Transcription
All right, so this is part three. Uh, Stephen A. Smith is in the midst of giving his his racial dissertation to, uh, his captivated audience of three. So let's see what he's talking about in a fashion that's not vicious, that's not insidious or malicious or anything like that. And that's the way to communicate. And somebody outside of our race is going to try to define for us how wrong it is. I've said this on many occasions. This has nothing to do with Will or Max. This is what I said in the past, right here on this show, when I got into a beef with John Won, who works for the NFL. The man, I highly respect the man. My issue with him was not his willingness, his devotion towards eradicating the word. It was giving the NFL, a white power structure, the power to punish those within the black community who would use the word. It, it resonated with me because I'm saying, wait a minute. If you are the ones who made the word so vicious and so malicious to a race of people, how do you get to turn around after that and decide that we can be punished for talking amongst ourselves? Not on the airwaves or anything like that, but I'm saying, easy. 'Cause when you're on an NFL playing field in an NFL uniform, you're NFL property. Simple as that. That's how they could decide that. Stephen A., it's not that difficult to figure out, brother.
I have a problem with, I have a question. Uh, and certainly it wouldn't be in the pursuit of trying to demand or decide who gets to say what, rather just a simple curiosity. If there are places where it's inappropriate to use this word, as Michael and Jaylen suggested on their broadcast, and you just did as well, and that children shouldn't hear the word, and I, I know several young black children, friends of my children, they don't use the word. Several young black children, friends of your children, would they happen to be children of the, of the, uh, woman that's babysitting your children? What is the, why at the core of that? Why is it inappropriate for children to hear or use the word, but it is more appropriate for adults to? What we're saying is, first of all, understanding, nobody's saying that it's appropriate. What we're saying is that if you're growing up and there's a lingo and a language that you communicate with, and it just is somebody coming along on the back end and trying to define that you should be punished for it, is an entirely different thing. It's not that say, adult use strong language that children, children don't. But I think this is too damn.
The white liberal just cut in on him as he was explaining himself, and now he's going to explain it even better than him. Ain't that something? Two different conversations. One as it relates to this topic, I think there are two issues. Double standard, that's fine. I think we're all on the same page with that. And whether or not it's appropriate in that setting, I think we're also all on the same page. The answer is no. Then there's a separate issue. I think Stephen A. that you're dealing with the co-opting of a terrible word to undermine its potency versus ongoing. It's not a terrible word. It's just a word like any other word. It can be used or it can be used terribly. It's not a terrible word. There's no such thing as a terrible word. It's only words that are used terribly. Internalized depression, and that's a whole separate.
Just allow me to close it out by saying this, and I'm just going to speak for myself and most black people I know. Oh, well, you're already off to a bad start. You should have left it there. Speaking for yourself, bro. You can't speak for anybody else except for yourself. No matter how we feel about the word itself, we don't want to hear White America tell us what words we can and cannot use amongst ourselves.
I just want to say one last thing because I find it very simple. If you're African-American, you want to use the word, go for it. It's your prerogative. If you're not, you can't. And, and if you're Jaylen Rose's girlfriend and you like what he's giving you in the sack, then you're going to jump in and speak on, on black issues. And that's just what I would teach my children the same thing.
Well, the other thing that you could say is simply this. There are white folks that, not there are some white folks, not most, not all, but some white folks who would ask the question, well, you could use it, why can't we? You, you know what? My damn she jumped in. You see how, didn't I say earlier? You know, when a so-called non-black woman gets with a, with a so-called black man, she starts speaking on racial issues with ferocity too. Not only that, but this is, this is my talk to them. I got a couple of spots, a couple of hoods that you could go to in LA, in Chicago, and New York. Why don't you go there and ask them? Because you know better. In other words, I'm just, I'm challenging them because I'm saying, deep in your core, you know better. Don't ask a question. It's a rhetorical question. You know the answer to that. You just want to act like you don't because you want the license to do what you want to do.
I want to leave it here on this. Certainly, there isn't a desire to dictate who can and cannot say. I'm more curious about the personal decision that you would make, or Jaylen would make, or Will Bon would make, on when and where and why it's okay to use it. I'm genuinely curious on that personal decision. Now, didn't he lead his commentary by saying that, you know, it's not his place to say when the word is used and who can use it? Now he's coming out saying that he's generally curious to know when and where and how. Why are you curious to know for, if it does not apply to you? That's like me saying to a, to a female, I would like to know when and where, uh, you wear certain types of bras and why you wear those bras, and when do you decide to wear this type of bra and that type of bra? Who cares? That doesn't apply to me. That's your business that you make. And I'm saying to you that for me personally, I side with Jaylen Rose. I find that the word is, it's, it's, it's as vicious as it is. It wasn't that way to us when we were communicating with ourselves, but because that word was always used as a colloquialism amongst us, that's why.
All right, the word took on and, and, and vicious nature in and of itself in the mid-1800s. Prior to that, it was just, it was just another term for, for so-called black people. That's all it was. All right? But because others have invaded the proceedings, per se, and have now used it as a license to try and use it themselves, I side with Jaylen in terms of saying, okay, we got to pump the brakes because this is getting out of hand. But we never used it consciously. It's not like you're talking. It's almost like cussing, for crying out loud. It's not like you're just planning on saying the F word or the MF word or whatever. It's just something that out voting or are attractive, especially to teenagers and St. Because because they're voting, you know? Yeah. [ __ ] please. Good conversation. Well, thank you so much for being with us. Coming up after the break, the new.
So now we're going to move from First Take to Jaylen and, uh, Jacoby. Uh, they're going to bring out a little bit of information to verify something that I said about Iguodala in this situation with, uh, there's something going on in that locker room. So let's see what, what they're going to bring out. Jill Rose, our colleague. My man, Ethan Strauss, was on the True Hoops podcast. You know, things get real comfortable in the podcast room. Just feels like no one's listening, and you get a little comfy, and you just start spilling beans about the team that you cover. Strauss is close with the Warriors team, and here's what he had to say on the True Hoops podcast. Uh, is this malaise of theirs? Is it about not feeling, uh, motivated? Not thinking they have something to play for? Um, is it just being tired? But, you know, there's one guy in particular on the team who keeps saying the same thing to me, and I can't say, uh, who he is, but he keeps saying, "We've got problems, and it ain't basketball." "We've got problems, and it ain't basketball," says someone that wears the Golden State uniform. Now, Ethan Strauss says that somebody keeps saying this to him, and he can't say who it is. So you have to, and it's somebody on the Golden State team. So you have to figure like this. There's only four guys on the team that would even speak and say something like that, and we know who those four guys are. All right. And, and it's not Durant, because Durant wouldn't say something like that. So that eliminates one. So there's three guys left who would say something like that, right? To where he would not be able to say who it was. And that's clearly Klay Thompson, Steph, Stephen Curry, and Draymond Green. And, uh, it be, it's interesting to see who that might be and what the issue might be. Uh, if I be a betting man, it's the fact that Draymond Green has been trying to stage a coup and the takeover of the team since the end of last year. He knows that he cannot match Curry for talent, so he's trying to match, he's trying to supersede him and influence on the team. Uh, he showed that when he brought in Kevin Durant. To me, that was a coup to say that now I have the best offensive player on the team under me, and I'm taking control of the team. Just my opinion. We'll see what happens. I could be wrong. It's just what I see. Would it shock me if, if Stephen Curry leaves Golden State at the end of this year? No. I would not, especially if they don't win a championship. All right? Don't let all the smiles and all that stuff fool you. All right? He did, he did not like when they brought in Kevin Durant. He's a two-time MVP. He was the leader of the team. He had carte blanche to take whatever shot he wants or he wanted, and now he must consider somebody else for the sake of the team. All right? So it would not shock me if the issue is Draymond Green trying to, or recruiting Kevin Durant and bringing him in as a way to, uh, declare himself as the, the alpha dog on the team. Okay? Wouldn't shock me at all.
