties—even in the ’70s, marketing them with his name - it's quite unlikely that he’d be oblivious to widespread racial coding. Could it have been all “rogue employees”? Possibly. But the federal investigation concluded otherwise, which is why the Trumps ultimately signed a settlement agreeing they had “failed and neglected” to comply with the Fair Housing Act.
2. On Fred Trump and the 1927 KKK Rally
The article shared (the USA Today fact-check) doesn’t disprove that Fred Trump supported the Klan; it only says we don’t have conclusive evidence he was actively a member or sympathizer.
The fact that you don't find it suspicious for a white male to be “caught up” in a KKK event in 1927—especially at a time when such rallies were deliberate and far from subtle, is... interesting. Fred Trump was detained, and no official record explains exactly why. Essentially, the fact-check shows that his being there is documented, but it stops short of confirming any specific motive or allegiance. Although, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
-
Also, I find it surprising to see someone who, by virtue of their background, might personally experience systemic racism, end up downplaying or defending it. Hip hop emerged as a voice for marginalized communities like ours - rooted in the struggles tied to civil rights and social justice. That ethos is naturally at odds with what many - including yourself - see as the “Make America Great Again” platform, which leans on nostalgia for a past where people of color had fewer rights and less representation.
The term “woke,” is a concept originally coined decades ago in the Black community to describe staying alert to racial injustices. Over time, it’s been co-opted to mean “anything left-leaning or progressive.” Seeing as you align yourself with positions often labeled as anti-“woke,” it is contradictory and disheartening when those positions undermine people of color—groups that historically fought for the very civil rights Hip Hop grew out of. Dismissing that is a betrayal of shared history and lived experience
-
Also, it’s worth remembering that, in the 1920s, open displays of white supremacy weren’t uncommon. In fact, they were the norm. Law enforcement agencies and local governments either sympathized with or at least tolerated Jim Crow laws and Klan activities. In such an atmosphere, being detained at a KKK rally often didn’t result in prosecution—especially for a white person of some social standing.
So, yes, the fact that Fred Trump wasn’t charged or convicted doesn’t necessarily mean he was innocent of sympathies. It simply reflects the racial and political biases of the era’s justice system. If you're expecting some official condemnation as definitive proof of wrongdoing, you're not be taking into account how historically unbalanced that system was. Obviously you [Soopafly DPGC] weren't alive to experience it, but there are libraries of literature and entire museums dedicated to this time in history.
Of course, none of this conclusively proves Fred Trump was a committed Klansman; we only have records of the detention, not a detailed account of his intent. But failing to “read between the lines” in that era—where there was widespread impunity for Klan-related activities—risks ignoring the broader historical fact that systemic racism often protected or underplayed white supremacist involvement. That’s why many find it suspicious enough to raise doubts, even if there’s no official court record labeling him a supporter.
An incident from 1927—when racism was legally and socially entrenched—can’t be judged the same way as if it happened yesterday, which is what you seem to be doing. Authorities in that era often either condoned or ignored white supremacist gatherings, so lack of prosecution or explicit legal condemnation wasn’t necessarily exculpatory; it could just mean the system itself was complicit. Without acknowledging that historical context, we risk applying today’s standards and missing how power dynamics and prejudices of the time shaped outcomes and records. Essentially, historical backdrops inform us about why certain events were (or weren’t) treated seriously and what social norms allowed them to happen with minimal accountability.
It’s ironic that you [Soopafly DPGC] accuse me of “not using logic,” because I am the one supplying historical context to illustrate why a 1927 detention at a KKK rally might not have led to formal charges—and how that doesn’t automatically exonerate Fred Trump of possible sympathies. By contrast, you are basically ignoring the environment of legalized discrimination and widespread white supremacist sentiment in the 1920s, which is a crucial piece of logical analysis.
True logic involves looking at the full context—including social norms and biases of the time. I am addressing that, while you seem to dismiss it without providing a credible alternative explanation or evidence. So if we’re judging by who’s applying logic, my approach seems more consistent with a rational, context-based argument than yours.
-
It seems contradictory that on one hand you say I'm just “regurgitating” media stories and don’t do “independent research,” but on the other hand you ask me for citations or documentation on a topic in a another thread. If you truly believe my info is unreliable, why would you look to me as a source of references in the first place?
This inconsistency raises a question: Do you really want my cited evidence, or are you trying to undermine it no matter what I provide? If you have reasons to doubt the quality of my research or the studies I’ve presented, that’s valid—just share the specific criticisms. Otherwise, asking for sources and then dismissing them out of hand as “media-fed” doesn’t contribute to genuine discussion or fact-finding.
