Let’s be honest about corporate sponsorship Nike etc

[TheLurper]

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

New Balance "Made in America" is an amazing marketing campaign, but it isn't exactly true. Only 25% of New Balance that are sold in America are made in the USA, and of those 25% that are "made in America," 30% of the components are made else where.

"About a quarter of the shoes it sells in America are churned out of the company's five New England factories...But the Boston-based company also acknowledges that only about 70% of the value of its U.S.-made shoes reflects domestic content and labor. The outer soles, for instance, are imported from China...in the 1990s, the FTC brought an enforcement action against New Balance over its claim."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-balance-shoe-materials-arent-all-u-s-made-1412109111

This is better than 0%, but the vast majority of shoes sold in the USA come from elsewhere. Moreover, we have to think about the shoes that are sold elsewhere what % of those are made in the US? 5%? 1%?

Finally, people love to talk about America first, but who the hell wants to pay their employees more and who wants to pay more for their goods? Capitalism isn't exactly pro-community it is hyper-individualistic. How do you get people in an ultra individualistic economic system to think collectively? Currently, the whole system is based around a race to the bottom. Fordism (paying decent wages) is a thing of the past, and good luck convincing any shareholder that it should return.

[botefdunn]

Finally, people love to talk about America first, but who the hell wants to pay their employees more and who wants to pay more for their goods? Capitalism isn't exactly pro-community it is hyper-individualistic. How do you get people in an ultra individualistic economic system to think collectively? Currently, the whole system is based around a race to the bottom. Fordism (paying decent wages) is a thing of the past, and good luck convincing any shareholder that it should return.

I'm familiar with that language but i find it misleading: who wants to pay emplyees more? The employees do, a description that fits most of us, and most of the world's population in general. Hyper-individualistic? This word suggests that capitalism concerns itself with the desires of the individual, which is not the case; let's call a system that encourages people to think of their own welfare as separate or even diametrically opposed to that of their neighbours what it is, which is greedy and antisocial. Regardless of wether or not the individuals that comprise a community or society adopt the ethos of wealth accumulation as an end in of itself, a system that promotes the behaviour that results from such an ethos can't be said to operate in the interests of the individual. Anyway, I'm saying all this in response to your question about how to get people to think collectively rather than individually: the question itself is the problem, suggesting as it does that the argument is about convincing people that they need to give up personal freedoms, when the reality is that a system which values a hypothetical currency over the individual's actual state is at best a compromise and at worst an incitement to work against ones own interests. Nike is compromised,  and what kept it out of skateboaring for a long time was idealism. Whether or not you believe that this idealism is misplaced, I think it's undeniable that the answer to the question of how to make life better for humans, is to make decisions that are in fact based on improving human existence, rather than on some other "more realistic" ambition such as wealth accumulation.

[DannyDee]

Does anyone know what the deal is with pros or well known ams that rep the fuck out of nike/adidas but are not listed on the team? I feel like they go overboard if it was strictly a flow situation, are they getting a small salary?

For example,

Adidas: Chris Roberts, That McClung, LIL SCHMATTY

Nike: 917 guys

Pretty sure they get sizable incentives and trips for coverage paid for at times. Its why being flow for Nike or Adidas is better than being flow for Lakai or Huf, unless you have an actual shot of getting on those teams.

[botefdunn]

Note: It bums me out that Synder is one of Dyrdek's lackeys and his brother is the absolute worst skate "academic" ever. I saw Aaron's brother bragging about his Primitive hoodie and who he knows at the Pushing Boarders Conference and I almost lost my shit.

www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/anthropology/gsnyder.htm

Does look pretty colour-by-numbers. Makes me glad i don't live in new york.
Lurper I'm assuming you're either pretty confident no one's gonna figure out who you are, or you've maintained a decent flatground  game. Keep talking I like it.

[TheLurper]

Expand Quote

Finally, people love to talk about America first, but who the hell wants to pay their employees more and who wants to pay more for their goods? Capitalism isn't exactly pro-community it is hyper-individualistic. How do you get people in an ultra individualistic economic system to think collectively? Currently, the whole system is based around a race to the bottom. Fordism (paying decent wages) is a thing of the past, and good luck convincing any shareholder that it should return.

