Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on April 28, 2014, 10:57:59 AM
-
Anyone else fond it amusing that Donald Sterling is a Democrat?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376641/racist-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-democrat-tim-cavanaugh (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376641/racist-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-democrat-tim-cavanaugh)
Also they keep talking about these tapes his girlfriend has, is he not married?
-
Anyone else fond it amusing that Donald Sterling is a Democrat?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376641/racist-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-democrat-tim-cavanaugh (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376641/racist-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-democrat-tim-cavanaugh)
Also they keep talking about these tapes his girlfriend has, is he not married?
:move:
-
His team. His money.
He can say and think whatever he wants.
Force him to sell? Sanction? I find that absurd.
-
His team. His money.
He can say and think whatever he wants.
Force him to sell? Sanction? I find that absurd.
This. All of it.
I nor anyone else has to agree with it and if there are to be repercussions then people vote with their money (fans), or their talent (players). That is by far the quickest way to solve that behavior.
-
I agree with the above, at the same time, I can see how other teams in the league should have a voice. If I buy the house next door to you and decide I'm going to raise hogs, it isn't good for your home value.
On the other hand, I can't see how this hurts anyone but Sterling. And it probably won't hurt him much financially.
As they say, any publicity is good publicity. He'll likely find a way to profit.
-
How the fuck does a dude have a half black/mexican girlfriend, half his age, and then tell her not to hang out with blacks or mexicans? Does he think she truly loves him and will go for that? How does he NOT see she is in for his money and that anything he says can and WILL BE held against him to get more of his money?
I personally don't give a damn what he says or what he thinks, but I think he should lose everything he has just for being such a dumb ass...
-
How the fudge does a dude have a half black/mexican girlfriend, half his age, and then tell her not to hang out with blacks or mexicans? Does he think she truly loves him and will go for that? How does he NOT see she is in for his money and that anything he says can and WILL BE held against him to get more of his money?
I personally don't give a damn what he says or what he thinks, but I think he should lose everything he has just for being such a dumb ass...
I could find him very attractive, myself. That is, if he gives me my own bank account, cars, etc. I have been considering pulling my teeth and growing a beard anyway.
-
With that kind of money, would it not be more beneficial (and cheaper) to just go with a hooker?
-
Anyone else fond it amusing that Donald Sterling is a Democrat?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376641/racist-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-democrat-tim-cavanaugh (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376641/racist-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-democrat-tim-cavanaugh)
Also they keep talking about these tapes his girlfriend has, is he not married?
Nice try.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-and-the-neverending-fantasy-of-democrat-racism.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-and-the-neverending-fantasy-of-democrat-racism.html)
Donald Sterling and the Neverending Fantasy of ‘Democrat’ Racism
Oh, how eager the conservative press is to call Donald Sterling a Democrat! It’s all part of their larger fantasy narrative about conservatism and race.
Update: Now comes the utterly shocking news that despite his campaign donations to the contrary, Sterling is—sit down—a registered Republican. The Los Angeles Times's Michael Hiltzik tweeted as much this morning, and I confirmed through a source that a Donald T. Sterling who lives in Beverly Hills and was born on April 26, 1934 is indeed a registered Republican voter in L.A. County. Now it's true, he makes no campaign contributions, so he's obviously not a gung-ho big-P Political Republican. But still, there goes your racist Democrat. Sorry, Daily Caller!
My Twitter feed yesterday was full of clucking conservatives challenging me to write about the Donald Sterling situation, or daring me to, or wagering that I would maintain a hypocritical silence in the face of this clear “proof†that Democrats are just as racist as Republicans.
They have a fair point—just one—in that I do agree that having written several times lately about racism within the ranks of the Republican Party, it would be bad form of me not to write about Sterling. So here you are, cons.
First of all, I’ve been amused at how eagerly the right-wing press has pounced on the “fact†that Sterling is a Democrat. To my knowledge, there is no such established fact at this point. This is based on two political contributions he made many moons ago.
Apparently, when the story broke Saturday morning, everyone in the cyberworld somehow glommed onto a 2011 list published at a site called RealGM that listed the political contributions of NBA owners. This list said Sterling had donated to two Democrats, Gray Davis and Bill Bradley, and that these were long ago, going back to “the early 1990s.â€
The Web site of the Sunlight Foundation tells us that this isn’t quite right—a Donald Sterling of Beverly Hills actually gave $5,000 to Davis more recently, in 2002, which was, incidentally, a campaign in which the Davis operation was known to be putting the shoulder on people harder than almost any campaign in history. The Bradley donation, of $2,000, was made in 1989, as Bradley was a year out from his second re-election bid. It was not, in other words, for Bradley’s presidential campaign. So Sterling’s big Democratic donations, made 12 and 25 years ago, hardly make him some kind of Sheldon Adelson of the left. It would be as if another NBA owner had donated pretty modest amounts to former Ohio Gov. Bob Taft and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, and on those bases, he was called a rabid Republican. Absurd.
