Jump to content

***The Official 2021 NFL Super Bowl LV Game Thread***


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Brady is the GOAT in all of sports. Not just football.

And now the Bucs have more Lombardis than we do.

brady teh player(7) has more than pittsburg(6) and new england franchises(6).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 892
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Amy Schumer looks like she freebases Hellmans

This was the greatest pass I’ve ever seen by the way. The receiver who let it bounce off his face mask should be ashamed of himself. 

How any Jets fan can root for Brady is beyond my comprehension. And every Pats fan I know has been a Bucs fan all season. 

Posted Images

18 minutes ago, football guy said:

Consequences for what? For having an opinion? For saying something that you don't like?

Society needs to stop being so beta if humanity is going to have any chance lasting to the 2100s. 

Imagine being this out of touch. Old man yells at cloud status. Its alright man, times change. No need to cry about it, take it like a man.

 

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

So the Lombardi is an individual trophy?  Are they in Brady's basement?

heyyyyy I am a qb and these lombardi trophys just show up in my basement lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, football guy said:

I'm 29 years old lol. Regardless of my age, it's not hard to see that too many people have proverbial sticks up their asses. Just shut up and stop trying to control the world or what's good and what's not. You disagree with someone or something? Big deal. Argue all you want, but trying to leverage cancellation is the biggest cuck move possible. Quite frankly that's exactly what nazism (national socialism) was built on. People deserve to be outspoken and their perspectives deserve to be defended, not ostracized because it's not PC.  

"Cuck" "beta"

 

lmao. Walking stereotype.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

"Cuck" "beta"

 

lmao. Walking stereotype.

It's not about stereotypes. It's about acknowledging how broken some segments of society are. People are so interested in making their own taboos/unpopular perspectives/insecurities accepted by means of overcompensation, yet dismiss someone else's own opinions simply because they don't share that perspective. It's not enough for them to agree to disagree; they must feel right and anyone who has a differing opinion needs to be recognized as wrong, or as you put it, must "face consequences". That positions they don't agree with are wrong and must be cancelled if not. It's not about being assertive of that one's belief, it's about destroying the other's assertiveness. Hence, beta... hence cuck. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Thumb Down 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dcat said:

I'll add to the thread I haven't read: Worst SB in a very long time. In so many ways and for so many reasons. 

The entire second half was a drudge to get through, once everyone could see that the Chiefs OL couldn't cope with TB at all, there was never any point you felt there could've been a comeback.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Untouchable said:

Meh

The “deflate gate” crap is nonsense.

Brady could’ve been tossing around soap bubbles and still beaten the piss out of the Colts by 20+.

A pats fan would say nonsense  Or a member of dumbo national media that love tommy boy.

He had friggin trainers and ball boys surreptitiously tampering with game balls to suit him, so no it is not  nonsense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Beerfish said:

But he is a proven cheater and he is as much of a goat as bonds is the best HR hitter or lance armstrong is the best cyclist.

He and Bellichick and the pats cheated multiple times (only caught multiple times)

And for all his accomplishments he has gotten a phenomenal amount of luck over the years with other teams just folding and doing stupid things.

Even in the AFC title game he threw 3 picks, had a 4th flat put dropped and heaved up two 50/50 balls his wrs made great plays on.

OK  but 10 SB appearances, 7 wins, etc.  Just my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, football guy said:

I'm 29 years old lol. Regardless of my age, it's not hard to see that too many people have proverbial sticks up their asses. Just shut up and stop trying to control the world or what's good and what's not. You disagree with someone or something? Big deal. Argue all you want, but trying to leverage cancellation is the biggest cuck move possible. Quite frankly that's exactly what nazism (national socialism) was built on. People deserve to be outspoken and their perspectives deserve to be defended, not ostracized because it's not PC.  

See the source image

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, football guy said:

Consequences for what? For having an opinion? For saying something that you don't like?

Yes.  That is exactly how freedom works.

You possess a near-unlimited freedom to say or think anything you want to say or think.  That is YOUR freedom in action.

We, on the other hand, have a near-unlimited freedom to judge you negatively for the thing you said or thought.  That is OUR freedom in action.

It sounds like you want all of the benefits of freedom for yourself, without any of the consequences of others having that same freedom.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Yes.  That is exactly how freedom works.