Speaking of which, I don't think you read or processed the fact-check thoroughly—especially if you’re wielding it as a definitive refutation while ignoring its caveats and disclaimers. It’s also common in heated discussions for people to seize on a headline that appears to bolster their point without delving into the underlying nuances. That said, without direct confirmation, I can’t know for certain if you truly misread the article or simply interpret it differently. Still, your behavior (like not fully reading my post and citing a fact-check that doesn’t actually exonerate Fred Trump) indicates selective reading or surface-level engagement rather than a deep, fair-minded analysis.
1. On “Suing Where the Money Is”
It’s true that in many lawsuits, attorneys name the highest-level individuals (or those with the deepest pockets). But in the 1973 Fair Housing case, the Department of Justice explicitly named Donald and Fred Trump because of evidence the DOJ said tied them personally to discrimination. This wasn’t just a random lawsuit tactic; the court filings referenced them in relation to property management practices, not just the corporate entity.
Given how hands-on Donald Trump was known to be with his properties—even in the ’70s, marketing them with his name - it's quite unlikely that he’d be oblivious to widespread racial coding. Could it have been all “rogue employees”? Possibly. But the federal investigation concluded otherwise, which is why the Trumps ultimately signed a settlement agreeing they had “failed and neglected” to comply with the Fair Housing Act.
2. On Fred Trump and the 1927 KKK Rally
The article shared (the USA Today fact-check) doesn’t disprove that Fred Trump supported the Klan; it only says we don’t have conclusive evidence he was actively a member or sympathizer.
The fact that you don't find it suspicious for a white male to be “caught up” in a KKK event in 1927—especially at a time when such rallies were deliberate and far from subtle, is... interesting. Fred Trump was detained, and no official record explains exactly why. Essentially, the fact-check shows that his being there is documented, but it stops short of confirming any specific motive or allegiance. Although, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
the rally u speakin of was a march down the street where he lived and many bystanders that had nothing to do with the rally were arrested…. there is absolutely nothing out there that ties Fred Trump to the KKK and if it were true that Trump comes from a KKK background, he wouldn’t be showin this much love to Jews
-
It seems contradictory that on one hand you say I'm just “regurgitating” media stories and don’t do “independent research,” but on the other hand you ask me for citations or documentation on a topic in a another thread. If you truly believe my info is unreliable, why would you look to me as a source of references in the first place?
This inconsistency raises a question: Do you really want my cited evidence, or are you trying to undermine it no matter what I provide? If you have reasons to doubt the quality of my research or the studies I’ve presented, that’s valid—just share the specific criticisms. Otherwise, asking for sources and then dismissing them out of hand as “media-fed” doesn’t contribute to genuine discussion or fact-finding.
Speaking of which, I don't think you read or processed the fact-check thoroughly—especially if you’re wielding it as a definitive refutation while ignoring its caveats and disclaimers. It’s also common in heated discussions for people to seize on a headline that appears to bolster their point without delving into the underlying nuances. That said, without direct confirmation, I can’t know for certain if you truly misread the article or simply interpret it differently. Still, your behavior (like not fully reading my post and citing a fact-check that doesn’t actually exonerate Fred Trump) indicates selective reading or surface-level engagement rather than a deep, fair-minded analysis.
1. On “Suing Where the Money Is”
It’s true that in many lawsuits, attorneys name the highest-level individuals (or those with the deepest pockets). But in the 1973 Fair Housing case, the Department of Justice explicitly named Donald and Fred Trump because of evidence the DOJ said tied them personally to discrimination. This wasn’t just a random lawsuit tactic; the court filings referenced them in relation to property management practices, not just the corporate entity.
Given how hands-on Donald Trump was known to be with his properties—even in the ’70s, marketing them with his name - it's quite unlikely that he’d be oblivious to widespread racial coding. Could it have been all “rogue employees”? Possibly. But the federal investigation concluded otherwise, which is why the Trumps ultimately signed a settlement agreeing they had “failed and neglected” to comply with the Fair Housing Act.
2. On Fred Trump and the 1927 KKK Rally
The article shared (the USA Today fact-check) doesn’t disprove that Fred Trump supported the Klan; it only says we don’t have conclusive evidence he was actively a member or sympathizer.
The fact that you don't find it suspicious for a white male to be “caught up” in a KKK event in 1927—especially at a time when such rallies were deliberate and far from subtle, is... interesting. Fred Trump was detained, and no official record explains exactly why. Essentially, the fact-check shows that his being there is documented, but it stops short of confirming any specific motive or allegiance. Although, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
On the contrary, me asking you to cite your sources is how to determine the accuracy of your statements. There’s a difference between regurgitating attention grabbing headlines and citing numerous bonafide sources from well respected entities. This must also be accompanied with common sense as well. Again, regardless of source, if you think in the 70’s Trump was pouring through thousands of applications and he himself was denying all of the C applications, then you are not using your common sense.