So, desperate as the conservative press has been to turn Sterling into a big-time Democrat, his contribution history actually proves rather little. Besides, people change their political views over time. And I’d be at least mildly surprised if a man who doesn’t want black people showing up on his girlfriend’s Instagram page had voted to install one in the White House.
But I confess: We don’t have answers to these questions yet. So, fine. Let’s say for the sake of this column that he is a Democrat. What would it prove? I think it’s quite clear what it would prove: There’s one racist Democrat in American public life, who doesn’t even have anything to do with politics beyond a few many-year-old contributions.
Find me another. And I mean a real, serious racist who’s said real, seriously racist things. I don’t mean Joe Biden, for calling Obama “clean and articulate.†That was a stupid racial comment; ditto Harry Reid’s statement about Obama having “no Negro dialect†unless he wanted to affect one.
Conservatives love to point to those two remarks, and I’m certainly not defending them. But here’s the contextual difference that conservatives either can’t understand or won’t concede. Biden and Reid both have long, long histories of supporting the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, civil-rights expansions, a view of the Constitution that endorses a broad interpretation of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—and federal judges who back all those things. Likewise Bill Clinton, who made some dubious comments in the heat of the 2008 primaries, like telling Ted Kennedy that “a few years ago, [Obama] would be getting our coffee.†A horrible statement, but one made by an ex-president with a long record of backing civil rights (and at a time when they were under pretty stern assault from Newt Gingrich’s House of Representatives).
This is something conservatives don’t understand. Or rather, they understand it—but they can’t acknowledge it. They can’t acknowledge this larger context of Democratic support for the things that have mostly improved black people’s lives and Republicans’ almost total opposition to them since at least the 1980s. To acknowledge all that would be to acknowledge that they’ve been wrong on one of the most searing issues in American political history. They of course can’t do that. So they have to construct this alternative, fantasy narrative, under which these things the Democrats have done for the last 50 years, things Republicans and conservatives have largely opposed, have been bad for black people.
Now it’s certainly the case that Democrats and liberals have made mistakes over the years. The conservative critique of welfare policy in the 1980s had a considerable amount of merit, and the welfare-rights movements of the left were horribly self-marginalizing and self-defeating. So welfare certainly created a dependency problem, and for some families (though far fewer since Clinton enacted the overhaul), it still does. But that’s one policy. Put it on the scale against voting rights, school desegregation, affirmative-action laws that have helped millions of young black (and brown and other) people have the opportunity to become lawyers and doctors and business leaders, and so on, and I think it’s pretty clear which way the scale tilts.
But the conservative fantasy narrative posits, preposterously and deceitfully, that all of it was horrible, and all of it constitutes keeping black people down on the Democratic (oops; “Democratâ€) “plantation.†This is just a sick and venal metaphor, and its sickness and venality are why Cliven Bundy’s comments that compared welfare to slavery sparked the reaction they did. If you compare anything to slavery, the only thing it proves is how stupid you are about slavery and how little you’ve done to educate yourself about its realities, which in turn means that while you have the same First Amendment rights as any American, you certainly have no right to expect any reasonable person to take you seriously in debate.
There’s a second aspect to the right-wing fantasy narrative on racial prejudice, which is its complete decoupling of prejudice from economic or political power. That is to say, they know deep down that real racism (white on black) has scarred millions of American lives over many decades, as blacks have been denied opportunities by whites who owned and ran things. But again, they can’t acknowledge this aspect of the damage that racism has done. So they turn racism into a mere personal attribute, thereby divorcing it from any notion of political power. Once you’ve defined racism this way, then Al Sharpton can be as big a racist as Bull Connor. Now, I am a long way from being a Sharpton apologist. Ask Sharpton himself what he thinks of what I was writing about him during the 2001 New York mayoral campaign. But Bull Connor he never was and never will be.
I’ve actually been saddened by the enraged denial I’ve seen on Twitter in the past few weeks. I have no doubt that if I were a conservative, a real believer in free markets and the rest, I’d be wondering why my team was getting 5 percent of the black vote, and I’d be trying to do something instead of fabricating these fantasy reasons why everybody else was wrong. And I hope and think there are conservatives who do wonder that, and who would like to have an honest dialogue instead of trying to “prove†that a guy who made two old donations lets their party off the hook. Assuming they exist, it’s time for them to speak.
