₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Yes they obviously do need DEI. Especially if they still want to claim they can not see the added legs and the added eyes that have been added in so they can't continue to miss them.

And stop conflating DEI with being black please. You are black with zero DEI awareness or knowledge.

I showed you diversity, I am not conflating blacks to DEI.

Projecting symbolism onto an ordinary Converse composition is your problem.

budaatum:
Like I said. A black man like you who can not see "literally added things" just as you can't see anything dump adds to anything.

But I forgive you. You know very little of context in USA.

The video is there, an Asian woman did the ad in Asia, you added leg, make eye holes to her robe to make the image seem like kkk. You are the ones adding things and I am calling BS to what you are adding.

Chavon Webster, global VP for footwear and design.

They need DEI? Nope

bayelsaowei:
This reminds of an incident during Obamas campaign before he became president and during the first year of his presidency.

He briefly excluded Fox News from a round of interviews with executive officials attempting to treat the network as an “ideological opponent” rather than a news outlet.

Guess what? Other news stations including left wing news organizations like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS stood in solidarity with Fox News by refusing to conduct any interview rounds at all without Fox News involved.

The result? The Obama administration shrinked back from moving ahead with its exclusion of Fox News or even thinking of banning the news network.

What is wrong is wrong. The American constitution (first amendment) supersedes the feelings or emotions of any president..

Bemeruca, basilico..condemn what is bad.. it won’t kill you guys to be sincere and moral sometimes (even though we know you both are lost)

you answered your own question here. You were asking if Obama or Biden banned the press.

Like I said, they should go to court. They will probably be reinstated, but I don't care that he banned them.
Banning them has nothing to do with totalitarianism.

If they are bad and hostile to him, why would you call him bad for not wanting to deal with them?
You can argue the legal perspective of this, but you cannot say he did it because he is a bad man. They have been bad to him, and he does not want to deal with them.

budaatum:
It is these sort of lïes that make me ignore you.

Just see how you went from "The problem is…most of the people who approved this ad ARE LIKELY BLACK!" that you yourself posted, to what you are now claiming with no knowledge or evidence whatsoever. And if I give you the opportunity you'd waste my time arguing what you have no knowledge of.



Dude, you are a black person. I can see your type approving this like you approve of dump.

You literally added things that are not there to get what you miss. The image had nothing to do with lynching. If you can make lynching out of it, that is your problem. I'd say you should seek help, therapy or something.

The Converse logo is a star; their colors are black and white. You made a KKK robe out of it. You are the one who needs DEI here for your KKK image, not Converse.

Every time it seems as if you guys can't live without the KKK.

Budaatum talked about DEI in converse matter, he has seen one or two gullible victims talking about DEI, so he kicked into parroting mode.

Black people at Converse approved the ad. They hold positions that make decisions on things like that ad.

People are demanding mass firings at Converse and Nike over “blatant racism” in an ad of K-pop star Karina holding a pair of sneakers.

The problem is…most of the people who approved this ad ARE LIKELY BLACK!

Look at the photo….It’s an Asian woman in a white skirt, standing… https://t.co/tAnKQOcbWv pic.twitter.com/sdjJATulQx

— Clerpatriot (@clerpatriot) September 19, 2026

bayelsaowei:
Wow.. wow..

You’re asking me if Fox was behaving like CNN? Really?

Good a thing you’ve just said you think CNN, MSNOW all deserve the ban, which means it is acceptable by you... let me screen shot this statement for reference.

Suddenly Bemeruca now supports totalitarianism.. but this same person would be screaming about the media constriction in countries like Iran.

Your true characters are surfacing.

But you know what? The first amendment doesn’t give a damn about how you feel or how your god feels.

The banned media houses will be back to hold that orange armed robber accountable for all his grifting and immorality.

Trump wants to tell a different story of what’s happening in the US currently, spreading his lies about the war in Iran, gas prices, the Epstein files, etc.. but it won’t work. He will be fact checked 360.

I am not obligated to be outraged because you are outraged. Again, I don't care. If he blocks them, I think they deserve it. They will go to court and likely be reinstated, but again, I don't care that he banned them.

This is how you equate socialism/communism with Jesus because Jesus teach people to care for the poor. You will just take one feature you think sounds similar and then apply the entire political scope to it.

So you are here with totalitarianism.

I know for sure if Fox were banned by Biden, you would not have cared. I know this for sure: 1000%

bayelsaowei:
Rubbish. Facebook is owned by Mark Z.

I ask you again. Did Biden ban Fox News, news max and other right wing media houses from covering the White House?

You better be sincere with your answer. Stop dancing around and don’t be mischievous.

My problem with you guys is instead of condemning what is wrong, you pivot to talk about Biden or Obama.

Can’t you for once in your life condemn something because it is bad?

Is your moral compass tied to Trumps body?

Was fox behaving like cnn?
They did not give him a reason to do so. Also, Biden was not taking questions from the press and his friendly cnn were okay with it.