[close]

I'm familiar with that language but i find it misleading: who wants to pay emplyees more? The employees do, a description that fits most of us, and most of the world's population in general.

Hyper-individualistic? This word suggests that capitalism concerns itself with the desires of the individual, which is not the case; let's call a system that encourages people to think of their own welfare as separate or even diametrically opposed to that of their neighbours what it is, which is greedy and antisocial. Regardless of wether or not the individuals that comprise a community or society adopt the ethos of wealth accumulation as an end in of itself, a system that promotes the behaviour that results from such an ethos can't be said to operate in the interests of the individual.

Anyway, I'm saying all this in response to your question about how to get people to think collectively rather than individually: the question itself is the problem, suggesting as it does that the argument is about convincing people that they need to give up personal freedoms, when the reality is that a system which values a hypothetical currency over the individual's actual state is at best a compromise and at worst an incitement to work against ones own interests.

Nike is compromised,  and what kept it out of skateboaring for a long time was idealism. Whether or not you believe that this idealism is misplaced, I think it's undeniable that the answer to the question of how to make life better for humans, is to make decisions that are in fact based on improving human existence, rather than on some other "more realistic" ambition such as wealth accumulation.

I'm a little confused with your post and I was hoping that you might be able to clarify a few points so I can understand you better.

First, I don't fully understand what you mean by the employees want to pay more for their wages. This isn't a decision that employees get to make. This is for management, owners, and shareholders to decide. Unless, we are discussing minimum wage, where the government (a representative of the people) or a union intervenes, but this intervention is seen as a sin by many who have come to believe that any rules (unless they are anti-worker rules) are bad for the economy.

Second, and this is where I get a little lost, are you saying hyper-individualistic is not a strong enough term to describe the contemporary form of capitalism that we find ourselves in? It is not only that we are encouraged to think only of ourselves, but we are to ignore the welfare others, which leads to a break down in the society as whole, which then comes back around to get us? So, basically, contemporary capitalism, privileges the individual in such a disgusting way and ignores the needs of the community it causes the whole system to fall apart, which harms everyone?

Third, are you trying to say the goal of encouraging collectivism within a capitalist system has no value because it would be like putting a bandaid on broken leg? It would simply allow the broken system to continue to limp along without solving any of the problems?

Fourth, the solution should not be allowing to collect individual wealth, but developing a system that moves the whole society forward? So maybe, you are suggesting something along the lines Rawls lined out for a political economic system? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No

Is this right? Am I understanding everything correctly?

Finally, my assumption (hope?) is that no one cares. I'm just an old guy that spends way too much time thinking and reading about skateboarding.

[Hoeboi]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Finally, people love to talk about America first, but who the hell wants to pay their employees more and who wants to pay more for their goods? Capitalism isn't exactly pro-community it is hyper-individualistic. How do you get people in an ultra individualistic economic system to think collectively? Currently, the whole system is based around a race to the bottom. Fordism (paying decent wages) is a thing of the past, and good luck convincing any shareholder that it should return.

[close]

I'm familiar with that language but i find it misleading: who wants to pay emplyees more? The employees do, a description that fits most of us, and most of the world's population in general.

Hyper-individualistic? This word suggests that capitalism concerns itself with the desires of the individual, which is not the case; let's call a system that encourages people to think of their own welfare as separate or even diametrically opposed to that of their neighbours what it is, which is greedy and antisocial. Regardless of wether or not the individuals that comprise a community or society adopt the ethos of wealth accumulation as an end in of itself, a system that promotes the behaviour that results from such an ethos can't be said to operate in the interests of the individual.

Anyway, I'm saying all this in response to your question about how to get people to think collectively rather than individually: the question itself is the problem, suggesting as it does that the argument is about convincing people that they need to give up personal freedoms, when the reality is that a system which values a hypothetical currency over the individual's actual state is at best a compromise and at worst an incitement to work against ones own interests.