-
His team. His money.
He can say and think whatever he wants.
Force him to sell? Sanction? I find that absurd.
If his team wasn't a member of a league whose finances are impacted by his (now public) statements, then you'd be correct. The NBA and other franchise owners have a duty to protect the brand. That said, they knew who they were in bed with long before this came to light (see the penalties he was forced to pay for discriminatory housing practices).
-
Something really shitty about this story is that it's taken a reality TV, sleazy tabloid service like TMZ to bring negative light onto Donald Sterling. It took a back room deal from his mistress to expose him for what he really is.
The media was silent over ten years ago when he was sued for housing discrimination.
Heard nothing when his wife was going around to houses of blacks and hispanics, claiming to be from an inspection company, and then reporting the smallest details to Donald Sterling who in turn evicted them.
Not a peep when he said that black people smelled so bad they attracted rats and that hispanics were just lazy and weren't good for anything other than drinking alcohol all day.
But naw. He didn't let his black hispanic side piece post pictures of herself with black guys on Instagram. Get the pitchforks.
-
Sanctioning someone, taking their property, imposing financial penalties or any of the other suggested punishments for Sterling raises some disturbing questions.
When you open the door to punishing someone for having and expressing an opinion with which you disagree where does that end? His position may be repugnant to you but as an American be has the absolute right to have it.
I heard assclowns like Doug gottlieb raising hell about how sterling made his money and suggesting that it should all be taken away from him.
What happens when a sanctimonious prick like that decides he doesn't like the way you make your money and decrees that anyone who supports Auburn should be penalized by having their homes repossessed and their opportunity to make a living taken away?
When you start drawing those lines who gets to decide where they are?
It's dangerous ground.
-
I find it disgusting as a nation that we now care more about the sanctions that the NBA will levy against Sterling than the sanctions the US will levy against Russia.
-
I find it disgusting as a nation that we now care more about the sanctions that the NBA will levy against Sterling than the sanctions the US will levy against Russia.
I was about to post something similar. My country is trampling my individual rights at an alarming rate and all I hear about is how some rich old white dude hates the brown people but loves the brown stank.
-
How ironic it is that Sterling was set to receive an award from the NAACP next month. Glad to hear that they are not giving it to him. And, that the X's own CCTAU and Kaos are now in the running for the award.
-
Sanctioning someone, taking their property, imposing financial penalties or any of the other suggested punishments for Sterling raises some disturbing questions.
When you open the door to punishing someone for having and expressing an opinion with which you disagree where does that end? His position may be repugnant to you but as an American be has the absolute right to have it.
I heard assclowns like Doug gottlieb raising hell about how sterling made his money and suggesting that it should all be taken away from him.
What happens when a sanctimonious prick like that decides he doesn't like the way you make your money and decrees that anyone who supports Auburn should be penalized by having their homes repossessed and their opportunity to make a living taken away?
When you start drawing those lines who gets to decide where they are?
It's dangerous ground.
You realize that there is no state action in play here, right? He's going to feel the consequences of his contract with the NBA. The contract that he voluntarily negotiated and entered into.
-
How ironic it is that Sterling was set to receive an award from the NAACP next month. Glad to hear that they are not giving it to him. And, that the X's own CCTAU and Kaos are now in the running for the award.
I did not say the words negro or slavery. You cannot put me into this category.
Besides. I cannot accept an award from those people.
-
I did not say the words negro or slavery. You cannot put me into this category.
Besides. I cannot accept an award from those people.
You just said it. And what do you mean by "those people"?
-
I did not say the words negro or slavery. You cannot put me into this category.
Besides. I cannot accept an award from those people.
This is just a weird scenario all the way around. First off, you know what the end result will be. He's going to get suspended indefinitely, fined heavily and eventually "forced" to sell the franchise. Of course, the commissioner can't make him give it up but obviously, the other owners can put the pressure on him and the exit of most of the sponsors will decide his fate. Not that anyone would feel bad for the skwazillionare who will sell a franchise he bought for about $14 million for closer to $500 million.
What I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy of so many in the media, which really should be no surprise. I remember specifically one of these panels of "experts" discussing the whole Phil Robertson deal and everyone agreeing that that had he said those things in the privacy of his own home, it would be a different story. But he didn't. He said them in an interview. Here, Sterling has a private conversation recorded and the sharks race to blood in the water.
But, you can't unring the bell. He said it and he's going to pay the price.
-
Actually, the NBA constitution contains language that could be interpreted to say that he can be forced to sell.