What does that mean to you, Mr. Rose? Not much, really. Each group of 15 individuals are not going to consistently see eye to eye, regardless of your workplace or endeavor or sport. That's how life works. He didn't say that on the floor. There's a mutiny happening where players are flagrantly not running what the coach asks, or not passing the ball to one another, not communicating on purpose, doing things that might become a detriment to them winning basketball games. When you've been with a group of people for a couple of years, too, there are differences in personality, of course, of style, in any group dynamic, of exposure. Anyone listen to this, whether it's family, whether it's professional, any sort of group, there are going to be problems. However, if you think back to just last year, when the Warriors did not win the championship, just a year ago today, there were no problems. There were no basketball problems. There were no off-court problems. It was just singing on the plane to O.T. Genesis on the way home from wins. Everything's all good. It's a step back. Now they're not playing well right now, and they are saying maybe half on wax, half off wax to Ethan that there are problems off the basketball court. And you're saying that's not that big a deal? I'm saying it's not a big a deal because this is what happens when adversity hits you.
You just described a historic NBA season where they won the most games of all time. Yes. When they had a, a verified scoring leader, and and everybody knew their role. Now, now they brought in KD, and Stephen Curry has had to take a demotion. I'm surprised to hear Jaylen say that is not that big a deal. Like I said, I believe that things are going to come out in the aftermath, especially if they don't win a championship. Mhm. So they didn't have to deal with the normal peaks and valleys that every squad has to endure. You saw how when Kawhi was walking to the bench the other night, Pop was in his backside demonstrative. Okay, these are the things that happen when you go on to, uh, lose to the Portland Trail Blazers. But this is what happens where you're not having the level of success this year in Golden State, and you're comparing it to an all-time great season of last year. And also, there's a level of fatigue, emotionally and physically, that takes place when you're not as deep. Yeah, you're now requiring players to not only have to consistently do more, which we're Prof, we are profession, which they are professional basketball players, than you expect. But at the same time, in a group dynamic, they had more players last year. Mhm. That strength and numbers thing was real. Space was giving them buckets and minutes until he missed that dunk in the finals, and he was done. Harrison Barnes was playing a lot of minutes. Ail, har Barnes cost them the finals last year. That fool made a couple of jump shots. They, they're world champions. I don't want to hear nothing about Harrison Barnes. Bit Barbosa. So you lose that. All I'm saying, guys choked down the stretch of the finals last year. Moniker and adopt strength in All Stars. Well, your leading score, your one of your leading rebounders and shot blockers, who happens to be a former MVP, is now out. So now you're asking everybody else, like in a tug of war, to have a pull, a bigger piece, and it can be something that creates emotion amongst players.
Is it unfair that whenever anything goes wrong with the Warriors, and whenever there's a suggestion that there's some sort of chemistry problem, that everybody points their finger at who? Day, Day, Draymond Green? Is it unfair? Um, well, you just did that. You just, you just pointed him out. I believe that he is the one who made that statement, "We've got problems, and it ain't basketball." All right, right. Even in how, how it was expressed, that's how Draymond speaks. All right? It's just my opinion. I believe that he tried to stage a coup. All right? And right now, it's, uh, it's about to go down. I'mma end it with a, with a tweet from Draymond Green's mom. Um, all staying in the NBA last night. It took a superhuman effort, uh, by Draymond Green, or six blocks rather, including, uh, let's see, one we'll show in a minute, and a couple clutch threes from Steph for the Warriors to overcome a 16-point deficit. Mom was all over. Remember Mike, you said this just yesterday, that nobody reserved the right that if the Warriors struggled or if they didn't win it all, to say, "Look at what she said. She said, 'We gave up an entire team and kept some of the pieces we needed to get rid of.'" I'm just saying now, where did she, where did she get that from? Is she a coach, or did she get that from Draymond? Who is it that Draymond thought that they should get rid of, but they kept peace?