Nike is compromised,  and what kept it out of skateboaring for a long time was idealism. Whether or not you believe that this idealism is misplaced, I think it's undeniable that the answer to the question of how to make life better for humans, is to make decisions that are in fact based on improving human existence, rather than on some other "more realistic" ambition such as wealth accumulation.

[close]

I'm a little confused with your post and I was hoping that you might be able to clarify a few points so I can understand you better.

First, I don't full understand what you mean by the employees want to pay more for their wages. This isn't a decision that employees get to make. This is for management, owners, and shareholders to decide. Unless, we are discussing minimum wage, where the government (a representative of the people) or a union intervenes, but this intervention is seen as a sin by many who have come to believe that any rules (unless they are anti-worker rules) are bad for the economy.

Second, and this is where I get a little lost, are you saying hyper-individualistic is not a strong enough term to describe the contemporary form of capitalism that we find ourselves in? It is not only that we are encouraged to think only of ourselves, but we are to ignore the welfare others, which leads to a break down in the society as whole, which then comes back around to get us? So, basically, contemporary capitalism, privileges the individual in such a disgusting way and ignores the needs of the community it causes the whole system to fall apart, which harms everyone?

Third, are you trying to say the goal of encouraging collectivism within a capitalist system has no value because it would be putting a bandaid on broken leg? It would simply allow the broken system to continue to limp along?

Fourth, the solution should not be allowing to collect individual wealth, but developing a system that moves the whole society forward? So maybe, you are suggesting something along the lines Rawls lined out for a political economic system? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No

Is this right? Am I understanding everything correctly?

Finally, my assumption (hope?) is that no one cares. I'm just an old guy that spends way too much time thinking and reading about skateboarding.

you two are the epitome of everything i hate about internet message boards. like seriously? you are going to take the time to type up all the hemityhaw mumbo jumbo and expect some kind of real world effect from it? get the fuck over yourselves please. its skate shoes we're talking about here. go pychoanalyze j casanova in his thread. that'll at least be entertaining.

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

> hates message boards
>> continues to post on them (with the majority of your posts complaining about other poster's posting styles)

[Hoeboi]

> hates message boards
>> continues to post on them (with the majority of your posts complaining about other poster's posting styles)

you unblocked me! i take that as a sign of us being broheems now.

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

well, the block function isn't currently working so (unfortunately) I still have to see you complain in every thread and/ or not talk about actual skating

[Hoeboi]

well, the block function isn't currently working so (unfortunately) I still have to see you complain in every thread and/ or not talk about actual skating

I'm simply giving my 2 cents

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

in a place you hate. anyway mate, you do you, we've seen worse trolls over the years

[botefdunn]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Finally, people love to talk about America first, but who the hell wants to pay their employees more and who wants to pay more for their goods? Capitalism isn't exactly pro-community it is hyper-individualistic. How do you get people in an ultra individualistic economic system to think collectively? Currently, the whole system is based around a race to the bottom. Fordism (paying decent wages) is a thing of the past, and good luck convincing any shareholder that it should return.

[close]

I'm familiar with that language but i find it misleading: who wants to pay emplyees more? The employees do, a description that fits most of us, and most of the world's population in general.

Hyper-individualistic? This word suggests that capitalism concerns itself with the desires of the individual, which is not the case; let's call a system that encourages people to think of their own welfare as separate or even diametrically opposed to that of their neighbours what it is, which is greedy and antisocial. Regardless of wether or not the individuals that comprise a community or society adopt the ethos of wealth accumulation as an end in of itself, a system that promotes the behaviour that results from such an ethos can't be said to operate in the interests of the individual.

Anyway, I'm saying all this in response to your question about how to get people to think collectively rather than individually: the question itself is the problem, suggesting as it does that the argument is about convincing people that they need to give up personal freedoms, when the reality is that a system which values a hypothetical currency over the individual's actual state is at best a compromise and at worst an incitement to work against ones own interests.

