Futureite wrote: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.
Oh noes!!! Richard Sherman is hte Dick, he hurted my sensibilities!
Get over it you big pussy!
monkey wrote:Good grief Future, you say you want to talk about his actions, then talk about everything BUT.
His actions are, loudly proclaiming himself to be the greatest cornerback in the league (he's right, he is) telling Crabtree that he is sorry (hehe awesome)and that he had better not talk about him, or he'll shut his mouth for him. He said nothing that hasn't been said before by NFL players, and coaches, and he committed no crime, and physically hurt no one.
The most he could possibly be accused of, is doing a bad, (or good depending on your perspective, personally I thought it was great) Muhammad Ali impersonation.
Not once did he curse, or say anything inappropriate, or vulgar or ANYTHING. In the heat of the moment, as angry as he was, he still managed to not curse or use vulgarities (I would have) and ended by giving credit to his team "LOB".
Sooooo....what exactly did he do that was so bad again? Seriously, i must be missing something...
Seriously, here's youOh noes!!! Richard Sherman is hte Dick, he hurted my sensibilities!
Here's meGet over it you big pussy!
kalibane wrote:Eagle I didn't type it out mainly because I didn't want typing it out to become a distraction from the may point of discussion (much in the same way that just saying "N-word" has distracted from Sherman's main point about the word "Thug". People get so hung up on it. So I figure why muddy the water even further, especially when others may be more sensitive to it than I am.
But internally I really don't believe there aren't words that should be off limits across the board. If you're having an honest to god discussion I don't see the issue. IMO it stifles real conversation because we are busy measuring words instead of discussing ideas, which is the important part. (That's just me speaking for me though).
Futureite wrote:OK, out of respect for the wishes of those on this board, I will not say the word. It's your board. But why?? Sherman is the one that said in plain terms people are calling him the "N-word" (I feel ridiculous even typing that) when they call him "thug". So whenever he trashes someone people here respect it as honesty or "true", but for christ sake I have to cloak what he said in PC terms to avoid offending someone? And this doesn't strike anyone as absurdly hypocritical? Lol HE made the correlation, not me.
Anyhow I looked up his Scouts.com, Rivals.com and other profiles posted before his signing with Stanford, and all are listed SATs in the high 900s to low 1,000s. Those would be considered averaga/below average in most colleges. From my understanding, he graduated Stanford with a 3.9 in communications. Commendable, but doesn't exactly make him the genius he's been built up to be. No more commendable thsn Frank Gore fighting through dislexia or hundreds of other athletes who ocame from impoverished backgrounds. Like everything else about him, I feel like people have bought into the image that he keeps pumping out (notice his continual references to Stanford) and are feeding the larger than life persona he is trying to create.
He's not Muhammed Ali, or a genius or in my opinion, not even as good as he promotes himself to be. Jeremy Lane had what, 4 ints in 4 starts? On that D, he is getting a lot of help. He's an outstanding player who is a master at promoting himself, and for whatever reason people eat it up and defend EVERYTHING he says or does. Hey, this is the modern world in today's media cycle. As someone in the media said, people need Richard Sherman. I believe it.
Futureite wrote:
He's not Muhammed Ali, or a genius or in my opinion, not even as good as he promotes himself to be. Jeremy Lane had what, 4 ints in 4 starts? On that D, he is getting a lot of help. He's an outstanding player who is a master at promoting himself,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests