OT: Donald Sterling

[Covert Rain]

Ok.
Your comment is 100% inconsequential to my point.

If nothing else, Sterling has provided high income employment to minorities at a greater rate than all the ether owners. For whatever his reasons, he's done it and I said nothing about the players, I said coaches and front office staff. What have the gay bashers done for that community other than to condemn them or complain that they may look at their penis in the locker room? Hate Sterling, I don't care, the man is an old fool. But, be consistent and stop treating bigotry/racism of other groups as if one is better or less offensive than another.

If he loves money, he is going to put the best product on the floor he can and try and draw the best talent. So, he goes out and hires minorities. So what? If you are hiring minorities regardless but still think of them as subhuman people, he ultimately isn't doing the community any favors. Sounds more like making good business decisions despite his racism. I don't think people are accusing him of having bad business sense.

I agree that all the bigotry is foolish and stupid no matter what it's about. I am not sure how comparing one form of bigotry to other forms changes anything because you seem to be insinuating that people are saying that this one is worse?! I don't hear anybody saying that. This is about Sterling not anybody else. Are there some hypocrites out there bashing Sterling? Sure which is what I think you are saying. If so, I agree. Those guys are idiots too.

 

[NJCardFan]

The vigilante's are back and you best not look to government to stop them. As Cheese said, it aint them doing it so it's all good. So far the 1st, 5th and 10th amendments are if not gone at least severely crippled. Which one do you think will be next Mainstreet?

The 2nd.

 

[SO91]

And this is the mob I have been talking about.

I couldn't have planned a more perfect example.

And now you're going to act like a victim? Please...I asked the questions I did because I didn't want to assume or put words in your mouth (a common defense used in message boards btw). So I guess I won't get a straight answer from you?

 

[SO91]

Btw, Bomani Jones makes some excellent points in this clip. Echoes some of my feelings as well as a few of the ones expressed in this thread.

 

[BC867]

If you are hiring minorities regardless but still think of them as subhuman people, he ultimately isn't doing the community any favors. Sounds more like making good business decisions despite his racism.

'Sounds like plantation owners and slavery. Only instead of providing room and board to his "subhumans", Sterling is contracted to paying them part of his millions. They remain bound to work for him.

Ironically, as depicted in Twelve Years A Slave, Caucasians also worked on the plantations, but they were considered employees and were free to leave for another job whenever they wanted. Obviously, that would not be appropriate in major league sports franchises.

It is interesting that they are called franchises and responsible for following the bylaws of the parent company, in this case the NBA.

 

[Southpaw]

Btw, Bomani Jones makes some excellent points in this clip. Echoes some of my feelings as well as a few of the ones expressed in this thread.

See it wasn't black people in general it was specifically Ervin Johnson.

 

[elindholm]

I should apologize now, because most likely my contribution to this discussion will be the kiss of death, causing the moderators to move or censure it. But, here goes anyway.

There are no absolutes in morality. Right now, most of the American public believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry. That's fine with me, and I agree with the position. But that does not make it "right" in any absolute sense. There are other cultures in which sex involving anyone at all, other than a married man and his lawfully wedded wife, is sinful and/or punishable. To most of us, that seems pretty darned backward, but that doesn't make it "wrong" in any absolute sense.

Bill Clinton, who by the standards of the late 1990s was pretty liberal, was opposed to gay marriage. He was in step with the majority of the country at that time. Now things have changed and a view like Clinton's seems prejudicial and unfair. But those judgments are still relative; Clinton was not "wrong" in the 1990s.

What AzCards21 meant by his "mob mentality" comment, I suspect, is that any given society's moral standards tend to be dictated by those who are most effective at projecting their views. He is right on that point.

For those of you who think that you are, at this moment, fully enlightened because of your lack of prejudice, let me ask you this: How would you feel about a brother and sister marrying each other? Or a son and his mother? Let's say that the woman is beyond her fertile years, so that there's no issue of whether recessive genetic traits are more likely to be passed on. They're just going to do their thing, on their own, not bothering anybody. Are you okay with that? If not, why not? And if, another several decades from now, our society decides it's okay, does that mean we're "wrong" now not to allow it?

It has often been the case that sex between adults and children, particularly men and boys, was tolerated or even celebrated. These days, we think that's gross. So they were wrong before, and now we're right? Are sure that our current set of societal morals happens to be the one and only correct one? Or is it that our current set just always seems right to the majority, regardless of what that set is?

 

[JCSunsfan]

I should apologize now, because most likely my contribution to this discussion will be the kiss of death, causing the moderators to move or censure it. But, here goes anyway.

There are no absolutes in morality. Right now, most of the American public believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry. That's fine with me, and I agree with the position. But that does not make it "right" in any absolute sense. There are other cultures in which sex involving anyone at all, other than a married man and his lawfully wedded wife, is sinful and/or punishable. To most of us, that seems pretty darned backward, but that doesn't make it "wrong" in any absolute sense.

Bill Clinton, who by the standards of the late 1990s was pretty liberal, was opposed to gay marriage. He was in step with the majority of the country at that time. Now things have changed and a view like Clinton's seems prejudicial and unfair. But those judgments are still relative; Clinton was not "wrong" in the 1990s.

