Why? Are you suggesting that taking the position of rejection of violence against innocent women is racist if the offender is black? Or that the rejection of violence against women, misogyny, homophobia, is being intolerant of the offender?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dr. Dre Addresses Abuse Accusations With Apology, Apple Releases Supporting Statement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why? Are you suggesting that taking the position of rejection of violence against innocent women is racist if the offender is black? Or that the rejection of violence against women, misogyny, homophobia, is being intolerant of the offender?
"I can't believe Apple would want to be associated with such behaviour…"
Another red herring. Promoting a musician for their musical talent and creative thought is not the same as bringing one of poor character and questionable history into the company as representative in an executive position. Especially when the current CEO speaks of gay rights and tolerance and this newly appointed executive (Dre) has been one of the most vocal homophobes (not just musically/artistically, but personally/publicly) imaginable.
Welcome to Apple Dre, you'll need to prepare an internet apology for every burp and fart for the rest of your life. Apple can do no right and no wrong at the same time
Apple are being racist and hypocritcal. If any other Apple executive or employee were featured in a video like this with such derogatory language and racial slurs, and juvenile, arrogant, infantile, behavior, that person would be let go immediately and Apple would apologize. But being that he's black (and brings TC potential profits), he's allowed to get away with it.
Treating people differently is the Apple way, despite their claim to the contrary.
Treating people differently is the Apple way, despite their claim to the contrary.
Last edited:
Reading comprehension problem? Did you see the word 'If'? Or are you just required to try and quell and attempt to deflect Apple criticism as a job duty?
"If any other Apple executive or employee were featured in a video like this..."
And, we'll probably never see a comparison since no other publicly recognized Apple employee, other than Dre, would be dumb enough to behave in such a way on video and have it posted, because they know exactly what would happen.
Last edited:
So you agree that your whole tirades are completely hypothetical?
You need to understand the basic fact that questioning someone's arguments does not imply ulterior motives like "defending Apple/xyz/blacks/whites". Your implications make you appear extremely simple minded.
When one replies with such absurd counter-arguments and stretches if/then logic to absurdity, then it should be apparent to anyone, and justifiably suspicious, that something is up.
Here's an example:
If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, then you will hit the ground and die.
If you smack your CEO in the head with a brick, then you will be fired.
Your response:
"Do you have an example of someone not dying diving from a plane sans parachute, or not being fired after a brick smack?"
"Those statements are completely hypothetical."
If you were in my position, how would you explain your nonsensical reply? Insulting your intelligence was one option, but first went with the affiliation hunch.
Question for you: If anyone in a public executive position, in any company, posted a video like that of themselves, what do you personally think would happen in most instances? Are you going to resort to heavy apologetics or answer honestly?
Last edited:
"If someone doesn't agree with my biased opinion, then something is up".
Not very helpful for the "discussion".
I'm not sure if you're pretending to be that slow, but personal behaviour as seen in the video and the evaluation of such is not comparable to law of physics or actual criminal behaviour as you mention in your "brick" example (may I ask if you've had a personal experience with such a brick?).
I cannot imagine being in your position, to be honest. I have pretty much ruled out the possiblity of you being able to insult my intelligence, that happened a few posts ago. And that's without any snark intended.
I'll answer honest - I have my issues with the hip hop scene (not the violent part, it would be hypocritical of me to judge that after liking musicians that promote violence in their own ways), but I've seen plenty of executives in all sorts of positions that have expressed themselves in an inappropriate, crass or profane way, they were not punished for it, they surely were judged for it by those who expect complete conformity, but it doesn't really matter what you or I say. If you find that Apple is despicable for keeping him employed after that video (again - what exactly is your issue with it?), then you might want to move on to "cleaner " companies. Just quit the pathetic attempts of trying to nail down others on your own "morality", which seems to be extremely conservative and limited.
This response is indistinguishable from affiliated Apple PR, so can't blame me for suspecting such. Red herrings, strawman responses, purposeful misdirection, avoidance, etc.
The subject in my response is your flawed use and understanding of if/then logic, and you purposely misdirect with comparisons of video content and laws of physics. Typical dishonest diversion tactic.
Then, a politician style, intellectually dishonest, unnecessarily long-winded (designed to deflect) answer to my very simple question. The long, irrational, nonsensical, non-answer, (i.e., "doesn't really matter what you or I say.") says a lot. Knew you wouldn't answer honestly.
The "move on to some other company" is also a very common line used to eradicate and silence critics. Right out of the handbook.
Another reading comprehension problem? This was covered already. Why are you asking again?
We know one thing for sure, Apple is not an honest company. At least, that is, their PR/marketing department is not honest.
Last edited:
LOL!! I'm not sure Dre ever pretended to be a model father/husband 25 years ago like your idol, Duggar. So Dre's a thug and he acted like one. Duggar is a Christian cheating molester, but he gets a pass from you because of a contrite apology (where'd you hear about his Ashley Maddison apology by the way, TMZ?). Link it to us, bro! Need a laugh before bed.
Having someone like you blabber on about "strawmen" is pretty hilarious, considering your inability of describing which behaviour exactly upsets you to the point where you become hostile and believe to see red herrings everywhere...