My answer is very sincere; I don't care if he bans CNN. Also, these media outlets were cheering for social media to ban him.

You are the one who asked if Biden bans the press. Na you pivot.

For you, it's bad; for me, I don't care. I think they deserved to be banned. You don't decide what's good and bad because you cheer for every bad thing that happens to Trump.

Ijebos

Black people are offended by everything and this Converse ad proves that pic.twitter.com/yvQg0d1d9l

— Andre Williams (@andrewilliamsus) September 20, 2026

If your friends did this to you over Palestine, they were never your friends.

https://x.com/AccessEdSheeran/status/2101531652866310556

.

bayelsaowei:
Wait..

If Biden didn’t ban the press, What then are we talking about?

I see you support Trump banning the press.

I don't care if he bans the press. This same press was cheering for him to be banned on Facebook and other platforms. They are hostile and lie all the time.

Biden did not ban the press because they were covering for him. Why should he be hostile to them when they are friendly and lie on his behalf?

bayelsaowei:
did Biden ban any media house from the White House?

Why should he ban the press for asking what flavor of ice cream he is having and then claim that Biden is sharp as a tack?

budaatum:
If only they had what they call a DEI.

Thank God they don't have DEI, and the people who miss the KKK, those black people who like to play victim are having a field day.

Ibime:
At least you still have hope in the ones left to play

I played freehit for this nonsense. I would have done better if I did not touch my team.

Ibime:
17 points from 9 players

Diaris Godu oh

11 6 players

I am quitting 😂

IjeBos:
You trying to sound intelligent by using AI to write your posts always takes me out.
Having your AI written posts make little sense makes it even crazier.
How does someone write something using AI that is so incoherent?

Keep complaining, I will continue to point out your lies. When you cannot refute it, sound the AI alarm

Ibime:
Omo this week is looking bad, real bad, Michael Jackson

Even Wissa done miss penalty

Gross won't even make it off my bench

This match get as e be

This is the latest ad to trigger black people. Shame

IjeBos:
I'm trying to separate myself from the jurors and focusing on what their job was.
Their job was to set their biases aside, follow the law and vote based on the jury instructions whether they liked the law or not.
He told the other jurors he had reasonable doubt (have no reason to believe all 11 are lying when they said that) and by his words "was trying to figure out theories" (not his job). Therefore, he should have voted not guilty by reason of insanity.
It's binary.

Evaluating competing explanations and drawing reasonable inferences from evidence is precisely part of deliberation (his job)

He says he had no doubt about her criminal responsibility and when he was discussing different possible theories, the others interpreted that as him having doubt.

"I have no reason to believe 11 people are lying" of course!!! You can stick to your false choice.

You don't know better than the judge who questioned them individually, and this issue arose; the defence was making noise about it that the holdout guy should be removed, but the judge did not remove him.

raumdeuter:
I think he is winning on that because less and less Americans now trust in the media unlike before

When you don't challenge them publicly they run in their silo unchallenged

One of the biggest things that happened in the last 15yrs is demystifying the legacy media unlike before where their words would have been authority

People are gullible; those of us who know, know. Trump is not ready to deal with their nonsense, and I don't blame him.

We know what's going on, and it's not because Trump confronted them.

raumdeuter:
Challenging them to their face and calling out their lies is what Trump does best and I have seen Rubio do this with panache

Not having them there makes it look like they are the victim but showing them to be liars in real time actually helps

He has been doing that, they still cry as if they are the victims. Trump has nothing to lose. He has tried the option you proposed as well, at this point, I don't care.

raumdeuter:
I don't even care if the media is anti Trump. He shouldn't ban them rather he should in their face be challenging their lies regularly

They don't care; it is the same media that will lie on top of the challenge. The media has never been about truth, so I don't really care if Trump allows them or not

IjeBos:
Who do you think you are telling me what to think about this?

Do you even understand the American jury system? No
Have you ever served on a Jury to have even an understanding of what their role is? No.
And are you smart enough to go and research it before opening your mouth? No

You have a propensity to run your mouth on topics you don't even have a glancing understanding of.
And then to try to pretend you do, you just lie, like living in the US.

I clearly addressed it to Buda.
In fact there are others I'd welcome their thoghts.
You, no.
I have 0 cares about your opinion on this.

You certainly don't understand it.

The jurors openly said they are looking for justice for the killer not the children; they went on to blame the system that did not give her the help she needed, making her the victim.

The prosecution proved she knew what she was doing before killing the children; she planned it and sent her husband away.

By that logic, unless you have personally committed murder, you shouldn’t have an opinion about the actions of a murderer either. You have come up with your cow-level reasoning again.

What do you explain? That the jurors are activists? No, you did not.

Their own words showed they did not follow the law, but you want to blame the black guy.