What AzCards21 meant by his "mob mentality" comment, I suspect, is that any given society's moral standards tend to be dictated by those who are most effective at projecting their views. He is right on that point.

For those of you who think that you are, at this moment, fully enlightened because of your lack of prejudice, let me ask you this: How would you feel about a brother and sister marrying each other? Or a son and his mother? Let's say that the woman is beyond her fertile years, so that there's no issue of whether recessive genetic traits are more likely to be passed on. They're just going to do their thing, on their own, not bothering anybody. Are you okay with that? If not, why not? And if, another several decades from now, our society decides it's okay, does that mean we're "wrong" now not to allow it?

It has often been the case that sex between adults and children, particularly men and boys, was tolerated or even celebrated. These days, we think that's gross. So they were wrong before, and now we're right? Are sure that our current set of societal morals happens to be the one and only correct one? Or is it that our current set just always seems right to the majority, regardless of what that set is?

This is exactly the way it is when prevailing opinions determine morality. There are many who will be out of step with prevailing opinions because their views of morality are based on more timeless standards.

Hopefully, we will still have a society in the future that protects the minority from the dictatorship of the majority.

 

[Mainstreet]

This is exactly the way it is when prevailing opinions determine morality. There are many who will be out of step with prevailing opinions because their views of morality are based on more timeless standards.

Hopefully, we will still have a society in the future that protects the minority from the dictatorship of the majority.

Actually, this is what I thought the U.S. Constitution afforded.

 

[BC867]

I should apologize now, because most likely my contribution to this discussion will be the kiss of death, causing the moderators to move or censure it. But, here goes anyway.

There are no absolutes in morality. Right now...

But we can only live the present and immediate future. Obviously, the past is behind us. And, although we can plan (and legislate) for the future, those can be changed to fit the times. What we do is relevant to "right now" and the foreseeable future.

Regarding this thread about Donald Sterling's comments, this is here-and-now, Adam Silver is the Commissioner and that combination caused a decision to be made.

BTW, I just saw that the NBA is in the process of choosing a CEO to run the Clippers.

Also, regarding this thread (and this is addressed to all of us who have posted), isn't it plain and simple common sense that a professional league, made up heavily of African-Americans, is going to react to an owner's bigoted comment against Blacks?

And if Sterling's recorded comment was meant strictly about Magic Johnson, he screwed up by not saying it that way. You make your bed, you lie in it! Oops, poor choice of words.

 

[elindholm]

Actually, this is what I thought the U.S. Constitution afforded.

Then apparently you haven't read it carefully. Only white males were allowed to vote.

 

[Mainstreet]

Then apparently you haven't read it carefully. Only white males were allowed to vote.

The United States Constitution is a living document and can be amended as in the Nineteenth Amendment.

 

[elindholm]

The United States Constitution is a living document and can be amended as in the Nineteenth Amendment.

Yes, true. I misread your post to mean "originally," but you didn't say that. I apologize for the (my) misunderstanding.

 

[Mainstreet]

Yes, true. I misread your post to mean "originally," but you didn't say that. I apologize for the (my) misunderstanding.

And I'm still wondering about the strange turns this thread has taken. I just want to get back to the NBA draft and the playoffs.

 

[gimpy]

:-D, "thumbs up"

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Covert Rain]

What AzCards21 meant by his "mob mentality" comment, I suspect, is that any given society's moral standards tend to be dictated by those who are most effective at projecting their views. He is right on that point.

I am not so sure. That might be true in the short term. You make some very good points but this country is founded on the vocal minority driving change, whether it be for voting rights, civil rights or gay marriage. Societies moral standards change and evolve over time but the vocal minority has proven to be very powerful throughout history. If it wasn't for a very effective vocal minority on many topics those views would not evolve to become the majority.

I agree there is "mob mentality" but I think someone said it above. Majority thinking doesn't always equal mob mentality IMO. I know that is splitting hairs and there is a gray line but to me, mob mentality is blindly following a given opinion without any thought. Just jumping in with your pitch forks. If someone is forming an opinion based on current moral standards, that is NOT the same thing IMO. Recognition of societal norms just doesn't equal mob mentality to me. Just my two cents.

 

[BC867]

NBA chooses Dick Parsons as Clippers interim CEO

The NBA has chosen an extremely qualified man as interim CEO of the Clippers.

Dick Parsons was recently the Chairman of Citigroup and, prior to that, the Chairman/CEO of Time Warner and, before that, he held the same office with Dime Bancorp.

He also served both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

Considering the issue that led to Sterling's departure, it is ironic that Dick Parsons is an African-American. Good shot, NBA!

http://news.yahoo.com/nba-picks-dick-parsons-interim-clippers-ceo-193656525--finance.html

 

[carrrnuttt]

And this is the mob I have been talking about.

If what you consider a "mob" is "people who can reason better than I can," then yes, you are SERIOUSLY going to be mobbed here, and all over the rest of your existence.

They're not "ganging up" on you, you poor thing. They just all happen to carry conclusive logic that lead them to the same point. A point they have all been attempting to hammer into your thick skull.