-
Actually, the NBA constitution says that he can be forced to sell.
Oh....Well fuck him then.
-
Oh....Well fuck him then.
That was a hasty statement. It will take some linguistic contorting to get there, likely.
-
You realize that there is no state action in play here, right? He's going to feel the consequences of his contract with the NBA. The contract that he voluntarily negotiated and entered into.
You mean this isn't a covert operation from Eric Holder on orders from Barack Obama to strip the hard working, honest white man of his gold and diamonds?
-
Jabbars take on the whole thing, tells it like it is:
http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777 (http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777)
-
Jabbars take on the whole thing, tells it like it is:
http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777 (http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777)
That was glorious. :thumsup:
Roger Murdock speaks the truth
-
You just said it. And what do you mean by "those people"?
Damn lawyers! They run everything!
-
Damn lawyers! They run everything!
Yes we do. And I've just ordered the mods to put a substantial spike on your warn meter.
-
That was glorious. :thumsup:
Roger Murdock speaks the truth
Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court.
-
Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court.
I think you're the greatest, but my dad says you don't work hard enough on defense.
-
Jabbars take on the whole thing, tells it like it is:
http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777 (http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777)
Best commentary on the whole damn thing.
If things said privately in anyone's home or vehicle were subject to public disclosure, we'd all be humped.
-
Best commentary on the whole damn thing.
If things said privately in anyone's home or vehicle were subject to public disclosure, we'd all be humped.
(http://media.tumblr.com/d839598df9cf7d491327296808549726/tumblr_inline_mkcmmjIn8h1qz4rgp.gif)
-
Banned for life and 2.5M fine.
Damn.
-
Banned for life and 2.5M fine.
Damn.
Sickening........that housing discrimination meant nothing and underpaying an executive based on his skin color meant nothing but a TMZ story forced this to happen.
-
Sickening........that housing discrimination meant nothing and underpaying an executive based on his skin color meant nothing but a TMZ story forced this to happen.
How can they force him to sell his team?
And what if he doesn't pay the fine?
-
Well, let's not get all up in arms here. "Life" in his case only means a few more years.
-
How can they force him to sell his team?
And what if he doesn't pay the fine?
He doesn't have to pay the fine I guess. He won't go to jail for it though they could claim it's breach of contract and in a litigation USA, you don't want to fuck with a contract if you're about to sue based on its premises.
The NBA has a clause that says the owners can get a 75% vote to remove an owner from a team. Essentially, they take the team from him until he sells it. What's been reported however is that the clause is written only towards those that cannot or refuse to pay their bills. Some have suggested that the NBA will go ahead and amend their constitution to allow for the removal of an owner if the owner is a detriment to the league.
I think this gets nasty. Sterling is a billionaire and an asshole. I doubt he goes down without a fight and honestly, considering the NBA may not have a ground to stand on when it comes to forcing him to sell his business, he may win.
Imagine the riots if that happens.
And who's to say these owners vote that way? There are 30 owners in the NBA. They'll need 8 to vote against it and I'm sure Sterling will get to vote. Cuban's already expressed his disapproval of the precedent this sets, so that could be two. Just six more to be fearful of banishing an owner based on private comments, and Sterling gets to keep his position.
-
I think this gets nasty. Sterling is a billionaire and an asshole. I doubt he goes down without a fight and honestly, considering the NBA may not have a ground to stand on when it comes to forcing him to sell his business, he may win.
Imagine the riots if that happens.
I think he should fight it and I hope he does win. Not because I agree with him. But because I don't think that being an asshole is reason enough to take these measures.
Political correctness is out of control. If it bothers folks enough, they will stop contributing to his wealth.
I too feel like they dropped the ball on the previous issue and now think they have public opinion enough to make it easier to punish him. But I very seriously doubt they are doing this because it is the "right thing to do". They missed that boat years ago.
-
I hope he asks for Eleventy-Nine Trillion dollars for the team.
-
I hope he asks for Eleventy-Nine Trillion dollars for the team.
They have a few good players. It might be good enough for eleventy-twelve.
-
I think he should fight it and I hope he does win. Not because I agree with him. But because I don't think that being an asshole is reason enough to take these measures.
Hypothetical -
Let's say Tyson Chicken had an owner or president or board member that said that they hated that white people bought their product. They didn't want to be known as a white person's chicken company and that they wanted to provide products to non-whites.
So Wal-Mart in the defense of racial equality decided to stop selling Tyson Chicken. Would you support Wal-Mart's right to choose who to do business with?