Nike is compromised,  and what kept it out of skateboaring for a long time was idealism. Whether or not you believe that this idealism is misplaced, I think it's undeniable that the answer to the question of how to make life better for humans, is to make decisions that are in fact based on improving human existence, rather than on some other "more realistic" ambition such as wealth accumulation.

[close]

I'm a little confused with your post and I was hoping that you might be able to clarify a few points so I can understand you better.

First, I don't fully understand what you mean by the employees want to pay more for their wages. This isn't a decision that employees get to make.

Your presentation of capitalism is a traditional one, in that it insidiously asks that we place the accumulation of wealth above all other needs. It does this by asking that we imagine ourselves with the responsibilities and prerogatives of a money-making machine, one whose success is measured by profitability, hence higher wages=bad. But most people are in no such position vis-a-vis capitalism, they have their own needs that would mostly be better served by a higher wage. A truly individualistic assessment contextualizes the situation from the perspective of the individual's needs, it doesn't supercede these needs with those of capitalism, in the form of stockholder priorities. Is a ceo expected to base their assessments and priorities on their employees desires? So then why should employees (us) be expected to imagine and prioritize things from a perspective that is not our own?

Second, and this is where I get a little lost, are you saying hyper-individualistic is not a strong enough term to describe the contemporary form of capitalism that we find ourselves in?

No, just the opposite: I'm saying that under capitalism, the needs of capitalism as a system are presented as the needs of the individual, so that any attack on capitalism is perceived as an attack on the individual and will be fiercely guarded against, but that in actuality, rather than prioritizing the needs of the individual, capitalism supercedes their needs at every turn with the importance of wealth accumulation (ex. consideration of the pov which holds raising wages to be undesirable is given natural priority over the pov that holds a higher wage to be desirable). A term like "hyper-individualistic" posits capitalism as representing the needs of the individual, surreptitiously making any objection to capitalism seem like the imposition of limitations on personal freedoms and self-defeatist, since one is supposedly arguing against ones own interests. The way to counteract this is by exposing the fact that capitalism can and does work counter to the needs of the individual, by simple virtue of prioritizing wealth accumulation above all else.

Third, are you trying to say the goal of encouraging collectivism within a capitalist system has no value because it would be like putting a bandaid on broken leg?

What exists under capitalism is already a sort of collectivism, one in which the needs of the individual are subsumed by the need to accumulate wealth, a sort of "Economy-r-us". Promotion of collectivism as an alternative to capitalism simply serves to reinforce the idea that capitalism best serves individual desires and insures that capitalism continues to be equated with personal freedom, and as such fiercely defended.

Fourth, the solution should not be allowing to collect individual wealth, but developing a system that moves the whole society forward? So maybe, you are suggesting something along the lines Rawls lined out for a political economic system? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No

I don't believe in solutions, however I do think that it would be good for people to believe that capitalism is just a system among many that can be manipulated for the good as well as for the bad, rather than an inevitability, and that it is a sorry replacement for all other types of idealism. I think that this reassessment of capitalism might translate into personal choices and public policy that inspire more broadly egalitarian societies.
i have petty crime to do early in the am, but i will come back to the video
[/quote]

Finally, my assumption (hope?) is that no one cares. I'm just an old guy that spends way too much time thinking and reading about skateboarding.

Same, but it's kind of a thrill seeing these threads stretch out at times, and I tore my acl recently. If you or anybody who made it this far are at glory challenge, hit me up if you want to talk some shit in person. I'll be the dude in the gold-plated dunks.

[Issy]

SLAP, are you a bad enough dude to stand up with the alt right AGAINST and RESIST Nike?

[cucktard]

SLAP, are you a bad enough dude to stand up with the alt right AGAINST and RESIST Nike?

Well, on the opposite end of the spectrum you have Japanese “punk rock” skaters “diy”ing their shoes to make the Nike logo stand out more...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlCtdhIlP1n/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=xhutxllvh354

[essal]

im hella surpised nike signed kaepernick. if they didn't, no one would care. but now they have a bunch of dudes active against them, which for nike seems like a weird move

[rapscallion]

The Kaepernick situation is pretty funny. I wouldn't say I support NFL kneeling, but I don't give a fuck about it either. I see it as harmless virtue signaling since they really have no goal in mind that can be reached to make it stop.