 

[Russ Smith]

Apologies if this has been answered already I havent' read the entire thread.

Worst case scenario Sterling and or his wife refuse to give in and a protracted legal battle ensues. Will the players really walk out next year and if they do will the NBA sue them for breach of contract under the terms of the CBA they signed in 2011 which forbids them to strike?

Obviously you hope it won't come to that but I have a very intelligent friend who absolutely scoffs at the notion NBA players would walk out and risk suit and give up paychecks. He said they're mad now and making threats but they will never actually do it.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Apologies if this has been answered already I havent' read the entire thread.

Worst case scenario Sterling and or his wife refuse to give in and a protracted legal battle ensues. Will the players really walk out next year and if they do will the NBA sue them for breach of contract under the terms of the CBA they signed in 2011 which forbids them to strike?

Obviously you hope it won't come to that but I have a very intelligent friend who absolutely scoffs at the notion NBA players would walk out and risk suit and give up paychecks. He said they're mad now and making threats but they will never actually do it.

I would unhesitatingly agree if it weren't for the "instigators" or "agitators". There was no reason for a playoffs strike to be even a remote possibility prior to Silver's announcement but a lot of pressure was put on these players to agree to a league wide walkout (not every player agreed but supposedly every team had supporters).

I think Sterling is a jerk and his attitudes were out of place forty years ago and today they are anathema. But the rush to judgement was so over the top that it was clear there were other agendas at play. Was it racist? Yes. But even ten years ago it would have been shrugged off as just another foolish old man set in his ways. A lot of players looked at it like that and supposedly they were contacted by friends, relatives and strangers and almost coerced into taking a stand on something that just didn't need it. If Sterling isn't removed, I think these agendas will again rise to the forefront. Whether it will be enough to override self-interest and common sense remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt it.

Steve

 

[slinslin]

I would think that the players have no legal ground to strike as a whole based on some random remarks that were illegally recorded and publicized even when they are obviously offensive.
It is not like Sterling broke any law, if the players walk out based on that the league should sue the players.

 

[Russ Smith]

I would think that the players have no legal ground to strike as a whole based on some random remarks that were illegally recorded and publicized even when they are obviously offensive.
It is not like Sterling broke any law, if the players walk out based on that the league should sue the players.

well supposedly part of the CBA they agreed to in 2011 forbids them striking unless the NBA violates the CBA first.

So I would imagine there's probably some clause in the CBA that the Players union has identified and figures they can say they are violating this clause here so we're going to sit out.

I get the skepticism the players will really do it but one wonders, if the players don't back down what will the NBA actually do, suing their own players is kind of extreme?

What if the players are just clever about it and simply refuse to play against the Clippers as long as Sterling is there, they're not on strike they simply all call in sick for that one game.

I hope it doesn't come to that but it's sort of looking like Sterling has no intention of going away quietly.

 

[Covert Rain]

I would think that the players have no legal ground to strike as a whole based on some random remarks that were illegally recorded and publicized even when they are obviously offensive.
It is not like Sterling broke any law, if the players walk out based on that the league should sue the players.

The legality of the recordings are inconsequential but let's say the players walk out. Yes, the NBA or team for that matter could sue the players under contract. However, if players hold their ground, the franchise folds at some point right? They could inflict severe permanent damage to that franchise in a short period of time.

On the other hand maybe that plays into the NBA's hands. If Donald Sterling is suing the NBA for a worthless franchise...there might not be much incentive for him to continue his lawsuit. The franchise would never recover and the fans would probably stay away as long as he is the owner.

Sounds like a bunch of leverage to me.

 

[Phrazbit]

I would unhesitatingly agree if it weren't for the "instigators" or "agitators". There was no reason for a playoffs strike to be even a remote possibility prior to Silver's announcement but a lot of pressure was put on these players to agree to a league wide walkout (not every player agreed but supposedly every team had supporters).

I think Sterling is a jerk and his attitudes were out of place forty years ago and today they are anathema. But the rush to judgement was so over the top that it was clear there were other agendas at play. Was it racist? Yes. But even ten years ago it would have been shrugged off as just another foolish old man set in his ways. A lot of players looked at it like that and supposedly they were contacted by friends, relatives and strangers and almost coerced into taking a stand on something that just didn't need it. If Sterling isn't removed, I think these agendas will again rise to the forefront. Whether it will be enough to override self-interest and common sense remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt it.

Steve

With how much stuff Marge Schott got away with in the 90s without losing the team (although she did face some suspensions), I agree this would have been viewed different in years past. The stuff she said was far more vile. Not trying to play down what Donald said as insignificant, because it wasnt, you cant have an owner in LA disparaging black people and a guy viewed as a saint in the LA community, but the stuff Marge said was straight out of the third reich.

But I dont think its so much about agendas as the rise of 24 hour news and social media. This stuff gets talked to death, analyzed from every perspective and people loooove to be outraged about things.

All that said, I do think he needs to go. He can no longer effectively run a franchise (and its dubious that he ever could in the first place).

 

[elindholm]

Not to be ghoulish, but won't this problem take care of itself sooner rather than later, thanks to Sterling's long-term struggles with cancer?