The government isn't forcing the NBA to do this. This is a private business making decisions that best serve the interests of its shareholders. I am completely okay with the NBA's decision THOUGH what does bother me is that the NBA didn't care about Sterling until TMZ reported a recorded phone call. The massive stacks of evidence that could have been used against Sterling were ignored for decades.
-
So Wal-Mart in the defense of racial equality decided to stop selling Tyson Chicken. Would you support Wal-Mart's right to choose who to do business with?
If the demand were there to buy Tyson Chicken, Walmart wouldn't give two shits what the head of the company said. If people decided that they no longer wanted to buy Tyson's Chicken, then it's sales would drop, and Walmart would stop selling it.
-
If the demand were there to buy Tyson Chicken, Walmart wouldn't give two shits what the head of the company said. If people decided that they no longer wanted to buy Tyson's Chicken, then it's sales would drop, and Walmart would stop selling it.
And that's exactly what the NBA is protecting - the demand.
-
And that's exactly what the NBA is protecting - the demand.
But shouldn't that be up to me, the consumer?
-
And that's exactly what the NBA is protecting - the demand.
So the demand has already dropped? The clippers already have a quantitative measure for this?
Political correctness out of control.
-
But shouldn't that be up to me, the consumer?
Sure if WalMart wants to go out of business or take a hit in profits.
Companies take preemptive measures to protect their worth. This is nothing new.
-
So the demand has already dropped? The clippers already have a quantitative measure for this?
Political correctness out of control.
Considering some are calling for a boycott of tonight's game, I think one can adequately ascertain the fallout of allowing a guy like Sterling to go on as owner.
No, there's no number to put on the lost revenue from this controversy. However, as stated above, companies that survive act prior to the fall than waiting to see how bad it could get before making a decision.
-
All I know is this shit is funny!
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/100thaniversary_zpsabdfb54b.jpg)
-
All I know is this shit is funny!
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/100thaniversary_zpsabdfb54b.jpg)
I wish this would have come to light after he received this award...
-
I wish this would have come to light after he received this award...
Only missed it by 3 weeks
-
So he's going to make $800 mil or so when he's forced to sell? I bet he's mad.
-
So he's going to make $800 mil or so when he's forced to sell? I bet he's mad.
yep. I would be pissed off. And, their not giving him the NAACP award. And, no more brown sugar unless he pays extra. He's Jewish so he damn sure ain't paying extra.
-
yep. I would be pissed off. And, their not giving him the NAACP award. And, no more brown sugar unless he pays extra. He's Jewish so he damn sure ain't paying extra.
Mmmm...Nubian sugar
-
I think he should fight it and I hope he does win. Not because I agree with him. But because I don't think that being an asshole is reason enough to take these measures.
Political correctness is out of control. If it bothers folks enough, they will stop contributing to his wealth.
I too feel like they dropped the ball on the previous issue and now think they have public opinion enough to make it easier to punish him. But I very seriously doubt they are doing this because it is the "right thing to do". They missed that boat years ago.
Based on experience with a franchise, I say he won't win. I don't think it matters what kind of franchise you own. Yes, you may own the property and the bank account but if you don't live up to the franchise expectations or don't follow their rules, your ass is fired. So, you are really only a partner in the business.
The fact that they canned him doesn't bother me. They are protecting their brand and it's a good business decision. If he were totally independent from the league, it would bother me.
Like others have mentioned, the main things that bother me are that it has taken so long AND it took the recording of a PRIVATE conversation. If he wants to be a racist prick, it's a free country.
This won't damage him much. 2.5 mil hurts him less than a speeding ticket would us. Well, most of you. I'm loaded.
-
Would the NBA have banned him if he made a sex tape?
-
Would the NBA have banned him if he made a sex tape?
Only if they had to watch it.
-
You guys do realize the lulz are already present. He has previously won several awards from the NAACP.
-
You guys do realize the lulz are already present. He has previously won several awards from the NAACP.
Oh yea, which makes this all the more comical to me for many reasons.
-
You guys do realize the lulz are already present. He has previously won several awards from the NAACP.
Wait...are you implying that these awards were not based on his views, but were based on donations that he gave? No way the NAACP is just about money and power. They are for the advancement of colored people right???
-
I expect the next step in this saga to be calls for the forced sale of the Clippers to be to minority ownership.
I don't expect Sterling to sale to anyone but a family member or someone he can work out a deal with in which he will still maintain an interest in some fashion, even though it may not be a traceable interest.
-
Oprah is putting in a bid to purchase the Clippers.
AND YOU GET A BASKETBALL! AND YOU GET A BASKETBALL! AND YOU TOO! YOU ALL GET BASKETBALLS!
