Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Apr 26, 2014.
Now that's letting your racist freak flag fly:
And, you're done. Buh-bye.
Luckily for him, there are no black NBA players so this should all just blow over in a couple days.
Clearly the liberal media are taking his quotes out of context.
Conservatives always like to tell us how thefreemarket fixes these things, that there's no need for a Civil Rights Act forcing business owners to not be racist because patrons won't patronize such a business and it will be forced to change.
Then patrons cease patronizing such a business (Mozilla, for example), and conservatives immediately scream about being bullied and persecuted for their beliefs. It'll be interesting to see if that shibboleth gets hauled out here, as I'm guessing this guy doesn't survive long in his current role.
NBA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling racist phone conversation.
Link and Audio
He has a history of these kinds of statements.
Assuming the allegations are true, the NBA should put an end to his ownership of the Clippers.
Assuming?? It's on audio. His girlfriend outed him. LOL
It's the first day that this audio has been revealed.
I'm not looking to give Sterling an "out".
I'd just like to see what information is forthcoming.
I'm guessing that is his ex-girlfriend. Sounds like another case of "conscious uncoupling" to me.
Looks like his gold digging girlfriend got him good. We all knew his views for over 30 years now but David Stern and the other owners just felt it better to let him be rather than do anything about it.
Now in this technological world, his comments have been exposed and reported all over the internet and television media.
While he's entitled to have his opinions and hate whoever he wants, this creates an uncomfortable environment for his team and the fans and this time I think the NBA will actually have to do something about him. Maybe even pressure him to sell the team.
Ive heard there are more tapes coming out in the next few days. It is disgusting but apparently it's not a new topic with Mr. Sterling. The only thing I can think of as far as getting him to give up the team is the players deciding not to play as long as he is the owner - after this season. I don't think there is much the commissioner can do besides fine him and suspend him - but what is a suspension going to do? Considering that 86% of the Clipper players/coaches are African American, I'm not sure why he publicly bashes the people who provide him with his heavy paycheck. Pretty stupid move. I don't think he will be the owner of the Clippers next season.
He is also being sued for housing discrimination, which by the way the NBA did nothing about.
This picture has been spreading around twitter today.
I wouldn't call it racism per say, but traditional bigotry. I don't think Sterling hates Blacks or Mexicans, he just has a deep seeded institutionalized reality that has been instilled in him for over 80 something odd years.
Pretty sad actually, I think he needs help. The fact that the gold digging ex is of mixed racial ethnicities is very telling.
Having your country be past racism doesn't mean there will be no racists, it just means that you can't be racist in public if you own or operate anything that is consumed by the public. The backlash on this will be the true sign of whether the US is done with racism.
He doesn't care if his girl friend sleeps with black men? That sounds very tolerant, in light of the other stuff.
I have a very hard time indeed condemning someone over comments they made in a private conversation with a sexual partner.
As well as I. Not that I'm condoning his comments but the day we start persecuting people based on private conversations in their own homes, is the day we have failed as a society.
I can't but think this is just a money grab for the girlfriend and not some righteous do gooder act.
As with the Bundy scandal, we have another PR front with the charge of "context".
I'm not sure what in the world could happen in any lead up in this conversation to change the statements that were said. Why is it that when racist comments are made, the PR industry and the conservative echo chamber always do to moves (and this is a common tactic I've seen countless times in the last decade or so).
1: A press release is issued saying, regardless of the comments made, that said comments don't reflect on the speaker.
2: The echo chamber then does semantic backflips with the charge of taking the offensive statements out of context. In what world could these statements have any legitimate context that make them not racist? I only see one scenario: If the speaker starts their racist tirade with "If I were role playing as a stereotypical bigot I would say this: (the offending statements). Gee wasn't that role playing convincing?"
I know these sound ridiculous, but as these cases seem to happen month to month pay attention to the next one, you will see the exact same scenario play out time and again. It's like whatever PR firms like to play in these scenarios keep a plan behind emergency glass that says "in case of a racist client, break glass". Thing is, it happens so often that they never have time to put the emergency glass back into place.
He is free to speak his piece. Thefreemarket is allowed to speak it's. If thefreemarket decides not to support him and his comments, the invisible hand will ***** slap him out of a job.
We ask these things in the name of Ayn Rand and Adam Smith. Thy will be done. Amen.
The motivations for releasing this conversation are suspect, however, whether it's a private conversation or not, it's a window into this man's (verbally expressed) views.
If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? It's just a little wiretapping between (ex) friends.
Except that he's already a known bigot. The league knows this, the commissioner knows this. The other owners have just ignored it, and let it exist all these years. He's the Marge Schott of the NBA. It's rather comical that it has come back to bite em' in the as.
Even known bigots are entitled to a private life.
Does being a "known bigot" automatically disqualify someone from owning an NBA or NFL team? I don't know. It probably would make many of the players extremely uncomfortable, but they'd probably still cash their paychecks. And what is the standard for being branded as a bigot? Using a slur once? Twice? In public? In private? It gets very complicated.
I think everyone: politician, businessperson, celebrity, and regular citizen is entitled to a private life. Whether I agree with their political philosophy or business practices is immaterial. And what one does or says in private ought to remain that way - up to the point where that private behavior becomes criminal in nature.
I am troubled by several aspects of this case. But not the least of which is whereby people are rushing to condemn a man on the basis of an illicitly made recording of a conversation he had every expectation would be private.
Donald Sterling may well be a bigot and a jerk. But that doesn't mean its right for him to be publicly pilloried.
"Automatically disqualify"? No, it does not. There is no law that says you can't be racist, or that you can't hold racist views and own a company.
What would disqualify him from the job is if his comments so offend people that they refuse to come to see his team play. I suspect many of his players are going to feel conflicted about remaining in his employ. They may seek alternate employment if Sterling remains, thus lowering (or destroying) the value of his team. If he isn't making money, he's not qualified.
At some point, he will "self-deport", if you will, and allow someone else who is more qualified to take over.
Dispatches from Post-Racial America -- Donald Sterling Edition [racist phone ...
Of course his private life should be excluded but other public incidents like refusing to rent to minorities and being sued by the dept. of Justice for housing discrimination has already outed him as such. So I agree, as far as this issue is concerned, he should not be vilified. But as to the rest, I guess that would define a known bigot.
I'm not an NFL lawyer and don't claim to be one. But, from what I read in the Sunday Newspapers, many leagues do have some kind of ownership clause that states something like "You can't be the managing owner or partner if your speech or other conduct (e.g. illegal gambling, etc.) is an embarrassment to the league." It is in the contract that owners have with a league. Maybe somebody out there knows exactly how these things are worded? In any case, it isn't whether he is a racist, but his racist speech that represents a threat to the league. It doesn't have to be criminal.
Well, I suppose he could have been joking. I don't have enough context.
There sure isn't such a law, nor should there be. But, as above, the League has an interest in his speech, as well as his behavior. He doesn't have to do something illegal to break the league rules.