You possess a near-unlimited freedom to say or think anything you want to say or think.  That is YOUR freedom in action.

We, on the other hand, have a near-unlimited freedom to judge you negatively for the thing you said or thought.  That is OUR freedom in action.

It sounds like you want all of the benefits of freedom for yourself, without any of the consequences of others having that same freedom.

 

By no means. I encourage people to speak freely, to judge freely. I don't encourage "cancelling" or ostracism. Exiling people for their beliefs is wrong. Empathy is more effective. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IndianaJet said:

Ok. Finally feeling safe on these:

 

C93A0F33-D972-4DAF-B776-8864150D4B93.jpeg

1BCE6F16-D02F-4FA1-BAA9-3E0D72B33B53.jpeg

^awesome. Makes the game worthwhile for you.  The box pool below did it for me!  1st & 3rd quarters and final belong to me!

ss2.JPG.8a9f34b1a23ff302e94d281ce385d2ed

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, football guy said:

By no means. I encourage people to speak freely, to judge freely. I don't encourage "cancelling" or ostracism.

Then I don't think you understand the point that was made, because in speaking freely, people are free to judge you negatively.  

What exactly do you think "cancelling" is?  It is a collective judgement by a meaningful portion of people that your speech or thought was objectionable, and individuals within that collective imposing a consequence for it. 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences imposed by other free people.  

8 minutes ago, football guy said:

Exiling people for their beliefs is wrong. Empathy is more effective. 

I might take this more seriously if you were not a frequent user of terms like "Cuck" and "Beta". 

These are not terms of empathy, they're insults, the 2021 tolerated alternative version of calling someone a "Fag".

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Yes.  That is exactly how freedom works.

You possess a near-unlimited freedom to say or think anything you want to say or think.  That is YOUR freedom in action.

We, on the other hand, have a near-unlimited freedom to judge you negatively for the thing you said or thought.  That is OUR freedom in action.

It sounds like you want all of the benefits of freedom for yourself, without any of the consequences of others having that same freedom.

 

Anyone who tries to silence someone who is not harming themselves or others is guilty of oppression. Having an unpopular opinion shouldn't come with self-appointed social justice measuring stick weilders to justify beating people with that same stick into submission. In uncanny accordance with this line of thinking, how unintentional the modern message equivalent that the Suffragettes should've just gone home based on some of the things that I've read here. The Abolitionists, too. Funny, that.

Of course you can and should judge people for their opinions, they're asking for it because they're voicing it; but to deny that there isn't a contingent to shut people up in order to control a dialogue that fits their agenda is disingenuous at worst and intellectually dishonest at best.

Funnier still, many of these same mini-dictators tend to scream the loudest about how oppressed they are when they start losing an argument because oftimes it's all they've got. Anyway, a couple of people here and there attempted to insidiously bully me. Needless to say, it didn't work out. 

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes the opinion is not really the issue at all. As soon as people start messing with what you can say and what you can't say to the point where it's not in the realm of falsely screaming fire in a crowded theatre it's a very dangerous thing. It's antithetical to freedom, period. 

So this Tom Brady wretchfest, ugghhh, what could be worse! I guess I should be scared now that someone will try to get me fired from my job. : / Have a good day, all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Then I don't think you understand the point that was made, because in speaking freely, people are free to judge you negatively.  

What exactly do you think "cancelling" is?  It is a collective judgement by a meaningful portion of people that your speech or thought was objectionable, and individuals within that collective imposing a consequence for it. 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences imposed by other free people.  

I might take this more seriously if you were not a frequent user of terms like "Cuck" and "Beta". 

These are not terms of empathy, they're insults, the 2021 tolerated alternative version of calling someone a "Fag".

I use the word fag and fagg ot, so what. Time and place and all that; but my gay nephew, who I love more than my own life - GASP! - approves. My husband's niece is developmentally disabled. She has no aversion to the word retard and uses it on occasion. She also drinks, smokes, and curses like a sailor. So I guess I have a gauche family? No, I don't; but the real point here is that we all know and recognize real hatred when we see it. People should be more concerned about how they police their own lives instead of making it their mission to police everyone else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fantasy Island said:

How anyone enjoyed this football game is beyond me.  I turned it off before the halftime show, which I hear sucked.  