That being said, I support a Nike boycott for their shady practices and sweatshop labor.
Unfortunately they are way too big for it to matter at all. Looking forward to the next few years to see how absolutely nothing changes concerning any of the issues!

If anyone hates them that much to ruin their clothing, why not just spraypaint over the logo... least then you can still wear it.

[shitcunt]

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

New balance supports trump and will kick you out of their Boston headquarters for skating there.

[I sniff Jim Gagne's butthole all the time]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

[close]

New balance supports trump and will kick you out of their Boston headquarters for skating there.

vince mcmahon owns wrestling and he'll piledrive you on the sidewalk if you skate their headquarters in stamford, CT.
i'm torn between my anti americanism and my anti nike-ism.
this is a marketing ploy to get virtue signallers and dark people to buy shoes from a shitty company that doesn't care about them.
if we're against the police can't we support the weed man or bartering or somehow dodge the taxes that support killer cops? consumerism as rebellion, whoever falls for this is dumber than dogshit.
someone make an american skate shoe for the love of all that is holy!!!
[the country dude is wil'in too. just buy some other socks and keep it moving, don't razor good socks. first world shtoops]

[stevedave]

im hella surpised nike signed kaepernick. if they didn't, no one would care. but now they have a bunch of dudes active against them, which for nike seems like a weird move

I don't know, I kinda feel like it was a good move, even if DO I think it was done as part of a publicity move.  It goes to show that big corporate companies give a shit about social issues and aren't afraid to choose a side even though it may cause some backlash.  But as much backlash as they get, they may end up getting some more customers who only think of Nike as "the sweatshop exploiting mega-corp" and now see them in a more respectable light.

[Chavo]

Going back to the original topic, it has already pointed out that the premise is absurd. The big sporting goods companies were well aware that people were buying skate shoes and chose, at best, to give a few guys free shoes (and no money) for a very brief period. Would some financially struggling EMB locals have let corporations shove money down their pants, which they had the opportunity to but never did in reality? Maybe, but probably not. A hitherto no-name am like Louie Barletta came out in a few Sketchers ads. For the most part, top pros were conscious of their image and were aware that joining a goofy ad campaign could hurt their long-term careers (see Josh Kalis's reasoning behind quitting Adidas). It's similar to a serious actor declining roles in Michael Bay movies even though the pay is good.

Converse was the only company, during the 1980s, which made a concerted effort to break into the market with Christian Hosoi and Rodney Mullen (exhibit A). I am not sure what they were being paid, but it was very short lived and only existing shoes (Hosoi always wore Chuck Taylors anyway) were pushed within existing (and very shitty) ad campaigns. Converse came around again in 1995 with Guy Mariano, then in 1998, with the "Chany era".

[Nth syd bear]

Going back to the original topic, it has already pointed out that the premise is absurd. The big sporting goods companies were well aware that people were buying skate shoes and chose, at best, to give a few guys free shoes (and no money) for a very brief period. Would some financially struggling EMB locals have let corporations shove money down their pants, which they had the opportunity to but never did in reality? Maybe, but probably not. A hitherto no-name am like Louie Barletta came out in a few Sketchers ads. For the most part, top pros were conscious of their image and were aware that joining a goofy ad campaign could hurt their long-term careers (see Josh Kalis's reasoning behind quitting Adidas). It's similar to a serious actor declining roles in Michael Bay movies even though the pay is good.

Converse was the only company, during the 1980s, which made a concerted effort to break into the market with Christian Hosoi and Rodney Mullen (exhibit A). I am not sure what they were being paid, but it was very short lived and only existing shoes (Hosoi always wore Chuck Taylors anyway) were pushed within existing (and very shitty) ad campaigns. Converse came around again in 1995 with Guy Mariano, then in 1998, with the "Chany era".

cheers .. this is a far more relevant reply.
Thinking back on it I guess i always just liked athletic and even designer brands because
Wearing a tshirt with a cute cartoon and the name of a skate co on it and skate brand shoes were ugly and not that great for skateboarding half the time.