-
Sterling = Master Shake
http://deadspin.com/donald-sterling-is-master-shake-from-aqua-teen-hunger-f-1576333572 (http://deadspin.com/donald-sterling-is-master-shake-from-aqua-teen-hunger-f-1576333572)
-
I'm still at a loss as to what he did wrong other than hold an unpopular opinion.
Opinions that were once wildly unpopular:
Women should vote.
Slaves should be freed.
The key to a free society is allowing true freedom of expression, even when you find the expression of an opinion to be repugnant.
-
Sterling = Master Shake
http://deadspin.com/donald-sterling-is-master-shake-from-aqua-teen-hunger-f-1576333572 (http://deadspin.com/donald-sterling-is-master-shake-from-aqua-teen-hunger-f-1576333572)
That is gold.
-
I'm still at a loss as to what he did wrong other than hold an unpopular opinion.
Opinions that were once wildly unpopular:
Women should vote.
Slaves should be freed.
The key to a free society is allowing true freedom of expression, even when you find the expression of an opinion to be repugnant.
Todays color schemes are different.
-
I'm still at a loss as to what he did wrong other than hold an unpopular opinion.
Opinions that were once wildly unpopular:
Women should vote.
Slaves should be freed.
The key to a free society is allowing true freedom of expression, even when you find the expression of an opinion to be repugnant.
He held an opinion that a people group should be subjugated to oppression based on arbitrary reasons. And due to his position of power, notoriety and influence, it was necessary to remove him from the NBA in order to ensure its future success. Also, media and citizens are free to voice their displeasure of someone's opinion in a manner that persuades others to join along with them.
Notice how the unpopular opinions that are in desperate need of enlightenment stem from some kind of oppression. Also notice how the progressives who are seeking to end those unpopular opinions are striving to ensure equal freedom for every citizen.
-
He held an opinion that a people group should be subjugated to oppression based on arbitrary reasons. And due to his position of power, notoriety and influence, it was necessary to remove him from the NBA in order to ensure its future success. Also, media and citizens are free to voice their displeasure of someone's opinion in a manner that persuades others to join along with them.
Notice how the unpopular opinions that are in desperate need of enlightenment stem from some kind of oppression. Also notice how the progressives who are seeking to end those unpopular opinions are striving to ensure equal freedom for every citizen.
Dumbest thing I've ever seen you write.
Wait until the thought police disagree with you and take away your possessions as punishment. That day is coming.
-
Dumbest thing I've ever seen you write.
Wait until the thought police disagree with you and take away your possessions as punishment. That day is coming.
If I was still a classroom teacher and was recorded giving a racist opinion even in the privacy of my own home, I would expect to be removed from my position.
If my son has a Kindergarten teacher who writes racist editorials for the local newspaper, I would want my son removed from that classroom and would request that teacher be fired or placed on leave.
If a business owner espoused bigoted ideas about how to annihilate homosexuals from society, I would not shop at that business.
If a gas station attendant went on a rant inside of a car 5000 miles away from his gas station about how white people are lesser humans than others and I found out about it, I would cease getting gas from that station.
If a bus driver posted misogynistic tweets on Twitter, I would refuse to ride any bus for that company until he was removed.
They have the right to express themselves at any time they want and however they want and to whom they want and wherever they want. I too have the right to express myself by choosing to not do business with such people. If those companies value my consumption of their products, they will remove those people from those positions. If they value their employee over me, then they'll do without my business.
The NBA values its consumers over Donald Sterling. As a non-government employee, they had every right to remove Sterling from their organization.
EDIT - Look, I know this contradicts what I put in the Clay Travis post. I do think it's dangerous how quick and severe we are as a society to destroy instead of reason with people of differing and wrong opinions. However, I also understand that private organizations and people have a right to boycott or protest against someone based on their private beliefs.
-
If I was still a classroom teacher and was recorded giving a racist opinion even in the privacy of my own home, I would expect to be removed from my position.
If my son has a Kindergarten teacher who writes racist editorials for the local newspaper, I would want my son removed from that classroom and would request that teacher be fired or placed on leave.
If a business owner espoused bigoted ideas about how to annihilate homosexuals from society, I would not shop at that business.
If a gas station attendant went on a rant inside of a car 5000 miles away from his gas station about how white people are lesser humans than others and I found out about it, I would cease getting gas from that station.
If a bus driver posted misogynistic tweets on Twitter, I would refuse to ride any bus for that company until he was removed.