It was a sad showing.

Refs have no credibility.

Worst Superbowl I can remember. My son tried to watch it with me - his first time watching a Superbowl - but gave up at halftime due to extreme boredom.

There was so little to excite in this one - not a great showcase for the sport.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jetophile said:

Anyone who tries to silence someone who is not harming themselves or others is guilty of oppression. Having an unpopular opinion shouldn't come with self-appointed social justice measuring stick weilders to justify beating people with that same stick into submission. In uncanny accordance with this line of thinking, how unintentional the modern message equivalent that the Suffragettes should've just gone home based on some of the things that I've read here. The Abolitionists, too. Funny, that.

Of course you can and should judge people for their opinions, they're asking for it because they're voicing it; but to deny that there isn't a contingent to shut people up in order to control a dialogue that fits their agenda is disingenuous at worst and intellectually dishonest at best.

Funnier still, many of these same mini-dictators tend to scream the loudest about how oppressed they are when they start losing an argument because oftimes it's all they've got. Anyway, a couple of people here and there attempted to insidiously bully me. Needless to say, it didn't work out. 

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes the opinion is not really the issue at all. As soon as people start messing with what you can say and what you can't say to the point where it's not in the realm of falsely screaming fire in a crowded theatre it's a very dangerous thing. It's antithetical to freedom, period. 

So this Tom Brady wretchfest, ugghhh, what could be worse! I guess I should be scared now that someone will try to get me fired from my job. : / Have a good day, all. 

Again, no one is "messing with what you say", you always have the right to keep saying anything you want to say.  You are not "oppressed", you continue to have the right to go down to the street corner and scream to the sky whatever you wish to say and whatever you believe.

What you do not have is a right to say these things on TV or in a specific newspaper.  Or at your workplace.  Or on someone else's private property.  These run up against someone else's superior rights, i.e. the TV stations rights to decide what it wants to program, the newspaper what it wants to cover, the employer in what it chooses to allow at it's worksite, and the private persons rights to their private property.

So no, you are not "oppressed", you are not the victim of prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, and the power of the State has not been wielded to limit or revoke your rights.  You are simply reaping the social collective effects of your choice of expression of your right to free speech, as determined by other free individuals expressing their rights. 

Again, it sounds like you want all the the power of your freedoms, while denying that freedom to others who would disagree.  With freedom comes responsibility and accountability.  If society finds the things you say offensive, they will censure you for it.  Doesn;t make them right per se, or you wrong per se, nor does it make you right i.e. vice versa.  That is for society, and ultimately for history, to decide as a whole, as always.

Quote

I use the word fag and fagg ot, so what.

Of course you do.  And of course your first defense for doing so is "...but I have a gay friend". 

Some things are very predictable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

How anyone enjoyed this football game is beyond me.  I turned it off before the halftime show, which I hear sucked.  

It was a sad showing.

Refs have no credibility.

The refs called the game much tighter than they usually call a SB but on the laundry list of issues with the game, the zebras are way down on said list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Again, no one is "messing with what you say", you always have the right to keep saying anything you want to say.  You are not "oppressed", you continue to have the right to go down to the street corner and scream to the sky whatever you wish to say and whatever you believe.

What you do not have is a right to say these things on TV or in a specific newspaper.  Or at your workplace.  Or on someone else's private property.  These run up against someone else's superior rights, i.e. the TV stations rights to decide what it wants to program, the newspaper what it wants to cover, the employer in what it chooses to allow at it's worksite, and the private persons rights to their private property.

So no, you are not "oppressed", you are not the victim of prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, and the power of the State has not been wielded to limit or revoke your rights.  You are simply reaping the social collective effects of your choice of expression of your right to free speech, as determined by other free individuals expressing their rights. 

Again, it sounds like you want all the the power of your freedoms, while denying that freedom to others who would disagree.  With freedom comes responsibility and accountability.  If society finds the things you say offensive, they will censure you for it.  Doesn;t make them right per se, or you wrong per se, nor does it make you right i.e. vice versa.  That is for society, and ultimately for history, to decide as a whole, as always.

Of course you do.  And of course your first defense for doing so is "...but I have a gay friend". 