Seeing Keenan skate in Nike’s at a demo in late 95
And muska wearing Hilfiger at a demo in like 96
quickly made me think skate co’s the norm and not that cool to me.

But yeah I guess I just ignored things like the choad and guy’s skate star
Puma when they had donger because they weren’t sold in skate shops
In Australia they did seem corny.

Well my logic is flawed coz now really all I said is I liked the corpos
Before they got involved than when they tried I didn’t pay attention
Now they got it right skateboarding wears them but doesn’t back them kind of.
And I still like Nike addidas etc.. so I guess back to sweatshop debates I stopped reading a few pages back

[Atiba Applebum]

Expand Quote

im hella surpised nike signed kaepernick. if they didn't, no one would care. but now they have a bunch of dudes active against them, which for nike seems like a weird move

[close]

I don't know, I kinda feel like it was a good move, even if DO I think it was done as part of a publicity move.  It goes to show that big corporate companies give a shit about social issues and aren't afraid to choose a side even though it may cause some backlash.  But as much backlash as they get, they may end up getting some more customers who only think of Nike as "the sweatshop exploiting mega-corp" and now see them in a more respectable light.

They didn’t sign him so much as they never un-signed him when he couldn’t get a job.  They were just waiting to use him for something meaningful

[Atiba Applebum]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

[close]

New balance supports trump and will kick you out of their Boston headquarters for skating there.

[close]

vince mcmahon owns wrestling and he'll piledrive you on the sidewalk if you skate their headquarters in stamford, CT.
i'm torn between my anti americanism and my anti nike-ism.
this is a marketing ploy to get virtue signallers and dark people to buy shoes from a shitty company that doesn't care about them.
if we're against the police can't we support the weed man or bartering or somehow dodge the taxes that support killer cops? consumerism as rebellion, whoever falls for this is dumber than dogshit.
someone make an american skate shoe for the love of all that is holy!!!
[the country dude is wil'in too. just buy some other socks and keep it moving, don't razor good socks. first world shtoops]

He dabbles in “sports entertainment” not “wrestling” - a distinction that’s actually important because it frees him from (I believe) drug tests and treating his employees better (they have it worse than Tum Yeto).  Also, the piledriver is a banned move in the WWE

[Tortoise]

He dabbles in “sports entertainment” not “wrestling”

https://youtu.be/nwhzqLdA4lY

https://youtu.be/2VKNA-UC-3M

A distinction that’s actually important because it frees him from (I believe) drug tests and treating his employees better.

https://youtu.be/iloSGGr3OvA

[Lame_Nigga]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

[close]

New balance supports trump and will kick you out of their Boston headquarters for skating there.

[close]

vince mcmahon owns wrestling and he'll piledrive you on the sidewalk if you skate their headquarters in stamford, CT.
i'm torn between my anti americanism and my anti nike-ism.
this is a marketing ploy to get virtue signallers and dark people to buy shoes from a shitty company that doesn't care about them.
if we're against the police can't we support the weed man or bartering or somehow dodge the taxes that support killer cops? consumerism as rebellion, whoever falls for this is dumber than dogshit.
someone make an american skate shoe for the love of all that is holy!!!
[the country dude is wil'in too. just buy some other socks and keep it moving, don't razor good socks. first world shtoops]

[close]

He dabbles in “sports entertainment” not “wrestling” - a distinction that’s actually important because it frees him from (I believe) drug tests and treating his employees better (they have it worse than Tum Yeto).  Also, the piledriver is a banned move in the WWE

It does allow him to bypass most drug testing and have more lenient rules, like Brock Lesnar failing his UFC testing but not being suspended by Vince. The piledriver is banned due to Owen Hart almost ending Stone Cold's career before it really took off. Also that's a big reason they're technically independent contractors without even a whisper of a union.

After this Kap situation I'm more likely to buy a pair of Nikes but then again they just want to remain on the right side of history and this is very obviously the right side.

[Atiba Applebum]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

[close]

New balance supports trump and will kick you out of their Boston headquarters for skating there.

