Congratulations! Your video, Mike Tyson is Right Behind You, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 156 Badge!

Your video, Mike Tyson is Right Behind You, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

leaning toward 'not seeing a courtroom'.

he mugged for the camera after his beating. likely planned and unlikely to receive any 'punitive' award. besides, neither were detained, and the injury looks slight. [the guy was able to see/walk/and communicate clearly.] would be interesting to see the report the officers took. if mike mentions the water bottle and the dufus doesn't deny it - ? don't know if that negates being the World Champion - but see this guy.


https://nypost.com/2022/04/22/man-punched-by-mike-tyson-on-plane-hires-lawyer-over-injuries/ he has a very punchable face.

the second video down details (would like to know where that drink went)
https://www.tmz.com/2022/04/21/mike-tyson-repeatedly-punches-man-face-plane-bloodies-passenger/

Your video, Mike Tyson Punches Man On Plane, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Mike Tyson and Snoop Dogg as Oprah and Gayle [Deepfake], has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, All 50 of Mike Tyson's Knockouts, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ohhhh....brutal......the way he beat her that is.

"The best punch I ever threw was against my ex-wife." -Mike Tyson

Your video, Mike Tyson's practice punches were terrifying, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Guys, this ain't so hard...
You're a racist when you assign more or less value as a human being to people of a certain race (ethnical group) than you assign to yourself because of their ethnicity. There's a difference between saying "Stalin is less worth than M.L. King" (personal opinion) and "white people are worth less than blacks". The latter would be racism.
Prejudice is when you have opinions about people before knowing the facts about them.
Walking up to Mike Tyson and saying "You must have a giant cock because all black men are giants" is a prejudice that may be racist but it assigns positive values. Sure, it's offensive, like telling asian people they must be great at math, but somewhat forgivable. You're an ignorant cunt, yeah, but at least you said something flattering. You racist.
Walking up to Mike and telling him "All black men are criminals" is not only prejudice but also racist. Why? Because calling somebody a criminal is a negative judgement. A generalized negative prejudice towards an ethnic group is a racist way of thinking. Mike was convicted for raping his girlfriend. He is a criminal. Not all black men are Tyson. And if they were, I'd prefer the science variant. You're plain wrong.
Now saying "I bet all black people like listening to R'nB music" is just prejudice. There's no judgement here. Right? Unless you consider "he listens to R'n'B" an insult. How about "all polish people love ice cream"? Did you just imply polish people are all fat?
The difference between prejudice and racist prejudice lies entirely in subtext and context. It's not what you say, it's what you mean.
Prejudice is a tightrope made of blurry lines spanning over a pit of outrage. That's why politicians should not walk that way.
Being aware of differences between race, ethnic groups and talking about is simply being hones and probably not giving a shit about political correctness. We ARE different. That's the interesting part.
What we sadly forget is this: to focus on what we have in common. But somebody already said that way more eloquent than I ever could:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

Big fan of hers. She's such a tough, skilled badass. She's like a young Mike Tyson, kicking asses and not even bothering to take names later.

The only problem is there's no one who comes close to her level of badassery, so most of her fights are no contest, but her last fight with Miesha Tate was the best ever.

I think Bethe Correia should be a challenge, but we shall see.

"You're a talker. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty. And hungry." -- Sandor Clegane

First of all, don't tell me what we're discussing: "What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement ... ," especially if we're not discussing the same thing.

I criticized the broadcaster -- others criticized Mike Tyson.

In fact, my primary argument was against the broadcaster, and my secondary argument is on the validity of Tyson's rape conviction (I used a different thread and video for that one). Notice the difference?

I criticized the broadcaster's sloppy attempt to predict the future (which is unethical because it's impossible, to say the least) and his lack of sources thereof. What was ridiculous on my part, was my original assumption that future sources could possibly exist!

And I didn't respond to all of your quips because they're not all worthy of response. In your introduction you stated, "I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. <--[I'm criticizing the broadcaster, you're criticizing your assumption of what I think of Tyson.] Why do you think that? <--[Begs the question.] Because you did? <--[False accusation.] As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."
How am I supposed to respond to this? I was originally offended by the broadcaster's lack of professionalism regarding his sources, but this thread forced me acknowledge his lack of logic and ability to predict the future. How cool is that?

"Think I'll take two chickens."

"Some people would say" -- does not necessarily indicate future tense.
I would say (see?) it is often used to more politely present a point.
Other people would say (again..) that he is referring to what people might say to tyson if they were present in the interview, and so he is saying what they would say if they were present.

For all any of us knows, two or three people asked him to ask the question and he's completely accurate and right. As i already stated, i'm interested in that question even if you aren't, so he's completely right in his statement, other people WOULD say that. Me - and probably others. Though you don't address any of that in your reply.

I don't understand what you mean in your first paragraph about the public - i never said that you had interviewed them nor that you should (??). What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement, and an endorsement is for the listeners, the public. So what i am referring to is the viewing public of a TV show on which mike tyson has appeared and offered his personal endorsement to.

In fact, you specifically said that he has a duty of care to his audience to explain his sources, so it seemed to me that your primary concern was the public's full understanding of the interview... is that not the case? I think you may have contradicted yourself here - i asked you what that duty of care was, and that's a hard question to answer without referring to the "public thought". Perhaps that's why you didn't bother addressing it in your reply. I'm doing my best to keep the discussion going, but i don't understand what this paragraph refers to or what it means.

Finally the legal battle that you linked to me. As i already reminded you, we are not his judges and it is not a courtroom, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, the world is bigger than one country and this is an international website with a plethora of opinions. In exchange i'd like you to read the introductory paragraph about protection of sources which finishes with several particular comments about the united states, and one addressed directly about the US - the land of the free and home of the exiled whistle-blowers. Please remember as you read that this refers to a legal setting, and really has nothing to do with the example in this video about which you incorrectly assert that he has a duty to expose his sources. Which you still have not made clear. However i wanted to make clear that i think protection of sources is imperative to combating corruption which is absolutely rife in this day and age of illegal wars, illegal detention, worldwide spying and tracking of individuals by the NSA and Great Britain's intelligence agencies, expenses scandals, etc.

You haven't answered even half of the questions i posed to you in my first comment, i'm all ears. Or eyes. Whatever.

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.