Of course that is false as well. Again, you compare a true/false situation with a situation that requires personal evaluation, based on your own opions, values etc., but as you seem to be incapable of understanding (or at least admitting) that, the discussion will become extremely tedious and repetitive for you from here on.
I'm sure that it appeared nonsensical to someone like you, but it's irrelevant.
You appear to be extremely paranoid in this matter, why is this?
I did not attempt to silence you at all. I just really can't see too many different outcomes for someone like you in this - so here's Apple, they have hired someone that you find morally despicable. What is your personal consequence in this? Really - what is it?
I'm looking for the racial and derogative slurs that you imply are present in that video. Hint: Randomly blabbering "there is a racial slur" does not mean that there is a racial slur present. So really, just a time stamp does it, or is that too challenging for you?
Ok, so it all ends up with a pathetic "you're being paid"-accusation.
Who is this "We" you are talking about? Do "we" have a multiple personality disorder?
Based in this article, it's less about forgiving, and more questioning why it was omitted. I haven't seen much about this film, but from what I gather it's bigraohical, right? Seems sort of wrong to omit key parts of thst period of your life unless you simply don't want people to know about it. Not unlike the way American history books are written, mind you.
Really? I'm nit a lawyer and I think I could manage to come up with something similar. I have no idea if the dude was genuine. But what ever happened to giving a person the benefit of the doubt?
When I was younger I stole some money from my employer (not the same thing, I know) and I deeply regretted it. This person was good to me and I completely and permanently lost her trust. Hardly a day goes by, even fifteen years later, that I don't think of that.
And since I'm not well versed in this man's life history, do we have any idea what sorts of amends were made, if any? Or are we just judging the guy because we can?
Because thats not the story the film makers chose to tell.
It has nothing to do with trying to hide it.
If you knew how films are made, you would realize there is a lot they didnt have time for. It was a movie not a book.
Like it was quoted by someone, you can tell ten different stories about NWA, and this particular version is one they decided to tell. There are lots of stuff and details they omitted. Usually stories have a thesis they follow. Its not a documentary.
Even further, its obviously not a mainstream thing to show such violence, its so wrong, no need to remind people, including the victims.
I don't think a victim of a beating wants to see it dramatized to all the public of the world.
That is such a weird criticism.
What is really happening, the real motive to bring this up is that woman is an attention whore. Wants to bank off the release.
Pure and simple.
So...in all the discussion about racism have we forgotten about sexism and victim blaming of which the statement above is a prime example?
You're the type of guy who'd stick his ex girlfriend on a revenge porn site when she dumps you..... aren't you?
No it's about seeing all sides of the story. The victim and the perp are both human.
There is no right or wrong, there is only law.
All humans are flawed and should not be expected to be perfect.
The only thing left is the vitriol and hatred of people who wish malicious intent on others.
Wanting to ruin the lives of great people.
80 years from now we will all be dead. What value is there in hating another man or woman that you don't even know.
Judging from afar, now that we have the Internet, like little rats trying to demonize anything that we hate on a whim, whether it's due to race or culture or flaws.
Why is the victims life so valuable yet the greatness of the man isn't. Or why should the man be revered and the victim discarded.
Just because he is famous he should not be a target or a victim. Nor because he is famous should she be disposable.
The fact is none of you can not should try to play God.
What happened was not civilized by neither individual. But it happened. And all that remains after the law has dealt with it was the memory of what happened.
We have provided valid reasons, explanations, excuses why it happened, and they are reasonable and understandable.
They are human reasons.
And all that is left now are the vultures, the parasites, and the attention whores. Trying to dig up trouble because he is a black man from Compton.
Racism disguised as Social Justice.
Just like Dr Dre was insecure and had an ego and wanted power over people, so do the social justice warrior feel insecure and want to indulge in power over people, in the name of victim culture.
The underdogs rise up and try to dethrone the alphas but you can never build yourself up by bringing someone down.
It's a form of evil. Human, like everything else. Parasites, like we have always been.
So your argument for forgiveness leads to the conclusion that the woman is a "wh**e"......?
Your logic (or lack thereof) is easily dismantled. There is no right or wrong, only law? So, if someone rapes and kills someone on an uninhabited and unclaimed island, there is no right or wrong whatsoever? Hogwash. Secondly, you're a hypocrite -- just as you virtuously defend someone who beat up women, you find it acceptable to not only defend, but praise him. So, where is your neutrality that you demand from others? Why is it not ok to judge him negatively, but you definitely ok to judge him positively? Why-- because you say so. Because you are biased. Because maybe, you are the racist one.
Character is not who you are AFTER making a fortune, having pr, etc.
Character is who you are on the street, with no money.
Are we to believe that if we cloned the world, made it exactly as it is but Dr. Dre is still on the street and broke at his current age, that he would be any different now than he was then?
Character is who you are on the street, with no money.
Are we to believe that if we cloned the world, made it exactly as it is but Dr. Dre is still on the street and broke at his current age, that he would be any different now than he was then?
If a court of criminal law has the notion of a statute of limitations, should not the court of popular opinion have one as well?