Re: sherman's post-game comments — lmao!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:40 am
Let's take Sherman out of this and look at the actions themselves. Not his degree, or his charity work, or his profession. The actions.
I have a real issue with this definition of "real". It seems that any charismatic person with star quality earns the "real" tag by boasting, trashing, or promoting themselves in a manner that other's aren't capable of doing. I've noticed that the public enmasse' lives through such imdividuals, who do and say things that most people will not. But that fact alone does not make the star anymore genuine or "real" than anyone else. It makes them a better salesman of their own personal product. My favorite example of this is Tupac Shakur.
Like Sherman, Tupac had star quality. He had charisma and a certain.bravado in which he spoke that made people want to follow him to the edge of the earth, to accept whatever he said as 100% gospel, to believe that whatwver position he took was the 100% truth. In short, everything he said and did made him "real", as he told us things "other people did not want to hear" or "were afraid of saying". In truth, Tupac was an actor, and a damn good one - literally (check out his roles in "Poetic Justice" and "Juice"). But even he admitted that he did not lead the life he rapped about. After being shot while recording in New York, Tupac stated:
"People don't understand, what I say on record isn't really my life. That's not how my life is. It's entertainment".
There he was, the most "real" dude on earth, admitting what I knew the entire time. He was an actor. Sherman is no different to me.
People love Richard's "real". Claim he backs up what he says. But in fact, there are plenty of things he says that cannot be supported. He puts it out there like a modern day Clint Eastwood - as if he's untouchable - people latch on. He's yet to support his claim that Crabtree is "mediocore", after posting nearly 1,200 yds last yr and playing 6 mo after rupturing his achilles, both of which directly condradict Sherman's opinion.
He's yet to support his contention of the correlation between "thug" and "n*****". The word thug has been parroted and recycled in modern slang to connote multiple characteristics, as has "Hustler", "Pimp" and countless other words in modern slang. One can interpret the word thug many ways, and my father was of the opinion that he is a thug - gets in others faces, intentionally creates controversy, comes at people on an intensely personal level. So, whose definition is correct, Richard's ir my father's?
The things he says and does make him no more real than any other person who lacks impulse control. He just says it in a way that you can't or won't. But there are any number of situations where you just don't say or do things out of respect, regardless of whether you would be technically correct in following your impulse. Ex: coworker of mine got promoted over myself. I feel like my work is better. I did post my results side with her's, did not call out the decision. The "truth" supports my position. Telling it would have demeaned another human being.
But people want this now. People want a spokesman who will.do and say things they cannot. People want a guy that will bash other people in all of these social situations where the average person cannot. You can deny it, become self righteous and pound your own virtues and elephant sized balls, claiming you don't need or want that, but you do. Coming from my own personal experiences, if you follow or revere this man I can personally guarantee you do.
I have a real issue with this definition of "real". It seems that any charismatic person with star quality earns the "real" tag by boasting, trashing, or promoting themselves in a manner that other's aren't capable of doing. I've noticed that the public enmasse' lives through such imdividuals, who do and say things that most people will not. But that fact alone does not make the star anymore genuine or "real" than anyone else. It makes them a better salesman of their own personal product. My favorite example of this is Tupac Shakur.
Like Sherman, Tupac had star quality. He had charisma and a certain.bravado in which he spoke that made people want to follow him to the edge of the earth, to accept whatever he said as 100% gospel, to believe that whatwver position he took was the 100% truth. In short, everything he said and did made him "real", as he told us things "other people did not want to hear" or "were afraid of saying". In truth, Tupac was an actor, and a damn good one - literally (check out his roles in "Poetic Justice" and "Juice"). But even he admitted that he did not lead the life he rapped about. After being shot while recording in New York, Tupac stated:
"People don't understand, what I say on record isn't really my life. That's not how my life is. It's entertainment".
There he was, the most "real" dude on earth, admitting what I knew the entire time. He was an actor. Sherman is no different to me.
People love Richard's "real". Claim he backs up what he says. But in fact, there are plenty of things he says that cannot be supported. He puts it out there like a modern day Clint Eastwood - as if he's untouchable - people latch on. He's yet to support his claim that Crabtree is "mediocore", after posting nearly 1,200 yds last yr and playing 6 mo after rupturing his achilles, both of which directly condradict Sherman's opinion.
He's yet to support his contention of the correlation between "thug" and "n*****". The word thug has been parroted and recycled in modern slang to connote multiple characteristics, as has "Hustler", "Pimp" and countless other words in modern slang. One can interpret the word thug many ways, and my father was of the opinion that he is a thug - gets in others faces, intentionally creates controversy, comes at people on an intensely personal level. So, whose definition is correct, Richard's ir my father's?
The things he says and does make him no more real than any other person who lacks impulse control. He just says it in a way that you can't or won't. But there are any number of situations where you just don't say or do things out of respect, regardless of whether you would be technically correct in following your impulse. Ex: coworker of mine got promoted over myself. I feel like my work is better. I did post my results side with her's, did not call out the decision. The "truth" supports my position. Telling it would have demeaned another human being.
But people want this now. People want a spokesman who will.do and say things they cannot. People want a guy that will bash other people in all of these social situations where the average person cannot. You can deny it, become self righteous and pound your own virtues and elephant sized balls, claiming you don't need or want that, but you do. Coming from my own personal experiences, if you follow or revere this man I can personally guarantee you do.