Some things are very predictable.

He's not my friend, he's my nephew; but that's exactly the type of response that I expected, anyway, all things being even, you know. Speaking of gay friends, though, being an artist, I don't have any of those. Not one. Nope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Then I don't think you understand the point that was made, because in speaking freely, people are free to judge you negatively.  

What exactly do you think "cancelling" is?  It is a collective judgement by a meaningful portion of people that your speech or thought was objectionable, and individuals within that collective imposing a consequence for it. 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences imposed by other free people.  

I might take this more seriously if you were not a frequent user of terms like "Cuck" and "Beta". 

These are not terms of empathy, they're insults, the 2021 tolerated alternative version of calling someone a "Fag".

This is one perspective, but it's an incomplete one. 

What I would say is that just because your free to do something doesn't make it ethical nor does it make it productive. The difference with cancelling and accountability: a culture which promotes ostracism denies empathy and promotes radicalized tribalism. It's about control of information rather than flow of it. It's denying perspectives rather than accepting them. It's destroying narratives versus building them. It's prioritizing a one-sided perspective without fact-checking, conferring with colleagues and others with knowledge, or seeking better resolutions. It stems from passing judgment on someone, but that judgement gets sensationalized. It's a form of bullying by means of a mob mentality. It's less about correction and more about satisfying people's insecurities. 

"Cancelling" someone for having a perspective - right or wrong - is ridiculous. Why? I'll give you an example. Drew Brees has spent most of his life helping people and being an asset to society when he's not on the football field. He's lent more time, money, and platform to charitable causes than 99.99% of the people who walk this earth. The guy said he believes in standing for the National Anthem and disagreed with kneeling for it. Just his prospective. He was killed for it. My perspective: people criticizing Drew Brees can't hold his jock; most of these people have been a nuisance to society when he's been an asset. What are you trying to accomplish by "cancelling" him? It's stupid and counterproductive. For all I care, Drew Brees could've told people to go F themselves if they want to kneel for the National Anthem. He's earned the right to say what he believes and with that, people can disagree with him, but should also consider the facts, consider the perspective of those close to him, seek to understand why he has the perspective he has, and if at the end of it you say "I agree to disagree" so be it. To put him in a box and ostracize him for having a perspective that counters your own is so misguided, narrowminded, and quite frankly weak... don't alienate people for having different believes. 

As far as the usage of cuck and beta, they're descriptive words that pack a lot of meaning in them. If this offends you, I will apologize to you because you appear to have a rational sense and are not looking to be an aggressor. I can appreciate that and can learn from it. People make mistakes, myself included. Learning from your mistakes does not mean learning in a way where people are manufacturing backlash and a desire to destroy one's overall reputation. 

 

I'll end this with a perspective that former president Barack Obama has warned in regards to cancel/woke culture: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Again, no one is "messing with what you say", you always have the right to keep saying anything you want to say.  You are not "oppressed", you continue to have the right to go down to the street corner and scream to the sky whatever you wish to say and whatever you believe.

What you do not have is a right to say these things on TV or in a specific newspaper.  Or at your workplace.  Or on someone else's private property.  These run up against someone else's superior rights, i.e. the TV stations rights to decide what it wants to program, the newspaper what it wants to cover, the employer in what it chooses to allow at it's worksite, and the private persons rights to their private property.

So no, you are not "oppressed", you are not the victim of prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, and the power of the State has not been wielded to limit or revoke your rights.  You are simply reaping the social collective effects of your choice of expression of your right to free speech, as determined by other free individuals expressing their rights. 

Again, it sounds like you want all the the power of your freedoms, while denying that freedom to others who would disagree.  With freedom comes responsibility and accountability.  If society finds the things you say offensive, they will censure you for it.  Doesn;t make them right per se, or you wrong per se, nor does it make you right i.e. vice versa.  That is for society, and ultimately for history, to decide as a whole, as always.

Of course you do.  And of course your first defense for doing so is "...but I have a gay friend". 

Some things are very predictable.

I'd hate to "cancel" you if you're enjoying this interaction but you're definitely wasting your time making good faith arguments against somebody who isn't. His most recent post begins demanding empathy and then concludes with how useful it is to call people cucks and betas. He's not even hiding it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...