They have the right to express themselves at any time they want and however they want and to whom they want and wherever they want. I too have the right to express myself by choosing to not do business with such people. If those companies value my consumption of their products, they will remove those people from those positions. If they value their employee over me, then they'll do without my business.
The NBA values its consumers over Donald Sterling. As a non-government employee, they had every right to remove Sterling from their organization.
EDIT - Look, I know this contradicts what I put in the Clay Travis post. I do think it's dangerous how quick and severe we are as a society to destroy instead of reason with people of differing and wrong opinions. However, I also understand that private organizations and people have a right to boycott or protest against someone based on their private beliefs.
This makes me wonder how you find anything about the x appealing.
-
If I was still a classroom teacher and was recorded giving a racist opinion even in the privacy of my own home, I would expect to be removed from my position.
There's no reason you should be, any more than someone who opines that muslims aren't terrorists or that global warming is real should be removed. You have a right to hold and express your opinion, particularly in private. This is dangerous, dangerous ground.
If my son has a Kindergarten teacher who writes racist editorials for the local newspaper, I would want my son removed from that classroom and would request that teacher be fired or placed on leave.
And how is this different from rational, reasonable people who find homosexuality to be an abomination asking that schools not employ homosexuals as teachers? Dangerous ground.
If a business owner espoused bigoted ideas about how to annihilate homosexuals from society, I would not shop at that business.
Your choice. Nobody begrudges you that. Free market takes care of things on its own. This is different from imposing sanctions.
If a gas station attendant went on a rant inside of a car 5000 miles away from his gas station about how white people are lesser humans than others and I found out about it, I would cease getting gas from that station.
Again, your choice. But the government shouldn't take his station away, force him to sell it, imprison him or take any action whatsoever. Shop where you choose, I'm sure the gas station owner won't care because if he offers the best price and service, nobody else is going to care either.
If a bus driver posted misogynistic tweets on Twitter, I would refuse to ride any bus for that company until he was removed.
Good for you. I personally could give a damn what the bus driver thinks in his private life so long as he is competent and courteous.
They have the right to express themselves at any time they want and however they want and to whom they want and wherever they want. I too have the right to express myself by choosing to not do business with such people. If those companies value my consumption of their products, they will remove those people from those positions. If they value their employee over me, then they'll do without my business.
Most of these companies couldn't afford to get their goods and services to you. Small business can't afford cranes to reach horses of the height you apparently ride.
How you choose to react to a person's beliefs is of no consequence whatsoever. If you chose not to watch the Clippers or if you decided not to attend their games, that is a perfectly acceptable response.
Demanding that he be sanctioned, that his livelihood be stripped away, that he incur financial and judicial penalties for his opinion is where the line gets wonky. It's a dangerous, slippery slope. What happens, THS when the mob decides that saying "War Eagle" is offensive to people who like to copulate with birds? Or that it is an inflammatory and racist statement since legend ties it to a Civil War veteran? What happens when the psycho mob declares that you can't use that cheer or you'll be fired from your job?
What happens when the school says you can't ever have said the dreaded "n-word" in your life to be employed, but male teachers can come dressed as women because they have "rights" and women teachers can have sex changes during the year, and muslim teachers can come to class in burkas and explain the necessity of following Muhammed to your daughters, but the teacher across the hall can't wear a cross pin?
You going to be okay with that? Because that's where you're headed.
The NBA values its consumers over Donald Sterling. As a non-government employee, they had every right to remove Sterling from their organization.
When you allow any agency, private or public, to sanction someone for comments made in the privacy of their own home, comments which were illegally recorded and not approved for release you've crossed lines that shouldn't be crossed.
God help me if I were held accountable for everything I've ever said in anger or frustration because some skank was recording me. God help all of us. None of us would be employable.
EDIT - Look, I know this contradicts what I put in the Clay Travis post. I do think it's dangerous how quick and severe we are as a society to destroy instead of reason with people of differing and wrong opinions. However, I also understand that private organizations and people have a right to boycott or protest against someone based on their private beliefs.
Boycott all you want. Protest if that gives you a chubby. That's your choice. But punish? Dangerous ground.
Besides, who determines which opinions are "right" and which are "wrong"? That's another slippery slope. As a free society we MUST be able to engage in legitimate debate. We MUST have opinions that differ. Whenever the mob simply shouts down anyone who disagrees, we are no longer free.
-
K, you're being way reactionary on this. There was (predictable) public outrage over his obviously racist comments.
He is a member of a very private (the NBA constitution is not a public document, though parts have been leaked) club that makes its own rules. Sterling's comments injured the reputation of his club...his membership benefits are at risk at the discretion of his club-mates.