IjeBos:
Budaatum, read this article and thought you may enjoy the read as I thought was a good synopsis of what happened in the Jury room.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/lindsay-clancy-jurors-speak-about-deliberations-hold-out-juror/4011580/
Listening to the juror, I now do think the guy was predisposed in not finding her 'not guilty by reason of insnaity'.
I don't believe he gave serious consideration to the jury instructions.

This is from a juror in the room.

Why do you believe what they are saying? These women said they are not looking for justice for the victims, the children who were killed. They are looking for justice for the killer so she can get the help she needs.

In another video, the jurors said they saw that as an opportunity to bring change for women. They don't care about the law or the judge's instructions; they were performing activism.


Don't take what they day about the holdout juror to know what really happen and who followed the law and instructions by the judge, listen to what they say about how they feel about the whole case.


I don't expect you to take the common-sense side here.

IjeBos:
People in this thread like Bemeruca are like.

Drugs shouldn't be regulated; we should just let Drug companies self-regulate. Afterall we have regulations and some drug companies still do bad things. They don't work.
Food shouldn't be regulated; we should let Food producers self-regulate. Afterall, we have food regulations and still some food producers do bad things. They don't work.
Nuclear power plants shouldn't be regulated; we should let them self-regulate. Afterall some Nuclear power plants have disposed of waste improperly in the past. So regulations don't work so why have them.

Just the most asinine of things.

Jesus, this is a cow level reasoning 😂🐮🐮

He has moved from pure water to nuclear power plants and food, making arguments I did not make or imply 😂😂

Non of what you mentioned has the ability to perform logic, or develop sentient capabilities like they claim.

You are too slow to be discussing this. Goodlawd

IjeBos:
I can't.
This whole thing reads like someone who can't really speak general English while trying to use American English idioms he doesn't understand at the same time.
I can't.

He said it's not about altruism but doesn't seem to even know the meaning of the word.
Poor child, altruism is exactly what self regulating out of concern for the harm what you are working on can impart on others when there is no law to worry about to get you in trouble if those harms do arise.
altruism:
selfless concern for the well-being of others, without care for one's own interests; unselfishness:
"some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism"

But I'm out. Reading your poor AI written posts is testing my patience,
Maybe bayelsaowei can engage you because he has more patience.

You looked up the definition of altruim and still miss my point.

Again, my point has nothing to do with ALTRUISM. They are acting in their own interest and using fear mongering to get to where they want to be (monopoly and control).

Quoting the dictionary doesn't cut this one for you.

Altruism is selfless concern for others, "without care for one's own interests," as per your definition.

A company holding off because it thinks its next model could bring Skynet's Terminator robnots is not a selfless act; they themselves cease to exist in that scenario too. That's self-preservation, not altruism.

You can define Love Machine very well; you should stick to your expertise. You don't get to redefine my point and then mock me for not knowing English 😂😂😂.

You still haven't touched the actual point. You keep making points I never made and talk about AI. I am sure an AI should know altruism very well. It's good to know you don't believe some of the things you say.

IjeBos:
Your argument breaks down to:
Even with written laws, people will do things that endanger other people. So, government regulations don't work.
So, we shouldn't write laws because if we let them self-regulate, they won't do what endangers people.

Dude why are you so slow?
I have showed how your pure water argument is against you, and you move to the next diarrhea of thoughts.

Your argument shows that regulations are not enough to stop someone from doing the thing. Like I said in my last post, government will regulate, they already have some, but if you are afraid what you are building will kill us all, STOP BUILDING IT. this is so basic and it bugs my mind how you can't get it.

IjeBos:
Because:
People will only not to things to not endanger other people out of some altruistic reason when they are allowed to self regulate
But those same people won't do it for altruistic reasons when they are forced to regulate.
Common sense right?
Yes, only to people who use their heads as soccer balls.

My point has nothing to do with altruism.

These AI companies are the ones telling you and me that what they are building could become an existential threat. So if the developers reach a point where they believe their next step could kill everybody, thry do not need the government to force them to stop taking that step.

Regulations can be there, but again, your NAFDAC pure water argument shows that it is not enough.

Open AI and Anthropic are always trying to 1up each other. No one knows what their RnD department is working on. If it escapes, the government will know when its too late.

A legend

For all the Ed Sheeran haters out there who think he can't perform on a stadium stage without a few anti-Israel warm up acts and a back up band, I have some really bad news for you. pic.twitter.com/8ZjE3HQRlJ

— Joel M. Petlin (@Joelmpetlin) September 16, 2026

Texas possibly.

Racist baby 🤣🤣🤣

This might be the most absurd racism claim yet pic.twitter.com/W7NFiuTLYh

— patriotic peach 🍑 (@patrioticpeachh) September 16, 2026

Raumdeuter 🤣🤣🤣

Lone Juror pic.twitter.com/iiWvFZoPfk

— Ms. Jackson🇺🇸 (@PaytonKJackson) September 16, 2026