[close]

vince mcmahon owns wrestling and he'll piledrive you on the sidewalk if you skate their headquarters in stamford, CT.
i'm torn between my anti americanism and my anti nike-ism.
this is a marketing ploy to get virtue signallers and dark people to buy shoes from a shitty company that doesn't care about them.
if we're against the police can't we support the weed man or bartering or somehow dodge the taxes that support killer cops? consumerism as rebellion, whoever falls for this is dumber than dogshit.
someone make an american skate shoe for the love of all that is holy!!!
[the country dude is wil'in too. just buy some other socks and keep it moving, don't razor good socks. first world shtoops]

[close]

He dabbles in “sports entertainment” not “wrestling” - a distinction that’s actually important because it frees him from (I believe) drug tests and treating his employees better (they have it worse than Tum Yeto).  Also, the piledriver is a banned move in the WWE

[close]

It does allow him to bypass most drug testing and have more lenient rules, like Brock Lesnar failing his UFC testing but not being suspended by Vince. The piledriver is banned due to Owen Hart almost ending Stone Cold's career before it really took off. Also that's a big reason they're technically independent contractors without even a whisper of a union.

After this Kap situation I'm more likely to buy a pair of Nikes but then again they just want to remain on the right side of history and this is very obviously the right side.

Lacey Baker is also featured in these new rounds of ads. 

Did Owen hurt SC on a regular piledriver or a tombstone?   I know Undertaker is allowed to do tombstones still because of what a safe worker he is

[SFblah]

Birdo is about to be rolling in the money if he markets his “Don’t Do It!” shirts to the angry right-wing Trumpers.

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

boycotting Nike AFTER you buy their products isn't really boycotting them tho

[SkateChimney]

boycotting Nike AFTER you buy their products isn't really boycotting them tho

it literally is

[Lame_Nigga]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I don’t fault skaters who ride for Nike and the likes; I wish they weren’t involved in skateboarding. I also wish that there was a skate shoe brand that manufactured in America rather than exploit workers in other countries for cheap labor...

[close]

new balance

[close]

New balance supports trump and will kick you out of their Boston headquarters for skating there.

[close]

vince mcmahon owns wrestling and he'll piledrive you on the sidewalk if you skate their headquarters in stamford, CT.
i'm torn between my anti americanism and my anti nike-ism.
this is a marketing ploy to get virtue signallers and dark people to buy shoes from a shitty company that doesn't care about them.
if we're against the police can't we support the weed man or bartering or somehow dodge the taxes that support killer cops? consumerism as rebellion, whoever falls for this is dumber than dogshit.
someone make an american skate shoe for the love of all that is holy!!!
[the country dude is wil'in too. just buy some other socks and keep it moving, don't razor good socks. first world shtoops]

[close]

He dabbles in “sports entertainment” not “wrestling” - a distinction that’s actually important because it frees him from (I believe) drug tests and treating his employees better (they have it worse than Tum Yeto).  Also, the piledriver is a banned move in the WWE

[close]

It does allow him to bypass most drug testing and have more lenient rules, like Brock Lesnar failing his UFC testing but not being suspended by Vince. The piledriver is banned due to Owen Hart almost ending Stone Cold's career before it really took off. Also that's a big reason they're technically independent contractors without even a whisper of a union.

After this Kap situation I'm more likely to buy a pair of Nikes but then again they just want to remain on the right side of history and this is very obviously the right side.

[close]

Lacey Baker is also featured in these new rounds of ads. 

Did Owen hurt SC on a regular piledriver or a tombstone?   I know Undertaker is allowed to do tombstones still because of what a safe worker he is

Despite what Jim Ross says in the video it was a regular sitout pile driver. If you look at his head you can see his neck bend when he sits and then he just lays there. The end of the match is the loosest pin ever, SC was supposed to win but couldn't really finish strong. I think Taker can still do them just because it was a different variation.

https://youtu.be/j1u6x3i4nFI

The Lacey Baker move was a way less high profile move of the same nature; they want to say they're at the forefront of diversity and change