There is no government taking or infringement of his rights. He can be a crazy racist and espouse his views in a public forum...but he is not immune from the consequences of airing his opinions.
-
K, you're being way reactionary on this. There was (predictable) public outrage over his obviously racist comments.
He is a member of a very private (the NBA constitution is not a public document, though parts have been leaked) club that makes its own rules. Sterling's comments injured the reputation of his club...his membership benefits are at risk at the discretion of his club-mates.
There is no government taking or infringement of his rights. He can be a crazy racist and espouse his views in a public forum...but he is not immune from the consequences of airing his opinions.
It's just another step down a dangerous path in my opinion.
Paula Deen once said the "n-word" and has a southern accent. CRUCIFY!! Take away her career.
Riley Cooper says something that can be interpreted as 'racist.' CRUCIFY!! Send him to sensitivity training, fine him, run him out of the NFL!
Miami Dolphins player is offended by Michael Buttmunch Sam's performance after being picked at the ass end of the draft and has the temerity to offer his opinion. (And if people are being honest it's a far more prevalent opinion than that of approval, but nobody's gonna be honest these days). CRUCIFY!!! Suspend him! Ban him from the league! Fine him! Send him for retraining.
Donald Sterling says something in the privacy of his own home. The guy is 80 for God's sake. When he was 30, the Civil Rights movement hadn't happened. He was nearly 40 when USC finally let a black guy play on their team. His opinions and values were shaped in an entirely different time. If my grandmother were alive today I doubt she'd be very happy about the proliferation of black culture, she wouldn't care for the blatant promiscuity and lack of consequences for Magic, why *gasp* she might have even used the n-word in her life!! Oh no!! CRUCIFY THEM!! CRUCIFY THEM ALL!! BURN THE WITCH AT THE STAKE!!!
You don't see the problem here? The guy was in his own home talking to a member of his family and expressing an opinion he held privately. He didn't act on that opinion in a public way, he didn't try to enslave or abuse his players, he didn't do anything untoward in a public manner at all. They're sanctioning him for an opinion he never intended to be made public.
Again, God help me if the thoughts that rattle around in my head were ever published for public consumption and I was made to suffer for every bad thing I've ever thought. God help you all.
-
It's just another step down a dangerous path in my opinion.
Paula Deen once said the "n-word" and has a southern accent. CRUCIFY!! Take away her career.
Riley Cooper says something that can be interpreted as 'racist.' CRUCIFY!! Send him to sensitivity training, fine him, run him out of the NFL!
Miami Dolphins player is offended by Michael Buttmunch Sam's performance after being picked at the ass end of the draft and has the temerity to offer his opinion. (And if people are being honest it's a far more prevalent opinion than that of approval, but nobody's gonna be honest these days). CRUCIFY!!! Suspend him! Ban him from the league! Fine him! Send him for retraining.
Donald Sterling says something in the privacy of his own home. The guy is 80 for God's sake. When he was 30, the Civil Rights movement hadn't happened. He was nearly 40 when USC finally let a black guy play on their team. His opinions and values were shaped in an entirely different time. If my grandmother were alive today I doubt she'd be very happy about the proliferation of black culture, she wouldn't care for the blatant promiscuity and lack of consequences for Magic, why *gasp* she might have even used the n-word in her life!! Oh no!! CRUCIFY THEM!! CRUCIFY THEM ALL!! BURN THE WITCH AT THE STAKE!!!
You don't see the problem here? The guy was in his own home talking to a member of his family and expressing an opinion he held privately. He didn't act on that opinion in a public way, he didn't try to enslave or abuse his players, he didn't do anything untoward in a public manner at all. They're sanctioning him for an opinion he never intended to be made public.
Again, God help me if the thoughts that rattle around in my head were ever published for public consumption and I was made to suffer for every bad thing I've ever thought. God help you all.
Sure...if you want to discuss the implications of his side-piece secretly recording his private conversations (though he pretty much aired it all himself with Anderson Cooper) then we're having a different discussion.
But once the toothpaste is out of the tube, then his business partners (with ZERO input/influence from the government) are completely within their bounds to sanction him within the context of their negotiated agreement.
If you had a business partner who was running a KKK website off of one of your servers, would you feel justified in yanking his access and disassociating him from your business?
Also...this bears refutation:
Riley Cooper says something that can be interpreted as 'racist.'
Riley said: I will fight every black in here.
That could be "interpreted as rascist"? Really?
And this guy wasn't espousing his opinion in his own home:
Miami Dolphins player is offended by Michael Buttmunch Sam's performance after being picked at the ass end of the draft and has the temerity to offer his opinion